IT’S-THE-SUN Climate Science Steamrolls Into 2018

‘Strong Influence Of Solar Activity’ On 1850s-2014

Ocean Temperatures, ‘Small Contribution From CO2’

According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN-IPCC) and computer modeling, the Sun’s role in modern-era climate change checks in at somewhere slightly above nothing.

Image Source: IPCC AR5 (2013)

And yet it is increasingly evident that more and more scientists across the globe do not take the position that the Sun’s influence on climate change is negligible.

In 2016 and 2017, for example, over 250 papers (see here and here) linking the Sun to climate changes were published in scientific journals.

Less than 2 months into 2018, the scientific literature is still teeming with supporting evidence that says when it comes to climate changes, to a substantial degree, It’s The Sun.  The list for 2018 has already swelled to 20, keeping pace with 2016 and 2017.

2 New (2018) Papers Indicate Modern Climate Still In A ‘Colder Stage’, Modulated By Solar Activity, ENSO
3 New (2018) Papers Link Modern Warming And Past Cooling Periods To High, Low Solar Activity

Below are 3 more new papers added to the list within the last week.  Each paper documents a fundamental role for solar activity in modern climate changes.


Hemispheric Temperature Trends ‘Show Strong Relationship With TSI’ And ‘Poor Relation With Global CO2’

1.  Rajesh and Tiwari, 2018

“The major harmonics centred at ~ 63 ± 5, 22 ± 2, and 10 ± 1 years are similar to solar periodicities and hence may represent solar forcing, while the components peaking at around 7.6, 6.3, 5.2, 4.7, and 4.2 years apparently falls in the frequency bands of El-Nino-Southern Oscillations linked to the oceanic internal processes.  Our analyses also suggest evidence for the amplitude modulation of ~ 9–11 and ~ 21–22 year solar cycles, respectively, by 104 and 163 years in northern and southern hemispheric SST data [during 1850 to 2014].”
The absence of the above periodic oscillations in CO2 fails to suggest its role on observed inter-hemispheric SST difference. The cross-plot analysis also revealed strong influence of solar activity on linear trend of NH- and SH-SST [Northern/Southern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature] in addition to small contribution from CO2. Our study concludes that (1) the long-term trends in northern and southern hemispheric SST variability show considerable synchronicity with cyclic warming and cooling phases and (2) the difference in cyclic forcing and non-linear modulations stemming from solar variability as a possible source of hemispheric SST differences. … The trend components of NH-SST and SH-SST show strong relationship with TSI [Total Solar Irradiance] trend variations and poor in relation with global CO2 trend.”

Changes In World Ocean Temperature During 1854-2015 ‘Reflect…Solar And Geomagnetic Activity’

2.  Zherebtsov et al., 2018

“Based on a complex analysis of hydrometeorological data, it has been shown that changes in the temperature of the troposphere and the World Ocean reflect a response both to individual helio-geophysical perturbations and to long-term changes (1854–2015) of solar and geomagnetic activity. It is established that the climatic response to the influence of solar and geomagnetic activity is characterized by considerable spatio-temporal heterogeneity, is of a regional nature, and depends on the general circulation of the atmosphere. The largest contribution of solar activity to the global climate changes was observed in the period 1910–1943. … For the last 1000 years, the world climate experienced changes that quite closely corresponded to variations in SA [solar activity]: in the 11th–13th centuries, when SA was high, there was a warm period (the “medieval climatic optimum”), and two distinct temperature drops in the small ice age (16th–17th centuries) correspond to the Maunder and Spörer minima.
A general rise in the level of SA [solar activity] occurred after the completion of the Maunder minimum [1700s], and the world climate became warmer during most of this period. … It is shown that solar activity contributed significantly to the global climate change, mainly during the first warming in the 20th century (1910–1943). This period is characterized by a significant positive trend in the level of geomagnetic activity that was maximal over the entire considered time interval (1868–2015) and coincided with enhanced meridional heat transfer in the North Atlantic.”


