Solar Magnetic Field, Cosmic Rays/Clouds → Climate
CO2 Has A ‘Zero Net Effect’
Dr. Rex J. Fleming, a former NOAA climate scientist who earned both his Master’s and Ph.D in meteorology, has published a new paper in the Environmental Earth Sciences journal that details the lack of an identifiable causal relationship between CO2 concentration changes and Earth’s temperature changes. He suggests “there is no propensity for CO2 to store heat in a systematic way over time to produce a climate change effect”.
Image Source: American Meteorological Society
Dr. Fleming introduces an alternative “theory of climate change—due to the Sun’s magnetic field interacting with cosmic rays”. He theorizes that the Earth’s temperature has warmed in the modern era as a consequence of the strong solar activity during the 20th century (the Modern Maximum) shielding cosmic ray intensification and thus reducing decadal-scale cloud cover, which leads to warming via an increase in absorbed surface solar radiation (as illustrated here by Ogurtsov et al., 2012 and detailed by Avakyan, 2013, McLean, 2014, and others).
Dr. Fleming further proposes that the Earth may cool as it slides into a Solar Grand Minimum in the coming few decades (~2030) due to a predicted decline in the solar magnetic field and concomitant cloud cover increases seeded by cosmic ray intensification.
Key points from the paper are categorized below.
An Updated Review About Carbon
Dioxide and Climate Change
Fleming, 2018
Summary
“The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed. The climate-change cooling over the 1940–1975 time period of the Modern Warming period was shown to be influenced by a combination of solar factors. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age climate changes was the solar magnetic field and cosmic ray connection. When the solar magnetic field is strong, it acts as a barrier to cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, clouds decrease and the Earth warms. Conversely when the solar magnetic field is weak, there is no barrier to cosmic rays—they greatly increase large areas of low-level clouds, increasing the Earth’s albedo and the planet cools. The factors that affect these climate changes were reviewed in “Solar magnetic field/cosmic ray factors affecting climate change” section. The calculations of “H2O and CO2 in the radiation package” section revealed that there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is simply redistributed within the atmospheric column. This result is consistent and explains the lack of CO2 correlations with observations in the past. The current Modern Warming will continue until the solar magnetic field decreases in strength. If one adds the 350-year cycle from the McCracken result to the center of the Maunder Minimum which was centered in 1680, one would have a Grand Minimum centered in the year 2030.”
It’s Not CO2
CO2 Changes Lag Temperature Changes
“Ice cores with sufficient vertical resolution (time resolution) have provided 420,000 years of data from Antarctica indicating that the temperature changes preceded the corresponding CO2 changes. An American team found the time lag (due to ocean mixing) of CO2 behind temperature of several hundred years. The oceanic reservoir of CO2 is far greater than that of the atmosphere. When the oceans are warm, they outgas CO2, and when the oceans are cold atmospheric CO2 dissolves into the oceans (Fisher et al. 1999).”
“A subsequent study in 2003 by a French team indicating that deglaciation was not caused by CO2 which lagged the temperature by 200–800 years (Caillon et al. 2003). A third efort by Russian scientists arrived at the same conclusion, where the estimated delay was 500–600 years (Monin and Sonechkin 2005). This was claimed to be 420,000 years of data with indisputable evidence that CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere are the effect of global temperature changes and not their cause (Chilingar et al. 2008).”
Water Vapor Dominates
“The concentration of CO2 is considered to be uniform over the atmosphere at 400 ppmv. The concentration of water vapor varies from a maximum of 40,000 ppmv (Hong Kong) to the lowest measured value of 4 ppmv in the upper stratosphere. A value for water vapor at one km is estimated to be 11,000 ppmv, so the ratio of mass of H2O/CO2 at one km is approximately 11,000/400=27.5. Comparison of the absorption coefficients over the full range of 1.5–18 µm gave the result: CO2/H2O=~5.5. Thus, water vapor dominates by the ratio of 27.5/5.5=5. … The volume of H2O at the one km level alone is capable of absorbing all the available solar heat at the surface, and does absorb five times that of CO2. All the heat adsorbed at the surface was fully redistributed vertically by all the molecules with the help of all the coefficients.”
CO2 ‘No Impact’, ‘Zero Net Effect’ On Temperature
“One can summarize these calculations as follows: whatever the “climate-change regime,” whatever surface heat from the Sun on any given day within that regime, that heat is fully absorbed and fully vertically redistributed throughout the troposphere—there is no propensity for CO2 to store heat in a systematic way over time to produce a climate change effect (as defined in the introduction).”
“Why does the integrated effect of CO2 have so little effect on the total temperature profile? The reason is that the Planck function change with height (temperature) is very strong in reducing the intensity of those relatively few lines with large absorption coefficients. Another reason is that the longwave radiation is diffuse which depletes the intensity rapidly over distance. The diffuse nature of the radiation also leads to the fact that the net radiation for a given level (that sent upward at the bottom of a layer, minus that sent downward at the top of a layer) further reduces the adsorbed CO2 radiation intensity.”
“Other so-called “greenhouse gases” (some with larger absorption coefcients, but all with signifcantly less concentration) have their intensity quickly transferred upward and depleted by the same strong Planck function intensity change that applies to CO2 and H2O. From the historical record and from these calculations one sees that the CO2 concentration had no impact on temperature. It contributes low-level heating and allows upper level cooling for a zero net effect.”
It’s Solar/Cosmic Ray/Cloud Cover Changes
Solar Minimum, Maximum Periods And Climate
“A significant improvement in determining which Grand Minima are important for climate change came with the work of Sharpe (2008) using Jet Propulsion Laboratory DE405 ephemeris data providing the results in Figs. 10 and 11. His C-14 data from Stuiver et al. (1998). The results confirm the reason for the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age (1300–1850) with its three separate Grand Minima (Spörer Maunder, and Dalton).”
