|
|
Post by glc on May 5, 2010 18:58:52 GMT
This is what I meant in relation to the sun:
www.space.com/scienceastronomy/091217-agu-earth-atmosphere-cooling.html
It is a bit humorous that article clearly links solar cycle changes with the recent observed upper atmospheric cooling, yet still assume CO2 is connected or will be in the future. I'm tossing this one in the '*hit we don't know we don't know' category. The article is referring to the thermosphere and how it expands and contracts over the ~11 year solar cycle. This doesn't have anything to do with long term warming or cooling.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 5, 2010 19:22:15 GMT
This is what I meant in relation to the sun:
www.space.com/scienceastronomy/091217-agu-earth-atmosphere-cooling.html
It is a bit humorous that article clearly links solar cycle changes with the recent observed upper atmospheric cooling, yet still assume CO2 is connected or will be in the future. I'm tossing this one in the '*hit we don't know we don't know' category. The article is referring to the thermosphere and how it expands and contracts over the ~11 year solar cycle. This doesn't have anything to do with long term warming or cooling. Yeah amplitude doesn't matter its only the phase of the cycle that matters! What a crock! |
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 5, 2010 23:05:36 GMT
Yeah amplitude doesn't matter its only the phase of the cycle that matters! What a crock!
Fine - the amplitude was greatest in 1958 during SC 19.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 5, 2010 23:36:23 GMT
This is what I meant in relation to the sun:
www.space.com/scienceastronomy/091217-agu-earth-atmosphere-cooling.html
It is a bit humorous that article clearly links solar cycle changes with the recent observed upper atmospheric cooling, yet still assume CO2 is connected or will be in the future. I'm tossing this one in the '*hit we don't know we don't know' category. The article is referring to the thermosphere and how it expands and contracts over the ~11 year solar cycle. This doesn't have anything to do with long term warming or cooling. You are missing the bigger picture, that being key tenets of the CO2 AGW fairytale; cooling of the thermosphere and stratosphere. Really, is there any direct evidence at all that supports AGW? |
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 6, 2010 11:19:59 GMT
"You are missing the bigger picture, that being key tenets of the CO2 AGW fairytale; cooling of the thermosphere and stratosphere." I'm not missing the bigger picture. You are confusing short term cycle effects with the long term trend. See physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/26510 for a discussion on cooling in the thermoshere. Although the trend is messy (due mainly to ozone depletion), the stratosphere has also cooled. Whatever the effects of Pinatubo and El Chichon stratospheric temperatures have not returned to anything like pre-1982 levels. This alone should tell you something, i.e. while the troposphere has warmed - the stratosphere hasn't. If the sun were responsible for recent warming then both stratosphere and troposphere should warm. It's not the sun.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 6, 2010 12:22:25 GMT
"You are missing the bigger picture, that being key tenets of the CO2 AGW fairytale; cooling of the thermosphere and stratosphere." I'm not missing the bigger picture. You are confusing short term cycle effects with the long term trend. See physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/26510 for a discussion on cooling in the thermoshere. Although the trend is messy (due mainly to ozone depletion), the stratosphere has also cooled. Whatever the effects of Pinatubo and El Chichon stratospheric temperatures have not returned to anything like pre-1982 levels. This alone should tell you something, i.e. while the troposphere has warmed - the stratosphere hasn't. If the sun were responsible for recent warming then both stratosphere and troposphere should warm. It's not the sun. Its not simplistic _heat_ or TSI changes in the Sun's output I agree with you there. But there are many other variables that could affect a chaotic climate system that may be linked to changes in the Sun's behavior. It appears to be forgotten that for a stimulus to have an effect on a chaotic system it not only has to be the correct magnitude but also at the correct time - to catch the chaotic system in the right set of states - or it will have no effect. This means that simplistic correlations are unlikely to be apparent as there could be several iterations of s stimulus with no effect then on the next one - at just the right time - there is an effect. As with trying to draw a trend line through a stochastic output, trying to use simple statistics to assess the behavior of a chaotic system shows a lack of understanding of chaotic systems. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 6, 2010 13:08:20 GMT