The Sun May Descend Into ‘Maunder Minimum’ Levels This Century, ‘Strongly Influenc[ing]’ The Climate

Lubin et al., 2018

“Over the past decade there has been increasing realization and concern that the steady and high solar luminosity of the past century [20th] may transition to greater variability later this century (Abreu et al. 2008; Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010; Lockwood 2010). Specifically, the Sun may descend into a period of low magnetic activity analogous to the historical Maunder minimum (MM; circa 1640–1715; Eddy 1976). A resulting decrease in total solar irradiance (TSI) impacting the terrestrial lower atmosphere energy budget is linked to changes in high-latitude circulation patterns that strongly influence the climate of Europe and the Atlantic sector of the Arctic and subArctic (Song et al. 2010; Meehl et al. 2013), and may also influence Antarctic climate (Orsi et al. 2012). Studies have also shown the importance of stratospheric response to a grand minimum (e.g., Gray et al. 2010; Bolduc et al. 2015; Maycock et al. 2015).”
Over a solar cycle and certainly in response to a future grand minimum, irradiance variability at middle ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths that drive oxygen photolysis and ozone chemistry is much larger that that of the TSI. Resulting changes to stratospheric ozone abundance alter the stratosphere–troposphere temperature gradient and feed back to tropospheric planetary wave refraction, further altering climatically relevant circulation patterns (Maycock et al. 2015). With this realization that both direct radiative and indirect stratospheric influences affect terrestrial climate under a solar grand minimum, it is important to understand how UV irradiance would respond to such a large and prolonged change in solar magnetic activity.”

68 responses to “IT’S-THE-SUN Climate Science Steamrolls Into 2018”

  1. tom0mason

    One question I usually ask when the topic of the Maunder Minimum or the LIA appears is —
    “How much ice was there at the North Pole when the LIA event started?”
    I suspect that there was little, as now the polar vortex was probably not over the pole but wandering around the periphery of it, cooling the lands of Canada, Eurasia, and the oceans thereabouts. Ron Clutz has some interesting ideas about these kind of events over at https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/volatile-vortex/comment-page-1/ .

  2. SebastianH

    Temperature doesn’t seem to correlate with sun activity starting in the 1950s/60s:
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/plot/gistemp/mean:132/plot/pmod/offset:-1362/mean:132/plot/sidc-ssn/scale:0.005/mean:132/offset:-1.5/from:1870

    Unfortunately none of those papers is open access, so we can’t check out what they really say and have to trust your interpretation. That’s a bit weak to call it “steamrolling”.

    1. AndyG55

      GISS doesn’t correlate to any sort of reality.

      Even you must know its a load of mal-adjusted rubbish.

      So why use it, it just makes your comment even more EMPTY.

      1. Bitter&twisted

        DNFTT

      2. SebastianH
    2. Kenneth Richard

      Northern Hemisphere Solar Activity and Climate Correlation

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Soon-Connolly-2015-NH-Temps-and-TSI.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TSI-20th-Century-Northern-Hemisphere-Schneider-2015.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TSI-20th-Century-Northern-Hemisphere-Christiansen-Ljungqvist-2012.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TSI-20th-Century-Northern-Hemisphere-Stoffel-2015.jpg
      ————————–

      Southern Hemisphere Solar Activity & Climate Correlation

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TSI-20th-Century-Antarctica-Schneider-2006.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TSI-20th-Century-South-America-Patagonia-Elbert-2013.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TSI-20th-Century-Andes-De-Jong-2016.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TSI-20th-Century-Chile-de-Jong-2013.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TSI-20th-Century-Indian-Ocean-Zinke-2016.jpg

      “Unfortunately none of those papers is open access, so we can’t check out what they really say and have to trust your interpretation.”

      These are not “interpretations”. These are exact quotes copied/pasted directly from the papers themselves. The 3rd one even shows an image of the copied text.

      “That’s a bit weak to call it ‘steamrolling’.”

      As I would assume most would understand by reading the introduction, the “steamrolling” refers to the volume of papers published since 2016 (275) supporting a strong Sun-Climate link, which is in stark contrast to the claims of negligible influence espoused by the IPCC and people like you.

      1. SebastianH

        which is in stark contrast to the claims of negligible influence espoused by the IPCC and people like you.