“Since the Little Ice Age, a strong Sun is revealed by both Be-10 and C-14 decreases. The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun (dragged out by the solar wind) has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901 (Lockwood et al. 1999). The strong solar magnetic field has shielded the Earth from cosmic rays and is the cause of the Modern Warming that has occurred through to the current time.”
Planetary Positions Determine Solar Grand Minima
“The synodic period (TS—two successive conjunctions of the same bodies) of two planets 1 and 2 is given by 1/TS=1/T1−1/T2 (with T1<T2). The sidereal periods for Uranus and Neptune are 84.02 and 164.79 years, respectively. This gives TUN =172 years. This is the main driver seen in the angular momentum of the Sun about the SSB. The relationship of when a solar Grand Minima occurs always involves these four giant planets in their relationship with the Sun and as depicted in Fig. 11—Uranus, Neptune and Jupiter together and Saturn opposite the Sun.”
Solar Cycle Length And Temperature
“The sunspot cycle has an average period of 11.2 years, but the length varies from 8 to 14 years. The length of a sunspot cycle (LSC) is an indicator of the Sun’s eruptional activity. The Gleissberg (1965) cycle resulted from his smoothing of the time series of the length of the sunspot cycles (LSC) and a secular cycle of 80–90 years emerged.”
“Figure 7 is from Landscheidt (2003) where Gleissberg’s smoothed data were displayed. The heavy line is the smoothed LSC line and the light line is the land air temperature in the Northern Hemisphere. The heavy line agrees very well with the temperature and also with the temperature record […] with the cooling from 1940 to 1975. It appears that the atmospheric temperature is oblivious to CO2 concentration.”
“The range of the Sun’s orbital angular momentum about the SSB varies from near zero to only 25% of the Sun’s differential angular momentum driving the solar dynamo (Landscheidt 2003). Thus, the strength of the solar dynamo can outweigh the effect of the Sun/planet positions. Nevertheless, these results over this long period strongly suggest that the solar magnetic feld/cosmic ray interaction is the primary cause of major climate-change events over the past 9400 years of the interglacial period. The 35-year cool period within the current Modern Warming was an example where the Gleissberg cycle imposed only a modest impact on the existing strength of the magnetic feld that was in place. The current Modern Warming will continue until the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field declines.”
How embarrassing.
For whom?
I wonder of Pierre’s new policy — much welcomed — includes gnomic remarks.
Have you considered actually addressing the content of the paper? It may well be wrong but Dr Fleming’s qualifications would seem sufficient for his views to be taken seriously — a meteorologist and ex-NOAA.
I know that the climate establishment prefers not to hear divergent views but that’s what makes for genuine debate, wouldn’t you say?
It should be fairly obvious why this author has it wrong. I don’t know why the skeptic community demands that the other side addresses everything they come up with or else it’s true.
The qualifications aside – not much to find about this author – someone who writes “there is no propensity for CO2 to store heat in a systematic way over time to produce a climate change effect” [-snip…again you are only calling foul because it disagrees with your side. Please get off the arrogant high horse of believing you are the keeper of the truth. You are not. You’re always upset about people having a different opinion. Get. Over. It. -PG]
Divergent views are one thing, making something up is a whole other story. Has this paper received proper peer review? 😉 [Yes, we’ve seen the quality of “proper peer review” in climate science. That’s why the science has lost its reputation. -PG]
Pierre, I thought you were going to censor foul language and not pointing out contradictions to scientific facts? [the word facts here should have qualifying quotes around it]
The part you snipped was about this [snip] from that paper:
I am not the keeper of the truth, but this is obviously wrong. Do I really need to explain why?
Dr. Rex Fleming:
Other atmospheric scientists have also proposed this (assuming one agrees that a 0.02°C change in temperature upon CO2 doubling is the equivalent of a “zero net effect”). After all, these are all just theoretical conceptualizations of what occurs in the atmosphere, with the current popularized conceptualization regarding dominant CO2-heating considered “fact” because a much higher percentage of theorists happen to agree with it.
Florides and Christodoulides, 2009
A very recent development on the greenhouse phenomenon is avalidated adiabatic model, based on laws of physics, forecasting a maximum temperature-increase of 0.01–0.03 °C for a value doubling the present concentration of atmospheric CO2.
As Sorokhtin et al. (2007) mention, until recently a sound theory using laws of physics for the greenhouse effect was lacking and all numerical calculations and predictions were based on intuitive models using numerous poorly defined parameters. In order to investigate the phenomenon they devised a model based on wellestablished relationships among physical fields describing the mass and heat transfer in the atmosphere. This model uses a general approach for obtaining analytical solutions for global problems and can be further refined to incorporate additional parameters and variables for examining local problems.
Their model was based on the observation that in the troposphere (the lower and denser layer of the atmosphere, with pressures greater than 0.2 atm) the heat transfer is mostly by convection and the temperature distribution is close to adiabatic. The reasoning for this is that the air masses expand and cool while rising and compress and heat while descending.
Basic formulae describe among others, the heat transfer in the atmosphere by radiation, the atmospheric pressure and air density change with elevation, the effect of the angle of the Earth’s precession and the adiabatic process. For the adiabatic process the formula considers the partial pressures and specific heats of the gases forming the atmosphere, an adiabatic constant and corrective coefficients for the heating caused by water condensation in the wet atmosphere and for the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere.