As with trying to draw a trend line through a stochastic output, trying to use simple statistics to assess the behavior of a chaotic system shows a lack of understanding of chaotic systems. Exactly. And if you accept a 60-year ocean cycle (one needs some assumptions that a true chaotic system does not give you) for which some evidence exists in the modern record (since WWI where for the first time global oceans were fully monitored), solar cycle 19 in 1957 (which instead of 1958 contained the highest averaged sunspot month in the entire sunspot record) erased the .5degC global cooling that had occurred during the first half of that phase and did not give in until well down the slope to the next minimum creating a warm ocean temperature peak midway through that phase.  Also, in the 52 years subsequent to 1945 (applying Svalgaard's 20% sunspot adjustment prior to 1945) had more sunspots than in the prior 80 year period, resulting in more than 50% more average monthly sun activity during the period 1945 to 1997 than during the previous 80 years. GLC loves to draw tight time lines for solar activity, even complaining about a single years lack of correlation but is willing to overlook the recent 12 year excursion from the AGW timeline. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 6, 2010 18:18:02 GMT
GLC loves to draw tight time lines for solar activity, even complaining about a single years lack of correlation but is willing to overlook the recent 12 year excursion from the AGW timeline
What 12 year excursion would that be? 1998 was a 2-sigma event. The 1998 anomaly was way above the trend line. Even so - the UAH trend since 1998 is positive.
Plus
I've never mentioned single years with respect to solar activity. Solar activity does not correlate to temperature. Solar activity has not increased over the last 30 years - in fact, it's fallen - but temperatures have increased. The most intense cycle ever recorded began in 1954, peaked in 1958 and ended in 1964. what happened to global temperatures? They fell - why?
Give up on this. There's not going to be a dramatic cooling. So-called Solar-Climate links fall apart under close scrutiny. You can't even give me an estimate of the temperature lag. Is it 5 years, 10 years, what? If a correlation exists the lag should be obvious, but all we keep hearing is one excuse after another why temperatures are still climbing.
Nautonnier's post virtually concedes that there is no correlation, so he indulges in endless speculation as to how solar changes might or perhaps might not initiate changes to the earth's climate. I particularly like this little gem.
It appears to be forgotten that for a stimulus to have an effect on a chaotic system it not only has to be the correct magnitude but also at the correct time - to catch the chaotic system in the right set of states - or it will have no effect.
Excellent. Nautonnier can not only explain every period of correlation he can also explain the periods of non-correlation. In the latter case the reason is due to the lack of the "right set of states". Ok - CO2 creates the "right set of states" which result in global warming - and, lo and behold, we have global warming.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 6, 2010 18:39:58 GMT
GLC loves to draw tight time lines for solar activity, even complaining about a single years lack of correlation but is willing to overlook the recent 12 year excursion from the AGW timelineWhat 12 year excursion would that be? 1998 was a 2-sigma event. The 1998 anomaly was way above the trend line. Even so - the UAH trend since 1998 is positive. Plus I've never mentioned single yearswit re. Solar activity does not correlate to temperature. Solar activity has not increased over the last 30 years - in fact, it's fallen - but temperatures have increased. The most intense cycle ever recorded began in 1954, peaked in 1958 and ended in 1964. what happened to global temperatures? Give up on this. There's not going to be a dramatic cooling. So-called Solar-Climate links fall apart under close scrutiny. You can't even give me an estimate of the temperature lag. Is it 5 years, 10 years , what? If a correlation exists the lag should be obvious, but all we keep hearing is one excuse after another why temperatures are still climbing. What 12 year excursion would that be? 1998 was a 2-sigma event. The 1998 anomaly was way above the trend line. Even so - the UAH trend since 1998 is positive. LOL! Kinda like [paraphrased] "the first three months of 2010 exceeds that of 1998". Got any other tricks cranking out of your Trend-O-Matic machine? temperatures are still climbing Even the most dubious database laughs at that one.  |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 6, 2010 21:23:49 GMT
