A reader brings our attention to a paper published by the Quaternary Science Reviews, authored by Liang Chen, Karin A.F. Zonneveld, and Gerard J.M. Versteegh of the University of Bremen: Short term climate variability during “Roman Classical Period” in the eastern Mediterranean.This one is about a temperature reconstruction from Southern Italy going back 2000 years. The abstract states:
Climatic and environmental reconstructions based on a dinoflagelate cyst record from a well dated site in the Gulf of Taranto located at the distal end of the Po-river discharge plume have been established with high temporal resolution in order to obtain insight into potential forcing of short-term climatic and oceanographic variability in the southern Italian region during the “Roman Classical Period” (60 BC – AD 200).
So how much does the reconstruction say us humans and our CO2 emissions have warmed the planet since the Roman days? Here’s what the abstract concludes (emphasis added):
The dinoflagellate cyst association indicates that local sea surface temperatures which in this region are strongly linked to local air temperatures were slightly higher than today. We reconstruct that sea surface temperatures have been relatively high and stable between 60 BCeAD 90 and show a decreasing trend after AD 90.”
It was warmer back then! Gee, did greenhouse gases cause the warming during the time of the Romans? What could it have been, we all wonder? Stop wracking your brains, the answer is:
Fluctuations in temperature and river discharge rates have a strong cyclic character with main cyclicities of 7 – 8 and 11 years.”
11 years? Now why does this number sound familiar? Could it have anything to do with a certain solar cycle that is very well known (at least outside of the IPCC)? The abstract continues:
We argue that these cycles are related to variations of the North Atlantic Oscillation climate mode. A strong correlation is observed with global variation in delta14C anomalies suggesting that solar variability might be one of the major forcings of the regional climate. Apart from cyclic climate variability we observed a good correlation between non-cyclic temperature drops and global volcanic activity indicating that the latter forms an additional major forcing factor of the southern Italian climate during the Roman Classical Period.”
Yet another reconstruction showing the sun at work. Today, however, the sun doesn’t do anything. At least that’s what the experts at the IPCC would like to have us believe.
13 responses to “More Evidence (Again) It’s The Sun”
Yesterday the Avaaz team asked me to vote by mail. ‘Let’s send our leaders a massive call to stand up to big oil and save the planet’, they wrote, and ‘things are becoming desperate — all over our planet extreme weather continues to smash records, leaving millions homeless and without food or shelter. We’re rapidly reaching our point of no return to stop runaway climate change — we only have until 2015 to start making drastic reductions to our carbon pollution’.
I have four days for voting but first I have to read:
The Climate Reality Check Guide is a great resource for countering warmist drivel.
Wait a moment, some people become homeless? Nobody becomes a “climate refugee”? Nobody dies? No Island nations drown, no Polar Bears go extinct?
Tell them you won’t agree until they come up with something serious.
mindert eiting — re: “… we only have until 2015”
Climate activism’s version of “2012 Doomsday Prophecy”, preached to those who are prone to think of themselves as victims in life.
Pielke Sr. has a post on the recent paleo study for the Tibetan plateau which goes back nearly 2,500 years – the warmest period was 343 – 425 AD , and there is a solar cyclicality.
Tamino and Rahmstorf have teamed up for Durban.
“Grant Foster, ein Statistikfachmann und Blogger aus Maine, und Stefan Rahmstorf vom Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung entfernen nicht nur Vulkanausbrüche und Sonnenzyklen aus den Daten, sondern auch die El-Niño- und La-Niña-Phänomene, die dem Globus regelmäßig heißere oder kühlere Jahre bescheren.”
Have produced a paper that tries to separate CO2 warming from natural components. Unsurprisingly in their analysis CO2 causes 0.7 deg C warming per decade.
About the Sun:
Der Spiegel has an article that compares DWD data for 1961-1990 with 1980-2010.
It is done on a regional basis and here is the page for my area:
They have, for the region Hannover, computed a temperature rise of 0.7 deg C; and an overall increase in sun hours of 5%!
Similar for other regions.
So, arch-warmist Spiegel clearly shows that Germany has become more sunny, yet completely fails at noticing that that implies a change in cloudiness, ergo an effect on temperatures. The stupidity of warmists is breathtaking.
I read some comments above.
I want you to consider below facts:
1, Temperature rise is higher at the poles compared with the equator.
2, Temperature rise is higher night time than day time.
3, decreased temperature in stratosphere, increased temperarture in tropos phere.
Above three above observations (facts) is complying with the AGW theory. (fingerprint of warming caused by increased insolation by increased amount of greenhousegases)
All three above observations (facts) falsifies the idea that the sun is to blame.
Please follow scientific method and use a theory that complies with observed facts. And also accordingly dismiss theories that violates confirmed facts. It should not be that hard even for an untrained person to realize.
The sun theory is long time ago for good reasons (a lot more reasons than above given. For example does not correlate in any kind of output i.e “cosmicrays” or energy to observed warming trend)
It’s just something to desperately cling to if you are a denier. You are denying observed facts due to easily understandable psycological reasons. Problem is that you can’t run from reality forever.
You really ought to read the literature, Fredrik. First off, The South Pole has cooled slightly, not warmed. Secondly the cooler stratosphere has more to do with solar UV. Thirdly, the North Pole has a lot to do with the AMO and PDO, which have been in their warm phases. Also, there is no hotspot in the troposphere. So as you can see, things aren’t quite the way you present them. It’s a little more complex, isn’t it? There are lots of factors that the IPCC hasn’t yet taken into account (sun, soot, cosmic rays, clouds, PDO, AMO, NAO, etc.
My last question is: Why are you parroting silly arguments that have long since been shown to be fallacy? The temperature hasn’t risen in over 10 years. What planet are you looking at?
Fredrik must be getting his polar temperatures from GISS, who always report blazing hot poles. Ok, Fredrik, hate to bring it to you, BUT….
GISS has not one thermometer up (or down) there.
They made it all up.
[…] via More Evidence (Again) It’s The Sun. […]
I think Fredrik has a point. He is a believer in a story that many other people also believe, and he feels that it is only right to inform those who are not informed. He is polite and urges us not to run from observed facts forever. His post should be accepted in the manner it was intended.
Clearly Fredrik is not alone, and the uninformed are not alone either. Indeed the vast majority of us out here are not informed to any significant degree. Many bloggers have taken their position from looking at both sides of the story on the internet and then taken a position that they felt most comfortable with. I for one would not be able to refute Fredrik’s “facts” without digging on the internet for the two sides and again making my own subjective decision about what is correct.
Perhaps there is a place for the TOP TEN AGW arguments to be put up and refuted clearly, and also to be open to criticism and challenge. The top 10 could change as the arguments change, but should always be the AGW top ten. This way, many of us will have a better chance of being correctly informed and following the twists and turns of the climate information war. It also gives the AGWers a chance to “put up or shut up”.
We don’t get heat from the sun! That’s just crazy talk! Everyone knows that early man got his energy from SUVs and corporate greed, and not using recycled toilet paper….