The adiabatic constant and the heat coefficients are estimated using actual experimental data. This adiabatic model was verified, with a precision of 0.1%, by comparing the results obtained for the temperature distribution in the troposphere of the Earth with the standard model used worldwide for the calibration of the aircraft gauges and which is based on experimental data. The model was additionally verified with a precision of 0.5%–1.0% for elevations up to 40 km, by comparing the results with the measured temperature distribution in the dense troposphere of Venus consisting mainly of CO2. The above results are shown in Fig. 11.
The main conclusions of this work are:
(a) Convection accounts for approximately 67% of the total amount of heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to the troposphere, the condensation of water vapour for 25% and radiation accounts for only 8%. As the heat transfer in the troposphere occurs mostly by convection, accumulation of CO2 in the troposphere intensifies the convective processes of heat and mass transfer, because of the intense absorption of infrared radiation, and leads to subsequent cooling and not warming as believed.
(b) The analysis indicates that the average surface temperature of the Earth is determined by the solar constant, the precession angle of the planet, the mass (pressure) of the atmosphere, and the specific heat of the atmospheric mixture of gases.
(c) If the nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere of the Earth would be replaced by a CO2 atmosphere with the same pressure of 1 atm, then the average near-surface temperature would decrease by approximately 2.5 °C and not increase as commonly assumed.
(d) The opposite will happen by analogy if the CO2 atmosphere of Venus would be replaced by a nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere at a pressure of 90.9 atm. The average near-surface temperature would increase from 462 °C to 657 °C. This is explained easily by observing how the results of the derived formulae are affected, considering that the molecular weight of CO2 is about 1.5 times greater and its specific heat 1.2 times smaller than those of the Earth’s air.
(e) If the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases from 0.035% to its double value of 0.070%, the atmospheric pressure will increase slightly (by 0.00015 atm). Consequently the temperature at sea level will increase by about 0.01 °C and the increase in temperature at an altitude of 10 km will be less than 0.03 °C. These amounts are negligible compared to the natural temporal fluctuations of the global temperature.
(f) In evaluating the above consequences of the doubling of the CO2, one has to consider the dissolution of CO2 in oceanic water and also that, together with carbon, a part of atmospheric oxygen is also transferred into carbonates. Therefore instead of a slight increase in the atmospheric pressure one should expect a slight decrease with a corresponding insignificant climate cooling.
Yes you do need to explain why it is wrong. There have been multiple studies that show CO2 does not affect temperature, and CO2/temperature have never corresponded in the past but now all of the sudden because we are adding a fraction of CO2 to the atmosphere historical levels it’s causing temperatures to rise (laughable). Not being able to see how governments are pushing the CO2/climate change/global warming agenda as a means for more taxation and wealth transfer just shows ones inability to see the overall picture. Stop being a sheep and wake up.
“I am not the keeper of the truth, but this is obviously wrong. Do I really need to explain why?”
Yes, Seb, you do really need to explain why!
Kenneth has supplied many supporting documents. You need to supply refutation.
<blockquoteOther atmospheric scientists have also proposed this (assuming one agrees that a 0.02°C change in temperature upon CO2 doubling is the equivalent of a “zero net effect”). After all, these are all just theoretical conceptualizations of what occurs in the atmosphere, with the current popularized conceptualization regarding dominant CO2-heating considered “fact” because a much higher percentage of theorists happen to agree with it.
You are misunderstanding what I am saying is a fact. Suppose Co2 would cause net zero warming because it cools the upper part of the atmosphere exactly as much as it warms the surface part. Considering the different density of air, would you be so kind an calculate (a rough estimate is ok) how much cooler the upper part would have to be to compensate for say a 1°C warming of the surface?
The second part of this fact thing is that Earth will on average emit as much energy as it receives. We are measuring a decrease of radiation towards space in the relevant CO2 bands. That means Earth is indeed radiating away less energy than it receives (this is what is called CO2 forcing). This means (and that is a fact) that the heat content increases until this imbalance seizes to exist. One could argue that his can be called “cooling at the upper-level” and warming at the lower-level, but in reality this doesn’t cancel out at all …
That should have been obvious to any peer reviewer.
Regarding “Florides and Christodoulides, 2009″. You seem to have a tendency to pick out the real good papers. No comment. ” Different Opinion” as Pierre put it above is a good description.
“We are measuring a decrease of radiation towards space in the relevant CO2 bands. That means Earth is indeed radiating away less energy than it receives “
Except its not.
https://s19.postimg.org/3lfhmz5lv/OLR_62.jpg
Energy is just transferred to other bands.
You have yet again produced zero science, just your mantra driven imaginings of how thing work. And its WRONG.
There is NO empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes anything but enhanced plant growth.
And the ever warming Arctic (not)
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/ArcticOLR_ToaTemp.jpg
Anyone notice a TREND at all 😉
https://s19.postimg.org/wsak2og8z/Climate-_Sensitivity-_Value-_Estimates-_Update2.jpg
Seems they are starting to get somewhere near reality now that the initial AGW anti-science is gradually being superseded.
Not far to go to ZERO!
Wherever you dug up this graph …
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/indicators/olr/
OLR matches Enso, as would be expected.
You have no point to make.
You seem to think a tiny change in a tiny slice of the OLR makes a difference when it is just redirected to other frequencies.
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/ArcticOLR_ToaTemp.jpg
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/asr-vs-olr.png
Watch how there is an excess of incoming over outgoing during and after La Niñas (2000-2001, 2008-2009, 2011-2012), and an excess of outgoing over incoming during and after El Niños (2010). At other times the two more or less balance.
Maybe its time to drop the AGW mantra, seb.
A post disappears, trying again, maybe a repeat.
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/asr-vs-olr.png
Incoming radiant heat (ASR, “absorbed solar radiation”) (gold) vs. outgoing radiant heat (OLR, “outgoing longwave radiation”) (red) at the global ToA, from March 2000 to July 2015.