GLC loves to draw tight time lines for solar activity, even complaining about a single years lack of correlation but is willing to overlook the recent 12 year excursion from the AGW timelineWhat 12 year excursion would that be? 1998 was a 2-sigma event. The 1998 anomaly was way above the trend line. Even so - the UAH trend since 1998 is positive. You seem locked into the black and white concept of warming or cooling. An excursion is any transit directed to outside of the cone of uncertainty whether it is a day long or a century long. Obviously, day, month, quarter, year, 3 year, 7 year excursions are unremarkable as they occur routinely in the record. Since the accurate prediction record of the IPCC in either AR3 or 4 hasn't ever approached a 7 year run, remarkable excursions are the rule rather than the exception. It might be legitimate to argue for longer excursions but only if you keep in mind that to be consistent you will be at least that far away from claiming a remarkable record of prediction skill. In fact now if you back all the way up to the first public discussions in 1988, the record of staying in bounds only lasted 10 years, already exceeded by being out of bounds now for 11 years. Now there is still the issue of warming over a long period and thats where the issue of 1911-1941 enter into the discussion. There is a much longer period of unrelenting warming suggesting a natural cause since CO2 emissions were a factor of magnitude less than it is now at the start of that. Eventually you boil it down to the first principles issue of CO2 being an IR active gas. But that means nothing. There are alot of first principles in the natural sciences and I have never seen anything proven in natural systems by them. Why should it suddenly start now? You can start with anything. A tree needs water to live does not equate to if you water a tree it will live. I've never mentioned single years with respect to solar activity. Solar activity does not correlate to temperature. Yeah right. For a year now you have been going on about how the solar minimum had not produced cooling. The minimum was 12/2008 Solar activity has not increased over the last 30 years - in fact, it's fallen - but temperatures have increased. The most intense cycle ever recorded began in 1954, peaked in 1958 and ended in 1964. what happened to global temperatures? They fell - why? Most likely to a cool ocean cycle in opposition to an active solar cycle. Thats why it did not fall until about 1963 again. Give up on this. There's not going to be a dramatic cooling. Thats your prediction. Mine is that I don't think I can predict what the globe or the sun is going to do. So-called Solar-Climate links fall apart under close scrutiny. You can't even give me an estimate of the temperature lag. Is it 5 years, 10 years, what? If a correlation exists the lag should be obvious, but all we keep hearing is one excuse after another why temperatures are still climbing. My own opinion is the internal system lag is huge so huge that like turning the helm on an ocean liner it might take 7 years for the heat content to change significantly with the kind of forcing shifts we have seen. Feedbacks reverberate in the system giving the impression no forcing has changed, the compass on the ocean liner remains centered on its heading for seemingly indeterminable minutes even though the rudder has been hard over. Add into that medium strength influences of ocean regimes the actual physical lag of the small forcing changes might not be seen for more than 30 years. And with ENSO shifts you could well see major shifts for short numbers of years in the opposite direction. So depending upon our ENSO situation we might not see much cooling for a while even though it appears we have a mild cool ocean regime combined with low solar activity. A situation not seen before (due to a lack of ocean measurements prior to WWI. But I tend to think that within 5 years that will change. Major ocean regimes tend to last for in the range of 30 years (on pretty limited data but the best information available). ENSO patterns tend to run in decadal cycles suggesting 5 years average for each regime roughly and within 5 more years we will be the 7 years beyond the solar shift which corresponds to the well seen short term up to 7 year excursions we see in the temperature record. So without predicting that is what is going to happen if that alignment does occur I would expect some cooling. If not, then I will be ready to give more credence to the CO2 theory on the basis of significant exhaustion of readily perceivable alternatives. But mind you I will need to see a significant warming to be anywhere near ready to allow for 3 degree C per century warming. Nautonnier's post virtually concedes that there is no correlation, so he indulges in endless speculation as to how solar changes might or perhaps might not initiate changes to the earth's climate. I particularly like this little gem. It appears to be forgotten that for a stimulus to have an effect on a chaotic system it not only has to be the correct magnitude but also at the correct time - to catch the chaotic system in the right set of states - or it will have no effect. Excellent. Nautonnier can not only explain every period of correlation he can also explain the periods of non-correlation. In the latter case the reason is due to the lack of the "right set of states". Ok - CO2 creates the "right set of states" which result in global warming - and, lo and behold, we have global warming. I think Nautonnier's response if far more measured than mine. A chaotic system is a real possibility and he is accurately describing the craziness of chaos. I am not a big fan of chaos I like things to be a bit more orderly as I create enough chaos around me without the world doing it too and since I am aware how I could abate the chaos I create, I like to assume the world has a purpose too. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 7, 2010 2:06:16 GMT