        So you are suggesting that they (IPCC) made the Sun’s influence very small out of thin air? Without support from science? Is that what you are saying?

        Also there is this:
        https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-impact-climate-quantified.html

        According to project head Werner Schmutz, who is also Director of PMOD, this reduction in temperature is significant, even though it will do little to compensate for human-induced climate change. “We could win valuable time if solar activity declines and slows the pace of global warming a little. That might help us to deal with the consequences of climate change.” But this will be no more than borrowed time, warns Schmutz, since the next minimum will inevitably be followed by a maximum.

        Even if we get a 2 W/m² decrease of TSI in the next decade, that equals a solar forcing decrease by 0.5 W/m² averages over the whole planet. That’s not a lot of change …

        1. AndyG55

          Only IDIOTS think that TSI is the only solar change.

          1. tom0mason

            Well said!

        2. AndyG55

          “Even if we get a 2 W/m² decrease of TSI in the next decade, that equals a solar forcing decrease by 0.5 W/m² averages over…. blahhh. “

          Great to see seb yet again displaying his abject ignorance.

          Poor little trollette doesn’t realise that it is changes over the tropics that matter, and that averaging over the whole of Earth’s surface when the effect of increased TSI is not linear is the absolute depths of mathematical ignorance.

          To be expected from seb, though.

          1. AndyG55

            Yep K,

            Its quite BIZARRE what passes as “science” at the cartoonist’s little propaganda site.

            But there are STILL those so NIL-educated as to fall for it.

          2. SebastianH

            Ehrm, we are comparing the solar forcing to other forcings, aren’t we? Regarding heat content you have to average over the whole surface. But fine, let’s say only tropics matter, so we divide by 2 instead of 4 and apply it to only half the planet? How does that change the amount of energy? Or do you think a reduction by 2 W/m² in the tropics is far more powerful than a constant forcing planet wide from GHGs?

            I guess we’ll see. Unfortunately all things climate take a long time to manifest. See you in 50-100 years then, when the last skeptic will have realized it’s not the Sun.

          3. P Gosselin

            You need to read more about the variety mechanisms through which the sun impacts climate. Your lack of knowledge here appears to be glaring. Ignorance is okay…I don’t have a problem with that because everyone suffers from it to varying degrees. Willful ignorance, however, is not something I’m prepared to accept.

          4. SebastianH

            Surprise me (you or Kenneth) and explain in your own words (not quotes) how the Sun impacts climate. What are the relevant feedbacks, how much warming/cooling from a 1 W/m² change in TSI?

            From what I’ve read the Sun approaching a minimum will cause a temperature change (the average) of at most 0.5°C. In the same timespan CO2 forcing will most likely compensate for it and temperature will still increase. And then the Sun’s output increases again … what happens then? Back to even higher temperatures.

            Will skeptics in 20-30 years still be thinking that it’s the Sun? Only the craziest ones …

          5. P Gosselin

            The problem is that you don’t want to know. You only want to dismiss and ram pinhead into the sand.
            Again, you are grossly lacking in the knowledge of the various mechanisms through which the sun impacts our climate (much more than TSI). Read up on it! (and put aside your vocational willful ignorance).

          6. AndyG55

            “a constant forcing planet wide from GHGs?”

            ROFLMAO!

            Still the UNPROVEN anti-science BS, all the time, seb, all you have is this mindless FALLACY.

            There is absolutely no empirical data supporting enhanced atmospheric CO2 warming oceans, atmosphere or anything

            You are in an ANTI-SCIENCE FANTASY CULT, seb

            Nothing more.

            And your comment above show that you STILL haven’t got a clue. !!

          7. AndyG55

            “What are the relevant feedbacks, how much warming/cooling from a 1 W/m² change in TSI?”

            As mentioned above, only an IGNORANT, NIL-EDUCATED IDIOT “believes” that TSI is the only variable of the Sun.

            You obviously haven’t read or comprehended anything in the last few years…

            Way TOO MUCH NEGATIVE KNOWLEDGE to overcome.