Watch how there is an excess of incoming over outgoing during and after La Niñas (2000-2001, 2008-2009, 2011-2012), and an excess of outgoing over incoming during and after El Niños (2010). At other times the two more or less balance.
NH OLR, keeping up with temperatures, as expected
https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/noaa-northern-hemisphere-olr-monthly-anomalies.png
Global OLR increasing
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/olr3.png
CERES, downwelling LWR DECREASING
https://s19.postimg.org/aam12xls3/ceres_dwlwir_decreasing.png
“It should be fairly obvious why this author has it wrong”
Except he doesn’t have much wrong, if anything.
He is totally correct when he says there is no propensity for CO2 to store heat.. BECAUSE IT DOESN’T
If you think there is any warming from enhanced atmospheric CO2, then bring the empirical evidence.
You have FAILED miserably on the scientific front, seb.
There is no facet of Dr Fleming’s paper that you can counter with actual science..
“but this is obviously wrong.Do I really need to explain why”
You will be UNABLE to explain why. It goes to the gravity thermal gradient,/convection effects that regulate the atmosphere. You have shown you do not understand this.
Any idea how the author even came up with the idea that CO2 could be storing heat? It’s a weird claim, since nobody is claiming that it does. It rather indicates that the author has a different understanding of what CO2 is supposed to do (according to climate science) than climate science has.
Well, please highlight were one of those facets is actual science that needs countering.
You are right, I do not understand the way you think stuff works. Maybe you should publish a paper about it?
“Any idea how the author even came up with the idea that CO2 could be storing heat”
Sorry you are unable to comprehend what he is saying. Your problem.
“Well, please highlight were one of those facets is actual science that needs countering.”
So, you concur that you cannot counter.
OK, We knew that.
“I do not understand….”
Not unexpected.
“making something up is a whole other story”
Then STOP doing it. !
“We have said many times over the years that peer review, while necessary, is not a sufficient condition for a paper to be a positive contribution. Anomalies will get published – and the techniques used by Harde are the usual route. Add in the technique of submitting to journals that aren’t really in the field at all, or, more recently, submitting to predatory journals that perform only perfunctory review (if any).
Indeed, there is another example that just appeared by Rex Fleming in “Environmental Earth Science” which, despite the name is not a climate science journal.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/04/harde-times/#ITEM-21237-3
Bloggers at RealClimate.org:
A positive contribution = a paper that agrees with what we believe is true.
Bloggers at RealClimate.org:
It would not appear to be true that the bloggers at RealClimate are providing an accurate portrayal.
https://link.springer.com/journal/12665
Environmental Earth Sciences
Environmental Earth Sciences is an international multidisciplinary journal concerned with all aspects of interaction between humans, natural resources, ecosystems, special climates or unique geographic zones, and the earth:
Water and soil contamination caused by waste management and disposal practices
Environmental problems associated with transportation by land, air, or water
Geological processes that may impact biosystems or humans
Man-made or naturally occurring geological or hydrological hazards
Environmental problems associated with the recovery of materials from the earth
Environmental problems caused by extraction of minerals, coal, and ores, as well as oil and gas, water and alternative energy sources
Environmental impacts of exploration and recultivation – Environmental impacts of hazardous materials
Management of environmental data and information in data banks and information systems
Dissemination of knowledge on techniques, methods, approaches and experiences to improve and remediate the environment
In pursuit of these topics, the geoscientific disciplines are invited to contribute their knowledge and experience. Major disciplines include: hydrogeology, hydrochemistry, geochemistry, geophysics, engineering geology, remediation science, natural resources management, environmental climatology and biota, environmental geography, soil science and geomicrobiology.
https://link.springer.com/journal/12665#about-journal-history
Environmental Geology
Environmental geology and water sciences
Environmental Geology
I think they meant a journal read by climate scientists. It is not a question of agreeing, it is a matter of being correct. This paper is demonstrably incorrect, just a rehash of long-discredited arguments.
If Fleming’s arguments had any merit, then textbooks would need re-writing, and every scientific association in the world would have to retract their position statements on this issue.
Such a paper should surely be submitted to a mainstream journal such as Science or Nature, or a mainstream climate science publication where it would receive proper scrutiny, rather than one which does not even include climate science in its topic list.
“This paper is demonstrably incorrect”
No, you have NOT demonstrated ANYTHING.
You have NO COUNTER is what you are really saying.
And yes, the AGW mantra definitely needs re-writing, because it is demonstrably INCORRECT.
Svensmark et al., 2017
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
(press release) “The impact of changes in solar activity on Earth’s climate was up to seven times greater than climate models suggested according to new research published today in Nature Communications. Researchers have claimed a breakthrough in understanding how cosmic rays from supernovas react with the sun to form clouds, which impact the climate on Earth. The findings have been described as the “missing link” to help resolve a decades long controversy that has big implications for climate science.”
The press release (from the Technical University of Denmark) states that about 5% of the growth rate of new aerosol can be due to ions, which is the main result of the article. Of itself, this is an interesting and plausible result, and if it stands up to more detailed scrutiny it may prove an important contribution to aerosol microphysics. However, it is very far from “the last piece of the puzzle explaining how particles from space affect climate on Earth”.
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-looking-at-cosmic-rays-cloud-formation-and-climate/
Philip, it is NOT up to you to say where people are allowed to or should publish.
If climate pseudo-scientists are too lazy to go outside their gatekeeper journals, that is their problem.
”This paper is demonstrably incorrect …”
So demonstrate it. Arm waving and appeals to authority won’t do, Philip.
Come of Philip, surly you can actually argue the CONTENT, rather than trying to ad-hom the writer.
Or NOT !