GLC loves to draw tight time lines for solar activity, even complaining about a single years lack of correlation but is willing to overlook the recent 12 year excursion from the AGW timelineWhat 12 year excursion would that be? 1998 was a 2-sigma event. The 1998 anomaly was way above the trend line. Even so - the UAH trend since 1998 is positive. Plus I've never mentioned single years with respect to solar activity. Solar activity does not correlate to temperature. Solar activity has not increased over the last 30 years - in fact, it's fallen - but temperatures have increased. The most intense cycle ever recorded began in 1954, peaked in 1958 and ended in 1964. what happened to global temperatures? They fell - why? Give up on this. There's not going to be a dramatic cooling. So-called Solar-Climate links fall apart under close scrutiny. You can't even give me an estimate of the temperature lag. Is it 5 years, 10 years, what? If a correlation exists the lag should be obvious, but all we keep hearing is one excuse after another why temperatures are still climbing. Nautonnier's post virtually concedes that there is no correlation, so he indulges in endless speculation as to how solar changes might or perhaps might not initiate changes to the earth's climate. I particularly like this little gem. It appears to be forgotten that for a stimulus to have an effect on a chaotic system it not only has to be the correct magnitude but also at the correct time - to catch the chaotic system in the right set of states - or it will have no effect. Excellent. Nautonnier can not only explain every period of correlation he can also explain the periods of non-correlation. In the latter case the reason is due to the lack of the "right set of states". Ok - CO2 creates the "right set of states" which result in global warming - and, lo and behold, we have global warming. glc faux obtuseness does not suit you. "Nautonnier's post virtually concedes that there is no correlation, so he indulges in endless speculation as to how solar changes might or perhaps might not initiate changes to the earth's climate. I particularly like this little gem.
It appears to be forgotten that for a stimulus to have an effect on a chaotic system it not only has to be the correct magnitude but also at the correct time - to catch the chaotic system in the right set of states - or it will have no effect.
Excellent. Nautonnier can not only explain every period of correlation he can also explain the periods of non-correlation. In the latter case the reason is due to the lack of the "right set of states". Ok - CO2 creates the "right set of states" which result in global warming - and, lo and behold, we have global warming."What my post meant glc was that postulating that there is a standard temporal displacement between an input to a chaotic system and a change in that chaotic system's behavior is a misunderstanding of a chaotic system's behavior. This means similarly that simple correlations between stimulus and chaotic system reaction are also a misunderstanding of the behavior of chaotic systems. The same stimulus could result in a different size of response, an opposite response or no response. I understand that as a mathematician you like simplistic, but your statement "CO2 creates the right set of states" is either a poor attempt at jocularity or displays abject ignorance (which I doubt). As some of the states would be such things as ocean states like PDO, high GCR rates perhaps, or a volcanic eruption. Although perhaps you are claiming that CO 2 changed the PDO to negative, woke up the Icelandic volcano and caused the recent earthquakes.  |
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 7, 2010 9:01:41 GMT
What my post meant glc was that postulating that there is a standard temporal displacement between an input to a chaotic system and a change in that chaotic system's behavior is a misunderstanding of a chaotic system's behavior. This means similarly that simple correlations between stimulus and chaotic system reaction are also a misunderstanding of the behavior of chaotic systems. The same stimulus could result in a different size of response, an opposite response or no response.
Then how can there possibly be a solar-climate correlation. Either there is one or there isn't. With only 400 years of reliable data it would be impossible to detect one if the system was as chaotic as you describe.
I understand that as a mathematician you like simplistic, but your statement "CO2 creates the right set of states" is either a poor attempt at jocularity or displays abject ignorance (which I doubt). As some of the states would be such things as ocean states like PDO, high GCR rates perhaps, or a volcanic eruption. Although perhaps you are claiming that CO2 changed the PDO to negative, woke up the Icelandic volcano and caused the recent earthquakes.