            You are the absolute definition of WILFUL IGNORANCE !!

          8. P Gosselin

            Problem is that he seems to have made climate science ignorance his chosen vocation in his life. Even though the science is merely at its infancy, he thinks (is convinced) it’s done and settled. That tells you everything.

          9. SebastianH

            The problem is that you don’t want to know. You only want to dismiss and ram pinhead into the sand.

            I doubt you know much about it. No answer is also an answer, right? So you guys can only give vague replies that I am ignoring the influence the Sun has on our climate. So what changes do we have to expect from a 0.073% change (1 W/m²) in solar output? Is solar activity and temperature linked linearly? 288 K = 1365 W/m², so 1 W/m² equals 0.21°C? Is it different? What is the function connection solar output to surface temperature? You guys claim you know and I don’t … so please, enlighten me 😉

            This will never resonate. His reasoning comes from SkS (and he forgot to multiply by 0.7). Skeptical Science just can’t be wrong. FOUR. HIROSHIMA. BOMBS. PER. SECOND.

            What is wrong with 4 a-bombs per second? Do you disagree with the math? My reasoning comes from not blindly believing in anything that could explain away the greenhouse effect no matter how far-fetched and impossible it is. I am a bit skeptical about anything you come up with and/or support.

          10. AndyG55

            And seb keep digging deeper and deeper into his ignorance.

            There is no bottom to that whole. !!

            You have no reasoning, just brain-hosed mantra belief.

            hint: TSI is NOT the only solar variable.

            You have had the chance to enlighten yourself many times, but your deeply brain-hosed ANTI-KNOWLEDGE gets in the way.

    3. AndyG55

      “That’s a bit weak to call it “steamrolling”.”

      What is REALLLY weak, or actually non-existent, is any empirical proof of warming from enhanced atmospheric CO2.

  3. tom0mason

    From http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
    CO2 control of global temperature is not evident. The late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya — 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

    Indeed looking at the gradual rise from the effects of the LIA, everything looks very normal, very NATURAL. https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/giss-anntemps2017.png No CO2 effect visible so far!

    The argument for CO2 controlling global temperature is a sham. The evidence does not stack-up.
    The lower atmosphere temperature is mainly controlled by the solar cycle’s effect on convection and the oceans, all else (barring effects of large volcanoes and meteors), is negligible.
    Nature rules the atmosphere not humans.

    1. yonason (from my cell phone)

      Geocraft – another of my favorites, Tom.

      Here’s a gif of his I’ve used before, along with that paleo temp/CO2 graphic you used. What science says about the “recent” (last 18,000 years) warming.
      http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/anim_glac.gif

      Yup, it has warmed. And a good thing, too!

      Also note the period when CO2 was highest. It was the Cambrian, when all current animal life forms (phyla) suddenly appear for the first time in the fossil record. And they tell us high CO2 is bad for life, and that if we don’t believe it that we are ant-science??? !!!

      They have no shame!

      1. tom0mason

        Thank-you yonason (from my cell phone),

        Yes history tell the only real story about CO2 not affecting the global temperature. It’s not done it before, it’s not happening now! All the expensive ‘science’ currently being done is (IMO) just cover for larger political ambitions and always has been.

        And before anyone says it, no I don’t believe in a conspiracy.

        I believe in vainglorious politicians putting their ambitions before doing what is right. I believe politically useful and greedy people running the misinformation about climate, like the hubristic scientists pushing the idea to make money and fame for themselves. All done for political ends, nothing more. I believe these fallible people have led so many astray.

        1. yonason (from my cell phone)

          Yup.

          Power, prestige, wealth, frail human nature… No need to invoke a conspiracy when human arrogance, greed and stupidity can explain it.

          1. SebastianH

            Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

            I don’t think you are evil …

          2. AndyG55

            In your case.. BOTH.