Well said, Dr Fleming.
Pretty much all of it is “spot-on” 🙂
“there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is simply redistributed within the atmospheric column”
“that heat is fully absorbed and fully vertically redistributed throughout the troposphere”
Regulated by the gravity thermal gradient.
“ CO2 is a valuable asset: providing the input to the plant world for the food ALL creatures require”
The simple UNDENIABLE TRUTH. !
oops, my closing of italics didn’t work, sorry.
Thanks for the fix 🙂
Much of this is well known, but the explanation here of the impact of water vapor, and the effect of the large planets in a particular and recurring alignment is new to me. It will be interesting to see the response of other experts in the field.
Still, excellent paper. A lot closer to the truth then fiction. It seems as many years ago, while in high school, science was taught a a many faced idol. But, the the facts were true. Now, they can not add 2 plus 2 without a qualifier or error bar larger the the supposed result. But, still hearing crickets.
I’d not be so fast with an assessment like that.
We are waiting for you to bring any actual science to counter anything said by Dr Fleming.
So far you have been totally unable to bring any empirical science to show that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes ANYTHING but enhanced plant growth.
AGW mantra, is NOT science.
“There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed”
But then
““Ice cores with sufficient vertical resolution (time resolution) have provided 420,000 years of data from Antarctica indicating that the temperature changes preceded the corresponding CO2 changes. ”
So there IS a correlation then? The CO2 lagging temperature phenomenon is well known and understood, it occurs because the initial temperature rise (usually from a change in insolation) gets amplified by released CO2. Heck, this was even predicted by a 1990 paper
“Changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing”
Lorius et al 1990.
Yes, as is clearly laid out in the paper (the text supplied in the article only constitutes about 1/8th of its entirety), the temperature changes precede the CO2 changes by hundreds of years, which means that the supposed “amplifying” correlation with glacial-interglacial climate changes is not supportable.
For example, the entire Northern Hemisphere warmed up by 4 to 5 degrees within a span of a few decades and sea levels rose at a rate of 5.3 meters per century…while CO2 levels remained constant.
Ivanovic et al., 2017
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL071849/full
“During the Last Glacial Maximum 26–19 thousand years ago (ka), a vast ice sheet stretched over North America [Clark et al., 2009]. In subsequent millennia, as climate warmed and this ice sheet decayed, large volumes of meltwater flooded to the oceans [Tarasov and Peltier, 2006; Wickert, 2016]. This period, known as the “last deglaciation,” included episodes of abrupt climate change, such as the Bølling warming [~14.7–14.5 ka], when Northern Hemisphere temperatures increased by 4–5°C in just a few decades [Lea et al., 2003; Buizert et al., 2014], coinciding with a 12–22 m sea level rise in less than 340 years [5.3 meters per century] (Meltwater Pulse 1a (MWP1a)) [Deschamps et al., 2012].”
Temperatures, Sea Levels ‘Naturally’ Rise 30 – 40 Times Faster Than Today’s Rates
“During the last glacial/interglacial transition the Earth’s climate underwent abrupt changes around 14.6 kyr ago. Temperature proxies from ice cores revealed the onset of the Bølling/Allerød (B/A) warm period in the north and the start of the Antarctic Cold Reversal in the south. Furthermore, the B/A was accompanied by a rapid sea level rise of about 20 m during meltwater pulse (MWP) 1A, whose exact timing is a matter of current debate. In-situ measured CO2 in the EPICA Dome C (EDC) ice core also revealed a remarkable jump of 10±1 ppmv in 230 yr at the same time. Allowing for the modelled age distribution of CO2 in firn, we show that atmospheric CO2 could have jumped by 20–35 ppmv in less than 200 yr, which is a factor of 2–3.5 greater than the CO2 signal recorded in-situ in EDC.”
So there was a historically rapid rise in CO2 at the start of the BA warm period, which was a NH event and corresponded with a cooling in the Antarctic. Basically a massive meltwater pulse that disrupted ocean currents and the way heat moved around the system. Not a net global warming.
Reference : Abrupt rise in atmospheric CO2 at the onset of the Bølling/Allerød: in-situ ice core data versus true atmospheric signals
https://www.clim-past.net/7/473/2011/cp-7-473-2011.pdf
“So there was a historically rapid rise in CO2 at the start of the BA warm period”
And all TOTALLY NATURAL
And COOLING in the Antarctic, despite the massive rise of atmospheric CO2.
Thanks again for showing that CO2 has ZERO warming effect.
All the warming occurred within a span of a “few decades”. So if it took 200 years for the CO2 to rise as a consequence, that leaves little room for “amplifying” the warming beyond that which had already occurred. And then it cooled again right after that anyway — again without a concomitant “amplifying-the-cooling” draw-down in CO2 concentration.
Not according to Kawamura et al., 2003
During the 8.2 k global-scale cooling-warming event, temperatures dropped by multiple degrees and warmed back up again by multiple degrees within a span of just 150 years.
Kobashi et al., 2007
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.462.9271&rep=rep1&type=pdf
“A large number of paleoclimatic records over a hemispheric area show a large and abrupt climate change around 8200 years BP. However, the duration and general character of the event have been ambiguous. Here, we provide a precise characterization and timing of the event using methane and nitrogen isotopes in trapped air in an ice core. Climate change in Greenland and at a hemispheric scale was simultaneous (within ~4 years) as supported by climate model results (LeGrande et al., 2006). The event started around ~8175 years BP, and it took less than 20 years to reach the coldest period, with a magnitude of cooling of ~3.3 C in central Greenland. After 60 years of maximum cold, climate gradually recovered for 70 years to a similar state as before the event [+3.3 C within 70 years]. The total duration of the event was roughly 150 years. The fall in temperatures that accompanied the 8.2 ka event also corresponded with abrupt migrations of human populations and abandonment of sites ranging from Spain to Greece and in the Middle East (Gonzalez-Samperiz et al., 2009) …. Ice cores from Greenland (Alley et al., 1997) and Africa (Thompson et al., 2002) suggest that the 8.2 ka event was global in extent.”