I've never said that CO2 is the only player - just that it's becoming an increasingly influential player - to the point where it is possibly reducingor diluting the influence of factors like the PDO. According to Don Easterbrook we've been in a cold PDO phase since 1999, but we haven't seen any cooling - just a slowdown of the warming. Similarly the deepest solar minimum for a century has had no effect whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 7, 2010 9:39:23 GMT
ICEFISHER: You seem locked into the black and white concept of warming or cooling. An excursion is any transit directed to outside of the cone of uncertainty whether it is a day long or a century long. Obviously, day, month, quarter, year, 3 year, 7 year excursions are unremarkable as they occur routinely in the record.Could you define an “excursion”. I don’t believe there has been an excursion, since that would imply a prolonged period of observations which are outside the 95% error bars of the projected values. Nothing like this has taken place. Even 2008 temperatures remained well within the error bars. Yesterday at 1:18pm, glc wrote:
I've never mentioned single years with respect to solar activity. Solar activity does not correlate to temperature. Yeah right. For a year now you have been going on about how the solar minimum had not produced cooling. The minimum was 12/2008The conditions for this solar minimum have been in place for several years. The defined minimum is simply a mathematical concept based on moving averages. Yesterday at 1:18pm, glc wrote:
Solar activity has not increased over the last 30 years - in fact, it's fallen - but temperatures have increased. The most intense cycle ever recorded began in 1954, peaked in 1958 and ended in 1964. what happened to global temperatures? They fell - why? Most likely to a cool ocean cycle in opposition to an active solar cycle. Thats why it did not fall until about 1963 again.And this is the person who accuses me of focusing on a single year. If temperatures did start to fall again in 1963 due to the demise of the active solar cycle can we assume there is NO thermal lag. This is obviously what you are implying. So let's have it . You continually claim there is a solar-climate link, i.e. more activity leads to higher temperatures. However you are unable to estimate the thermal lag, but you are able to tell us that temperatures began to fall in 1963 because the active cycle (SC 19) was ending. Then, when I make the point that we have had weak solar activity for almost 5 years, you hide behind Nautonnier's chaotic system. If the system is totally chaotic then it would be virtually impossible to determine a correlation. If there is a true cause and effect link/correlation then it should be possible to predict (within reasonable confidence bounds) the effect of reduced solar acitivity. You have chosen not to do this which suggests you have no confidence in the claimed solar-climate correlation. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 7, 2010 12:56:55 GMT
What my post meant glc was that postulating that there is a standard temporal displacement between an input to a chaotic system and a change in that chaotic system's behavior is a misunderstanding of a chaotic system's behavior. This means similarly that simple correlations between stimulus and chaotic system reaction are also a misunderstanding of the behavior of chaotic systems. The same stimulus could result in a different size of response, an opposite response or no response. Then how can there possibly be a solar-climate correlation. Either there is one or there isn't. With only 400 years of reliable data it would be impossible to detect one if the system was as chaotic as you describe. I understand that as a mathematician you like simplistic, but your statement "CO2 creates the right set of states" is either a poor attempt at jocularity or displays abject ignorance (which I doubt). As some of the states would be such things as ocean states like PDO, high GCR rates perhaps, or a volcanic eruption. Although perhaps you are claiming that CO2 changed the PDO to negative, woke up the Icelandic volcano and caused the recent earthquakes. I've never said that CO2 is the only player - just that it's becoming an increasingly influential player - to the point where it is possibly reducingor diluting the influence of factors like the PDO. According to Don Easterbrook we've been in a cold PDO phase since 1999, but we haven't seen any cooling - just a slowdown of the warming. Similarly the deepest solar minimum for a century has had no effect whatsoever. glc - you are not reading what I posted - with a chaotic system there will be no simple statistical correlation. Sometimes the effect may be immediate - sometimes it could lag years - other times it may have no _apparent_ effect (in simplistic measures). You want to have a nice tidy system where X occurs and after temporal period Y the symptom Z occurs in proportion to X. ALL your arguments are based around this. The most active period of the sun was ... and there was no reaction.. ... the Maunder Minimum started so many years before it got cold... -- Look back at what you have posted. I am saying not that there _is_ a correlation between climate and the Sun but I am saying that your simplistic search for a correlation followed by claims for its non-existence after that simplistic search, shows that you are disregarding the chaotic system of systems that makes up the Earth's climate. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 7, 2010 13:40:16 GMT
