So now the sun DOES effect climate!!

[marcopolo]

I've never seen scientists change the colour of their shirts so many times since this debate started! Fisrt AGW caused more hurricanes, then it caused less. Then it reduced the amount of ice in antarctica now it can increase it. etc......

Now after YEARS of whinging and 'disproving the sun has any major part to play in climate change' this item crawls out from a rather embarressed looking crack in the ground:

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study

I point you to the part, quote:

The analysis shows the relative stability in global temperatures in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

As solar activity picks up again in the coming years, the research suggests, temperatures will shoot up at 150% of the rate predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

I really do despair.

Marco.

[glc]

I've never seen scientists change the colour of their shirts so many times since this debate started!

I don't think this counts as a change. Most of them have always acknowledged a variation of ~0.1 deg between solar min and solar max. We've had a solar minimum AND a La Nina, so there's every reason to think that global temperatures will increase quite sharply in the next few years.

[steve]

The sun has always been considered as a cause for climate change. It's just the claims that somehow it is the only cause that is belittled by the scientists. See this from 14 years ago by one of the same people mentioned in your article:

Lean, J., J. Beer, and R. Bradley (1995), Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 22(23), 3195–3198.

With regards to hurricanes there is a lot of argument. For ice, AGW will produce less sea ice in the long run, but land ice is dependent on amounts of precipitation as well as the amount of melting. Precipitation on major ice caps is expected to rise with warming.

[woodstove]

Jul 28, 2009 10:51:38 GMT steve said:

The sun has always been considered as a cause for climate change. It's just the claims that somehow it is the only cause that is belittled by the scientists. See this from 14 years ago by one of the same people mentioned in your article:

Lean, J., J. Beer, and R. Bradley (1995), Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 22(23), 3195–3198.

With regards to hurricanes there is a lot of argument. For ice, AGW will produce less sea ice in the long run, but land ice is dependent on amounts of precipitation as well as the amount of melting. Precipitation on major ice caps is expected to rise with warming.

1. with regard to "the only cause that is belittled by the scientists," as you're well aware, Steve, plenty of the best climatologists around the globe continue to perform original, important research into the Sun-Earth climate connection. To suggest that you "know" that the science is settled on this is, shall we say, less than straightforward. Anyone curious about how powerfully the tidal change on this subject is, intellectually, would do well to read this:
www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/science/space/21sunspot.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=sunspots&st=cse

(You may have to copy and paste the url.)

The author of the Times piece, Kenneth Chang, has come a long way in the past 8 months on this, as the minimum has continued to unfold.

2. With hurricanes, there is no argument. The lowest level of tropical cyclone activity in recorded history is now:



With regard to sea ice, you claim that AGW will produce less sea ice in the long run, but Antarctica's total sea ice has increased ever since satellites began measuring it 30 years ago. I always forget, though, co2 molecules hate Antarctica.

[steve]

Jul 28, 2009 13:04:41 GMT woodstove said:

Jul 28, 2009 10:51:38 GMT steve said:

The sun has always been considered as a cause for climate change. It's just the claims that somehow it is the only cause that is belittled by the scientists. See this from 14 years ago by one of the same people mentioned in your article:

Lean, J., J. Beer, and R. Bradley (1995), Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 22(23), 3195–3198.

With regards to hurricanes there is a lot of argument. For ice, AGW will produce less sea ice in the long run, but land ice is dependent on amounts of precipitation as well as the amount of melting. Precipitation on major ice caps is expected to rise with warming.

1. with regard to "the only cause that is belittled by the scientists," as you're well aware, Steve, plenty of the best climatologists around the globe continue to perform original, important research into the Sun-Earth climate connection. To suggest that you "know" that the science is settled on this is, shall we say, less than straightforward.

Well Svensmark on page 2 of your article agrees with me.

Anyone curious about how powerfully the tidal change on this subject is, intellectually, would do well to read this:
www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/science/space/21sunspot.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=sunspots&st=cse

The author of the Times piece, Kenneth Chang, has come a long way in the past 8 months on this, as the minimum has continued to unfold.

2. With hurricanes, there is no argument.

Seems you disagree with these two folk (ever heard of them?):

Because of such uncertainties, making estimations of trends in Atlantic hurricanes based on HURDAT is difficult to do, Dr. Landsea cautioned.

one could claim that we should expect zero landfalling U.S. hurricanes by 2050. Dr. Gray cautioned that this ridiculous result showed that one can manipulate statistics to show virtually any result you want.

With regard to sea ice, you claim that AGW will produce less sea ice in the long run, but Antarctica's total sea ice has increased ever since satellites began measuring it 30 years ago.

If I said black, you'd say white. Lets just say that it is incorrect to claim that "AGW" predicted reductions in antarctic ice then predicted increases in antarctic ice.

[woodstove]

Hi Steve.

That's some impressive obfuscation.

1. Svensmark told me personally that if the solar minimum continues "then it may get cold." Maybe call him and try to talk him out of it.

2. Landsea resigned from the IPCC in disgust over distortions regarding tropical cyclone development which he says has not increased with rising co2.

3. You said AGW will diminish sea ice. I said Antarctica's sea ice has increased. That's not a matter of being a contrarian, it's a matter of fact.

[steve]

Jul 28, 2009 14:19:15 GMT woodstove said:

Hi Steve.

That's some impressive obfuscation.

Thank you for the compliment.