—
Atwood et al., 2017
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/Atwood_etal_nature_submitted_2017.pdf
“The relatively stable climate of the Holocene epoch (11,700 yr BP-present) was punctuated by a period of large and abrupt climate change ca. 8,200 yr BP, when an outburst of glacial meltwater into the Labrador Sea drove large and abrupt climate changes across the globe. Polar ice and marine records indicate that annual average surface temperatures dropped by 2-6 °C in central Greenland (Fig. 1B) and by 1-3 °C in the North Atlantic Ocean and Europe. The associated climate perturbations are generally thought to have persisted for 100-150 years. … These events stretch our understanding of the dynamical principles that govern the climate system, given the lack of these events in the modern record and the inability of climate models to reproduce such variability.”
—
CO2 remained stable during both the warming and cooling events (unless one calls a 1-2 ppm change in 150 years significant).
The 25 D-O events during the last glacial, where temperatures rose and fell by 5 to 10 degrees C (10-15 degrees C for Greenland) within a span of decades that were “explained by internal variability of the climate system alone“, deemed global in scale, and they occurred without any changes in CO2 concentrations, which stayed steady at about 180 ppm throughout the warming and cooling. In other words, once again, no correlational or “amplifying” role for CO2.
Saha, 2015
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015PA002809/full
“During the last ice age there were several quasiperiodic abrupt warming events. The climatic effects of the so-called Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events were felt globally, although the North Atlantic experienced the largest and most abrupt temperature anomalies. Similar but weaker oscillations also took place during the interglacial period.”
—–
Mayewski, 2016
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU2016-2567.pdf
“The demonstration using Greenland ice cores that abrupt shifts in climate, Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events, existed during the last glacial period has had a transformational impact on our understanding of climate change in the naturally forced world. The demonstration that D-O events are globally distributed and that they operated during previous glacial periods has led to extensive research into the relative hemispheric timing and causes of these events. The emergence of civilization during our current interglacial, the Holocene, has been attributed to the “relative climate quiescence” of this period relative to the massive, abrupt shifts in climate that characterized glacial periods in the form of D-O events.”
—
Hewitt et al., 2016
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016EGUGA..18.8388H
“Many northern hemisphere climate records, particularly those from around the North Atlantic, show a series of rapid climate changes that recurred on centennial to millennial timescales throughout most of the last glacial period. These Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) sequences are observed most prominently in Greenland ice cores, although they have a global signature, including an out of phase Antarctic signal. They consist of warming jumps of order 10°C, occurring in typically 40 years, followed generally by a slow cooling”
—
Agosta and Compagnucci, 2016
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-40000-6_5
“During the D-O events, the high-latitude warming occurred abruptly (probably in decades to centuries), reaching temperatures close to interglacial conditions. Even though H and D-O events seemed to have been initiated in the North Atlantic Ocean, they had a global footprint.”
In sum, abrupt global warming and cooling events (and modern day changes of 0.05 C per decade since 1850 are not even close to being considered abrupt), there is no signature that would suggest CO2 is either a driver or an amplifier of climate changes.
And at no point in time in the Vostok core was peak CO2 EVER able to maintain peak temperature.
In fact, peak CO2 was ALWAYS as the temperature was cooling.
Doesn’t say much about the “heat-trapping” (lol) capability of atmospheric CO2 , does it. 😉
The CO2 data in that core indicates that CO2 concentration changed between 200 and 280 ppm. Mostly as a result of temperature change (outgasing of the oceans, that mechanism is well known). This time around it is slightly different, isn’t it?
“This time around it is slightly different, isn’t it?”
Yep, plants can now breathe properly.
There is NO scientific proof that enhanced atmospheric CO2 has ANY affect apart from enhanced plant growth.
“The qualifications aside – not much to find about this author – ”
http://www.rexfleming.com/RexFlemingResume.html
Nothing wrong with his bona fides, Doctorate in Atmospheric Science, employed by the NOAA. Currently president of an aviation insurance company, and novelist.
Not bothering to even look for your qualifications, Philip.
Here is the latest on mid-ocean geothermal flux and global temperatures
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/have-global-temperatures-reached-a-tipping-point-2573-458X-1000149.pdf
Is there a web service that one can post predictions to and get automatically reminded when the date went by so it can be checked if it was accurate?
“In other words, there is a 95% probability that 2019 temperatures will drop to levels not seen since the mid-1990s. ”
I bet against your prediction.
“Is there a web service that one can post predictions “
We could start with Wadhams, Gore, etc etc … and basically every self-aggrandised climate scientist.
It would be a LONG, LONG list !!
Solar cycle length correlates well with global temperature.
Proposed by Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen in 1991 who in a paper in Science demonstrated a ‘strikingly good agreement” between solar cycle lengths and land temperatures over the period 1860–1990. But Peter Laut demonstrated the correlation was due to poor data handling
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf
and Lassen himself in 1999 published a later paper showing the correlation broke down after 1990.
And oh look – the graph in the paper – sourced to Landscheit 2003, a paper in Energy & Environment – is truncated in 1990.
What nonsense.
2003 is a long time ago.