        2. SebastianH

          Dream on …

          https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915
          “Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation” – Shakun 2012, cited by 563

          1. P Gosselin

            That paper has already been shown to be rubbish. http://www.sciencebits.com/Shakun_in_Nature

          2. sunsettommy

            The Shakun paper is bad because of his omissions and his data sampling is absurd quality, here are THREE expose’s of that horrid paper:

            A reply to Shakun et al – Dr. Munchausen Explains Science By Proxy

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/06/a-reply-shakun-et-al-dr-munchausen-explains-science-by-proxy/

            Shakun Redux: Master tricksed us! I told you he was tricksy!

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/shakun-redux-master-tricksed-us-i-told-you-he-was-tricksy/

            Plus two more From DR. Easterbrook:

            Did Shakun et al. really prove that CO2 preceded late glacial warming? [Part 1]

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/08/did-shakun-et-al-really-prove-that-co2-precede-late-glacial-warming-part-1/

            More fatal flaws in the Shakun et al. Nature paper claiming that CO2 preceded late glacial warming [Part 2]

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/18/more-fatal-flaws-in-the-shakun-et-al-nature-paper-claiming-that-co2-preceded-late-glacial-warming-part-2/

          3. sunsettommy

            Ooops forgot the third one:

            Shakun The Last, I Hope

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/shakun-the-last-i-hope/

          4. SebastianH

            Northern Hemisphere temperatures rose by 4 to 5 degrees C (and Greenland rose by 12 degrees C) within a span of a few decades, and sea levels rose at rates of about 5 meters per century. CO2 levels didn’t change during this time. Changing CO2 concentrations did not precede the temperature change and sea level rise.

            You didn’t actually read the Shakun paper, right? Here is a link without a paywall

            Ivanovic et al., 2017

            Huh, you trust models now? Anyway that paper is mainly about the cooling caused by the melt of the North American ice saddle. That is also visible in Figure 2 of the Shakun paper. That paper is completely compatible with the Shakun paper.

            <blockquoteThat paper has already been shown to be rubbish. http://www.sciencebits.com/Shakun_in_Nature
            Sure, if you think that is a good source for climate science related stuff. If read his “rebuttal” and while it is true that it could be SH warming causing NH warming without any effect from CO2, why is the CO2 concentration then rising together with the SH warming, preceding NH/global warming?

            Anyway, it’s a cosmic ray cloud religion follower and a source for “Die Kalte Sonne” … no thank you, can’t be trusted (see, I can do that too, just dismissing science authors on grounds of not liking what they write).

          5. sunsettommy

            YOU were the one who posted the Shakun paper, which was long exposed as being junk.

            I posted several links that shows in DETAIL why it is a bad paper, and easy to see for yourself since Eschenbauch used Shakun’s own paper to show it’s serious problems.

            It is clear that you didn’t read any of the WUWT links at all.

            Here is a section in link two, you never saw that ALONE destroys the paper:

            “Today I was thinking about that single record that they used for the CO2 changes. I got to wondering what other ice core CO2 records might show about the change in CO2. So I went and downloaded every ice core CO2 record that I could find that covered the time period 26,000 BC to modern times. I found a number of ice core records that cover the period.
            Then I collated all of them in Excel, saved them as a CSV file, opened the file in R, and plotted every ice core CO2 record that covered the record from 26,000 BC up to the present. I standardized them over the same period covered by the Shakun2012 CO2 data. There was excellent agreement between the Shakun2012 data and the ice core records I had downloaded … but there was also a surprise.”

            Figure 2 shows the surprise …

            (Chart in the link)

            “Dang, I didn’t expect that rise in CO2 that started about 6,000 BC. I do love climate science, it always surprises me … but the big surprise was not what the ice core records showed. It was what the Shakun2012 authors didn’t show.

            I’m sure you can see just what those bad-boy scientists have done. Look how they have cut the modern end of the ice core CO2 record short, right at the time when CO2 started to rise again …”

            CO2 went UP a lot for a long time while Temperature went down in the SAME time frame.

            Meanwhile in first link, it was shown that Shakun didn’t establish that CO2 leads temperature. He plotted all of the proxy data from the paper to state that it doesn’t support his claim because it is a mess:

            “Next comes the part that the authors of these multi-proxy studies seem to have generally ignored. This is to look at each and every one of these proxy records and think about what they seem to mean. I’ll look at them sixteen at a time. Figure 3 shows the first sixteen of the Shakun2012 proxies.”