1. Svensmark told me personally that if the solar minimum continues "then it may get cold." Maybe call him and try to talk him out of it.

Why did he say "may"?

2. Landsea resigned from the IPCC in disgust over distortions regarding tropical cyclone development which he says has not increased with rising co2.

I picked his quote because you'd have no reason to reject what he says.

Did you notice that Maue's plot has the three most intense periods all since 1990? Intense hurricanes are far more important than weak ones. Nobody cares about weak hurricanes. They care about hurricanes like [troll]Katrina[/troll].

3. You said AGW will diminish sea ice. I said Antarctica's sea ice has increased. That's not a matter of being a contrarian, it's a matter of fact.

The main point was whether AGW "reduced the amount of ice in antarctica now it can increase it" as the OP alleged. But you latched on to the secondary issue in order to be contrary.

Global sea ice area is trending down. Antarctic sea ice area has gone up. I don't think it is likely to continue to do so if warming continues, but I'm happy to accept that it is not a certainty.

[stevenotsteve]

steve.
I don't think it is likely to continue to do so if warming continues, but I'm happy to accept that it is not a certainty.

We keep coming back to this one steve. IT'S NOT STILL WARMING!

You need to get past this one to have any credibility in these discussions.

[woodstove]

Hi Steve.

Sorry to see you invoking Katrina as evidence of manmade global warming. This idea has been so thoroughly debunked that not even Al Gore alludes to it in speeches anymore. Katrina was not a particularly powerful hurricane when it came ashore, although laziness and incompetence led to the levees breaking and the tragedy unfolding.

The most devastating hurricane to impact American shores was the 1900 Galveston storm -- far, far worse than Katrina. Amazingly, late 20th-century carbon dioxide traveled back in time, warmed the Gulf waters, and unleashed one whale of a storm.

And now, back to science.

[stranger]

The reality is that hurricane devastation depends more on location than on maximum wind speed. Katrina, and Camille before it, had very much the same track. But there had been so much build up between the two that Katrina did by far the most damage.

As a young man I was fortunate enough to talk to a Galveston and "hurricane of 1938" survivor, whose father survived the hurricane that destroyed "Old Indianola." Mr Hauk said he and his father often compared notes, and could not determine which of the three storms was the strongest. But it was quite easy to determine which did the most damage. Galveston was quite the small city, Old Indianola was a rather ramshackle town.

A mere tropical storm, Allison, did an immense amount of damage in the Houston area a few years ago, with little wind to speak of. So before you troll for comments, you might want to consider just exactly what comparison you want to make. Otherwise, I might tell you about Audrey.

Stranger

[woodstove]

Jul 29, 2009 1:20:33 GMT stranger said:

The reality is that hurricane devastation depends more on location than on maximum wind speed. Katrina, and Camille before it, had very much the same track. But there had been so much build up between the two that Katrina did by far the most damage.

As a young man I was fortunate enough to talk to a Galveston and "hurricane of 1938" survivor, whose father survived the hurricane that destroyed "Old Indianola." Mr Hauk said he and his father often compared notes, and could not determine which of the three storms was the strongest. But it was quite easy to determine which did the most damage. Galveston was quite the small city, Old Indianola was a rather ramshackle town.

A mere tropical storm, Allison, did an immense amount of damage in the Houston area a few years ago, with little wind to speak of. So before you troll for comments, you might want to consider just exactly what comparison you want to make. Otherwise, I might tell you about Audrey.

Stranger

Hearing about Audrey sounds fine.

In the meantime, I wanted to let Steve and anyone else who mightn't have known that, by far, the worst hurricane damage in terms of lives lost and overall devastation was the Galveston storm of 1900:

www.history.noaa.gov/stories_tales/cline2.html

[poitsplace]

Jul 28, 2009 15:53:59 GMT steve said:

Global sea ice area is trending down. Antarctic sea ice area has gone up. I don't think it is likely to continue to do so if warming continues, but I'm happy to accept that it is not a certainty.

the difference between the northern and southern hemisphere seems to be more pronounced over this last decade
www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vsh/mean:12

[woodstove]

Jul 29, 2009 4:05:10 GMT poitsplace said:

Jul 28, 2009 15:53:59 GMT steve said:

Global sea ice area is trending down. Antarctic sea ice area has gone up. I don't think it is likely to continue to do so if warming continues, but I'm happy to accept that it is not a certainty.

the difference between the northern and southern hemisphere seems to be more pronounced over this last decade
www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vsh/mean:12

Less so over the oceans (although still noticeable and interesting):

www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2nh/mean:12/plot/hadsst2sh/mean:12

which is among the reasons that people allege GISS and HADCRUT fail to account for heat islands properly (NH has more land)

[glc]

Less so over the oceans (although still noticeable and interesting):

www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2nh/mean:12/plot/hadsst2sh/mean:12

which is among the reasons that people allege GISS and HADCRUT fail to account for heat islands properly (NH has more land)

But that's exactly the pattern with the satellite temperatures. UAH shows greatest warming over NH land. It also shows the more warming over NH ocean than SH ocean.

Check the trends here vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt i.e.

NH land +0.22 deg per decade
NH ocean +0.16 deg per decade
SH Ocean +0.06 deg per decade
SH Land +0.05 deg per decade

What reasons do people give for this?

[marcopolo]

Woodstove, you post over at Theoildrum? You've got good taste too then!!