Svensmark et al., 2017
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
“In conclusion, a mechanism by which ions condense their mass onto small aerosols and thereby increase the growth rate of the aerosols, has been formulated theoretically and shown to be in good agreement with extensive experiments. The mechanism of ion-induced condensation may be relevant in the Earth’s atmosphere under pristine conditions, and able to influence the formation of CCN [clouds]. It is conjectured that this mechanism could be the explanation for the observed correlations between past climate variations and cosmic rays, modulated by either solar activity or supernova activity in the solar neighborhood on very long time scales. The theory of ion-induced condensation should be incorporated into global aerosol models, to fully test the atmospheric implications.”
(press release) The impact of changes in solar activity on Earth’s climate was up to seven times greater than climate models suggested according to new research published today in Nature Communications. Researchers have claimed a breakthrough in understanding how cosmic rays from supernovas react with the sun to form clouds, which impact the climate on Earth. The findings have been described as the “missing link” to help resolve a decades long controversy that has big implications for climate science.
—
Utomo, 2017
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/817/1/012045/pdf
“A similar result was also found for the relationship between solar activity and cosmic ray flux with a negative correlation, i.e. 0.69/year. When solar activities decrease, the clouds cover rate increase due-0.61/month and – to secondary ions produced by cosmic rays. The increase in the cloud cover rate causes the decrease in solar constant value and solar radiation on the earth’s surface [which leads to cooling]. … The increase in the formation rate of cloud would affect the decrease in the intensity of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. The relationship between cosmic rays and solar constant is an “opposite” relationship because of the negative correlation type (r < 0). The phenomenon of “opposite” is in a good agreement with the result by Svensmark (1997) who found a correlation between temperature and global cloud coverage with the cosmic rays. … [T]he climate also depends on variations in the flux of solar energy received by the earth’s surface. Variation in the solar energy flux is caused by variations in solar activity cycle. Thus the climate is a manifestation of how solar radiation is absorbed, redistributed by the atmosphere, land and oceans, and ultimately radiated back into space. Every variation of solar energy received at the earth’s surface and reradiated by the earth into space will have a direct impact on climate change on Earth.”
—
Huang et al., 2017
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437116308780 (full paper)
“Various scientific studies have investigated the causal link between solar activity (SS) and the earth’s temperature (GT). [T]he corresponding CCM [Convergent Cross Mapping] results indicate increasing significance of causal effect from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperature] since 1880 to recent years, which provide solid evidences that may contribute on explaining the escalating global tendency of warming up recent decades. … The connection between solar activity and global warming has been well established in the scientific literature. For example, see references [1–10]. … Among which, the SSA [Singular Spectrum Analysis] trend extraction is identified as the most reliable method for data preprocessing, while CCM [Convergent Cross Mapping] shows outstanding performance among all causality tests adopted. The emerging causal effects from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperatures], especially for recent decades, are overwhelmingly proved, which reflects the better understanding of the tendency of global warming.”
121 Sun-Climate papers from 2017
133 Sun-Climate papers from 2016
Sorry, but since this issue is taken seriously enough to be hotly debated among scientists, it is likely not viewed by those who actually debate the science as “nonsense”. Real scientists don’t just dismiss (“What nonsense”) that which violates their firmly-held beliefs.
“Sorry, but since this issue is taken seriously enough to be hotly debated among scientists, it is likely not viewed by those who actually debate the science as “nonsense”. Real scientists don’t just dismiss (“What nonsense”) that which violates their firmly-held beliefs.”The ‘nonsense’ is the solar cycle-temperature correlation stated by Fleming, it was discredited 15 years ago, including by a coauthor of the paper who originally proposed it.
A scientist would know this.
Nobody denies the existence of a solar influence on climate, indeed it seems to have been a major cause of the LIA, and to have played a part in early 20th century warming,
but Mike Lockwood showed that all the possible solar influences were of the wrong sign to explain recent GW.
“There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20070926023811/http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
“Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction “
Which is exactly why it will start to cool in the next several years.
Do you REALLY think the world’s oceans can dissipate the amount of energy they gained over the latter half of last century in a day or a year ??
Seems to be contradicted by other analyses.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TSI-20th-Century-Central-England-Smith-2017.jpg
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TSI-20th-Century-Northern-Hemisphere-Schneider-2015.jpg
Selective quote. You removed the timescale (last 20 years) and put up graphs covering hundreds of years! And you talk about ‘statistical malpractice’!
AGW became detectable from background noise mid 20th century. Since then trends in solar activity – whether you look at TSI or GCR flux or any other metric have been unable to explain the warning.
https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/TvsTSI.png
Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007. TSI from 1979 to 2015 from the World Radiation Center.
Don’t know what I’m being accused of here. The rural instrumental record doesn’t go back “hundreds of years” here . The proxy record for the Northern Hemisphere matches up rather well with the TSI record for the 20th century:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Total-Solar-Irradiance-NH-Temperatures-1700-2000s.jpg
Can you point out what about the little red trend at the end (1955-2010) is detectable against background noise?
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/two_millennia_annotated.png
Recent ocean warming is even considered to be “below the detection limit”, whereas temperature changes in the ocean naturally change 6 times greater/faster than they have in modern times.
Bova et al., 2016
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL071450/abstract
“The observational record of deep-ocean variability is short, which makes it difficult to attribute the recent rise in deep ocean temperatures to anthropogenic forcing. Here, we test a new proxy – the oxygen isotopic signature of individual benthic foraminifera – to detect rapid (i.e. monthly to decadal) variations in deep ocean temperature and salinity in the sedimentary record. We apply this technique at 1000 m water depth in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific during seven 200-year Holocene intervals. Variability in foraminifer δ18O [ocean temperature] over the past 200 years is below the detection limit [a change in ocean heat cannot be detected in the past 200 years], but δ18O [ocean temperature] signatures from two mid-Holocene intervals indicate temperature swings >2 °C within 200 years.”