            “Discussion
            The variety in the shapes of these graphs is quite surprising. Yes, they’re all vaguely alike … but that’s about all.

            The main curiosity about these, other than the wide variety of amounts of warming, is the different timing of the warming. In some proxies it starts in 25,000 BC, in others it starts in 15,000 BC. Sometimes the warming peaks as early as 14,000 BC, and sometimes around 5,000 BC or later. Sometimes the warming continues right up to the present.
            The problem becomes evident when we plot all of these 80 standardized proxies together. Figure 9 shows all of the standardized temperature traces.”

            Now, there’s plenty of things of interest in there. It’s clear that there is warming since the last ice age. The median value for the warming is 4.3°C, although the range is quite wide.

            But if you want to make the claim that CO2 precedes the warming?

            I fear that this set of proxies is perfectly useless for that. How on earth could you claim anything about the timing of the warming from this group of proxies? It’s all over the map.”

            It is clear you didn’t read the first three links at all.

            Warmists used to tap that red thumb paper that contradicts gobs of papers showing the opposite to what Shakun claims, but except for a few like you, they stopped after they were shown it was junk paper.

            You need to spend more time reading counterpoints in detail.

          6. sunsettommy

            I see that Sebastian ignores this from Kenneth,

            “During the last deglaciation (14,700 to 14,500 years ago, also called the Meltwater Pulse), Northern Hemisphere temperatures rose by 4 to 5 degrees C (and Greenland rose by 12 degrees C) within a span of a few decades, and sea levels rose at rates of about 5 meters per century. CO2 levels didn’t change during this time. Changing CO2 concentrations did not precede the temperature change and sea level rise.”

            Also warmists in general seem to ignore this too:

            Are Modern Temperatures “Unprecedented”? Greenland Ice Core Research Finds They’re Not Even Close, U.S. Climate Agency

            http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01287656565a970c-pi

            http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/are-modern-temperatures-unprecedented-us-govt-greenland-ice-core-research-finds-theyre-not-even-clos.html

            CO2 hardly change for 10,000 years while temperature change a lot.

          7. AndyG55

            Science related stuff.. which seb HAS to ignore.

            There is NO empirical proof that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes warming of oceans, atmosphere or anything.

            All this other yapping is just a meaningless distraction.

            the seb way.

          8. Kenneth Richard

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5849/435.short
            Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2C between 19 and 17 ka B.P., leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years.”

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/1728.short
            “The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.”

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/283/5408/1712.short
            “High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.”

            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/291/5501/112.short
            The start of the CO2 increase thus lagged the start of the [temperature] increase by 800 ± 600 years.”

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL010960/pdf
            “The lag was calculated for which the correlation coefficient of the CO2 record and the corresponding temperatures values reached a maximum. The simulation yields a [CO2] lag of (1200 ± 700) yr.”

            http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/503652/1/Landais%20et%20al%202013%20-%20Step%20changes.pdf
            “Antarctic temperature started increasing in phase around 136,000 years ago, but in a second phase of Termination II, from 130.5 to 129,000 years ago, the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations lagged that of Antarctic temperature unequivocally….At mid-slope, there is an unequivocal lead of δ15N [temperature] over CO2 of 900 ± 325 yr“.

            http://www.clim-past.net/11/647/2015/cp-11-647-2015.pdf
            [N]o significant contribution of CO2 forcing to climatically caused heat flux and thus to the temperature increase during Pleistocene–Holocene warming. … The increase of carbon dioxide concentrations occurred 2–3 thousands of years later than the heat flux increase and synchronously with temperature response.”

            http://www.clim-past.net/11/153/2015/cp-11-153-2015.pdf
            “Recent works suggest that during the last deglaciation the rise in atmospheric CO2 lagged the onset of pan-Antarctic warming by approximately 0 to 400 years (Pedro et al., 2012; Parrenin et al., 2013″

            http://www.clim-past.net/9/2507/2013/cp-9-2507-2013.html
            [A] 5,000 yr lag in the CO2 decline relative to EDC [East Antarctica] temperatures is confirmed during the glacial inception at the end of MIS5.5 [120,000 yrs before present]. Based on our isotopic data this lag can be explained by terrestrial carbon release and carbonate compensation.”