What my post meant glc was that postulating that there is a standard temporal displacement between an input to a chaotic system and a change in that chaotic system's behavior is a misunderstanding of a chaotic system's behavior. This means similarly that simple correlations between stimulus and chaotic system reaction are also a misunderstanding of the behavior of chaotic systems. The same stimulus could result in a different size of response, an opposite response or no response. Then how can there possibly be a solar-climate correlation. Either there is one or there isn't. With only 400 years of reliable data it would be impossible to detect one if the system was as chaotic as you describe. I understand that as a mathematician you like simplistic, but your statement "CO2 creates the right set of states" is either a poor attempt at jocularity or displays abject ignorance (which I doubt). As some of the states would be such things as ocean states like PDO, high GCR rates perhaps, or a volcanic eruption. Although perhaps you are claiming that CO2 changed the PDO to negative, woke up the Icelandic volcano and caused the recent earthquakes. I've never said that CO2 is the only player - just that it's becoming an increasingly influential player - to the point where it is possibly reducingor diluting the influence of factors like the PDO. According to Don Easterbrook we've been in a cold PDO phase since 1999, but we haven't seen any cooling - just a slowdown of the warming. Similarly the deepest solar minimum for a century has had no effect whatsoever. glc - you are not reading what I posted - with a chaotic system there will be no simple statistical correlation. Sometimes the effect may be immediate - sometimes it could lag years - other times it may have no _apparent_ effect (in simplistic measures). You want to have a nice tidy system where X occurs and after temporal period Y the symptom Z occurs in proportion to X. ALL your arguments are based around this. The most active period of the sun was ... and there was no reaction.. ... the Maunder Minimum started so many years before it got cold... -- Look back at what you have posted. I am saying not that there _is_ a correlation between climate and the Sun but I am saying that your simplistic search for a correlation followed by claims for its non-existence after that simplistic search, shows that you are disregarding the chaotic system of systems that makes up the Earth's climate. You worded it so well. Note glc could if we wanted, like most people interested in digging for truth, search the internet, go to the library, read books etc. I'm convinced he has no interest in understanding anything, but is a legend in his own mind. For example he completely ignores empirical data such as the Mississippi river flow study posted several times. He could read this paper (one of many) which also discusses hydrological/solar connections, but the likelihood of a thoughtful logical response is about zero: SOLAR ARCTIC-MEDIATED CLIMATE VARIATION ON MULTIDECADAL TO CENTENNIAL TIMESCALES: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, MECHANISTIC EXPLANATION, AND TESTABLE CONSEQUENCESAbstract: Soon (2005) showed that the variable total solar irradiance (TSI) could explain, rather surprisingly, well over 75% of the variance for the decadally smoothed Arctic-wide surface air temperature over the past 130 years. The present paper provides additional empirical evidence for this physical connection, both through several newly published high-resolution paleo-proxy records and through robust climate-process modeling outputs. This paper proposes a mechanistic explanation, involving: (1) the variable strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (MOC) or thermohaline circulation (THC); (2) the shift and modulation of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) rainbelt and tropical Atlantic ocean conditions; and (3) the intensity of the wind-driven subtropical and subpolar gyre circulation, across both the North Atlantic and North Pacific. A unique test of this proposed solar TSI–Arctic thermal–salinity–cryospheric coupling mechanism is the 5- to 20-year delay effect on the peak Atlantic MOC flow rate centered near 30–35°N, and on sea surface temperature (SST) for the tropical Atlantic. The solar Arctic–mediated climate mechanism on multidecadal to centennial timescales presented here can be compared with and differentiated from both the related solar TSI and UV irradiance forcing on decadal timescales. The ultimate goal of this research is to gain sufficient mechanistic details so that the proposed solar–Arctic climate connection on multidecadal to centennial timescales can be confirmed or falsified. A further incentive is to expand this physical connection to longer, millennial-scale variability as motivated by the multiscale climate interactions shown by Braun et al. (2005), Weng (2005), and Dima and Lohmann (2009). [Key words: solar–Arctic climate connection, total solar irradiance, Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, climate variability.] |
|