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL027817/abstract
            [V]ariations in melting precede variations in CO2. Thus, the relatively small amplitude of the CO2 radiative forcing and the absence of a lead over dV/dt both suggest that CO2 variations play a relatively weak role in driving changes in global ice volume compared to insolation variations.”

          9. SebastianH

            Reply to this one lost? Anyway, if you think your skeptic celebrities disproved the Shakun paper then … well, I don’t know, you’ll probably believe anything then …

          10. sunsettommy

            Ha ha ha, now Sebastian make clear he has no effective counterpoint To DOCTOR Easterbrook or POLYMATH Eschenbach postings where they make an honest assessment over the Shakun paper and ignored Kenneth’s list of papers that doesn’t agree with Shakun at all.

            You are indeed a closeminded warmist, who doesn’t pursue knowledge based on the evidence, but on consensus and science background.

            It is efficacy of the argument is what counts NOT who delivers them.

            You going to keep ignoring this Sebastian?

            “Today I was thinking about that single record that they used for the CO2 changes. I got to wondering what other ice core CO2 records might show about the change in CO2. So I went and downloaded every ice core CO2 record that I could find that covered the time period 26,000 BC to modern times. I found a number of ice core records that cover the period.
            Then I collated all of them in Excel, saved them as a CSV file, opened the file in R, and plotted every ice core CO2 record that covered the record from 26,000 BC up to the present. I standardized them over the same period covered by the Shakun2012 CO2 data. There was excellent agreement between the Shakun2012 data and the ice core records I had downloaded … but there was also a surprise.”
            Figure 2 shows the surprise …”

            (Chart in the link)

            “Dang, I didn’t expect that rise in CO2 that started about 6,000 BC. I do love climate science, it always surprises me … but the big surprise was not what the ice core records showed. It was what the Shakun2012 authors didn’t show.

            I’m sure you can see just what those bad-boy scientists have done. Look how they have cut the modern end of the ice core CO2 record short, right at the time when CO2 started to rise again …”

            Why can’t you address it?

    2. tom0mason

      I repeat, as some offensive, name-calling, cAGW advocate requires it.
      Indeed looking at the gradual rise from the effects of the LIA, everything looks very normal, very NATURAL. https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/giss-anntemps2017.png No CO2 effect visible so far!

      Regardless of the temperature scale used, there is NO catastrophic change of temperature outside NORMAL NATURAL VARIATIONS. Scammers HAVE to use anomaly charts because the change is so very small — insignificant — at about 0.5° per century.

      cAGW dislike this kind of graphic because is easily shows their assertions about CO2 warming have NO BASIS in scientific observations — even when using GISS data.

  4. Understand the Oceans, Understand the Global Temperatures – CO2 is Life

    […] Continue reading. […]

  5. Understand the Oceans, Understand the Global Temperatures – Gaia Gazette

    […] Continue reading. […]

  6. Bitter&twisted

    Dear all.
    Let’s ignore SebastianH.
    I’m sure he/she/it is only here for their own perverse sense of amusement.
    I.e DNFTT!

    1. Don from Oz

      what does DNFTT ? tou really should spell out the full expression with acronym in brackets a few times

      1. tom0mason

        Don from Oz

        I believe the acronym is a reference to providing sustainable to bad tempered dwarfs live under bridges.

    2. SebastianH

      I’ll be most delighted when you stop to reply with nonsensical comments or write comments mentioning me. I’ll appreciate replies that actually have substance and aren’t completely biased towards the “skeptic” belief/cult.

      1. AndyG55

        Yep, You need that ATTENTION, don’t you seb.

        Desperate for it.

  7. Don from Oz

    tou = you

    1. Climate Heretic

      DNFTT = Do Not Feed The Troll

      Regards
      Climate Heretic

      1. tom0mason

        Kenneth appears to be the best keeper here, providing real nutrition, and not the junk food that the troll desires.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close