The decadal-scale reduction in cloud cover since the 1980s can explain the warming since the 1980s, as it allowed more solar radiation to be absorbed by the oceans (the store of the Earth’s heat). Cloud cover changes in the tropics are modulated by solar activity.
The Earth’s temperature has warmed in the modern era as a consequence of the strong solar activity during the 20th century (the Modern Maximum) shielding cosmic ray intensification and thus reducing decadal-scale cloud cover, which leads to warming via an increase in absorbed surface solar radiation (as illustrated here by Ogurtsov et al., 2012 and detailed by Avakyan, 2013, McLean, 2014, and others).
Haine, 2016
“The anthropogenic melt from the Greenland ice sheet is still too small to be detected. … [N]o clear change in the delivery of Arctic freshwater to the North Atlantic due to human climate forcing.”
Hansen et al., 2016
“[W]e found that there is (yet) no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world’s best recorded region.”
Ding et al., 2014
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7499/full/nature13260.html
“Here we show that the recent warming in this region [northeastern Canada and Greenland] is strongly associated with a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation, which is a response to anomalous Rossby wave-train activity [planetary waves related to the Earth’s rotation] originating in the tropical Pacific. … This suggests that a substantial portion of recent warming in the northeastern Canada and Greenland sector of the Arctic arises from unforced natural variability.”
Parker and Ollier, 2017
“The loud divergence between sea-level reality and climate change theory—the climate models predict an accelerated sea-level rise driven by the anthropogenic CO2 emission—has been also evidenced in other works such as Boretti (2012a, b), Boretti and Watson (2012), Douglas (1992), Douglas and Peltier (2002), Fasullo et al. (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2006), Holgate (2007), Houston and Dean (2011), Mörner 2010a, b, 2016), Mörner and Parker (2013), Scafetta (2014), Wenzel and Schröter (2010) and Wunsch et al. (2007) reporting on the recent lack of any detectable acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise.”
Jones et al., 2016
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n10/full/nclimate3103.html
“Most observed trends [over the 36-year satellite data] are not unusual when compared with Antarctic palaeoclimate records of the past two centuries. … [C]limate model simulations that include anthropogenic forcing are not compatible with the observed trends. This suggests that natural variability overwhelms the forced response in the observations”
—
Stenni et al., 2017
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/cp-2017-40/cp-2017-40.pdf
“No continent-scale warming of Antarctic temperature is evident in the last century. … [M]ost of the trends observed since satellite climate monitoring began in 1979 CE cannot yet be distinguished from natural (unforced) climate variability, and are of the opposite sign [cooling] to those produced by most forced climate model simulations over the same post-1979 CE interval.”
“The proxy record for the Northern Hemisphere matches up rather well with the TSI record for the 20th century:”
No, it matches with the one shown in Soon et al. I’ve no idea how Willie came up with his composite, but every other one shows TSI peaking around 1985.
Here’s PMOD
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/plot/pmod/trend:12
You obviously have very little understanding of the reconstructions and where they come from, period. Take 4 minutes to read a concise summary:
https://notrickszone.com/2017/11/09/new-paper-most-modern-warming-including-for-recent-decades-is-due-to-solar-forcing-not-co2/
Oh dear, really Philip. ?????
When did the 20th century finish ?
You really do twist and turn , don’t you !!
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/619624main_solar%20irradiance%20graph.jpg
https://www.scisnack.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/TSI_KVS10_WLS05_v2.png
How about we take it to the top of the last cycle of the 20th century.
You know, stick with the time period that is actually being commented on.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/to:2001
Smoothed line seem pretty close, wouldn’t you agree, phlip.
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Soon_etal2015_NH_temp_TSI.jpg
Lets smooth the WFT TSI to 2004 shall we.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/to:2004/mean:20
OOPS, last cycle is greater than others, just like in Willie Soon’s graph.
So now you KNOW where he got it from and you don’t need to be confused any longer. 🙂
And yes, everybody KNOWS that the current cycle is significantly lower.
Expect cooling within the next few years.
As you like your science by means of jpeg
http://www.realclimate.org/images/soon_update.jpg
Caption. Updating the Soon (2005) correlations by correcting for an obsolete and almost certainly incorrect solar reconstruction (replacing with the SORCE reconstruction) and extending the temperature data to the present, shows an almost complete collapse of the initially impressive correlation.
[-snip, sorry but RC never allows skeptics to comment and so links to that site are not accepted here. -PG]
What goes around, rightfully comes around. At RC we’d never get the time of day that you enjoy here.
Obsolete? It’s the same solar reconstruction utilized in the Yndestad and Solheim (2017) paper:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Total-Solar-Irradiance-1700-2013-Yndestad-and-Solheim-2017.jpg
It’s only “certainly incorrect” to you because you’re not happy with its correspondence to temperature. I would suggest reading up about the observation-driven ACRIM vs. the model-driven PMOD here:
New Paper: Most Modern Warming, Including For Recent Decades, Is Due To Solar Forcing, Not CO2
Van Geel and Ziegler, 2013
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bas_Geel/publication/275459414_IPCC_Underestimates_the_Sun's_Role_in_Climate_Change/links/5543916f0cf234bdb21bd1e8.pdf
• [T]he IPCC neglects strong paleo-climatologic evidence for the high sensitivity of the climate system to changes in solar activity. This high climate sensitivity is not alone due to variations in total solar irradiance-related direct solar forcing, but also due to additional, so-called indirect solar forcings. These include solar-related chemical-based UV irradiance-related variations in stratospheric temperatures and galactic cosmic ray-related changes in cloud cover and surface temperatures, as well as ocean oscillations, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation that significant affect the climate.
• [T]he cyclical temperature increase of the 20th century coincided with the buildup and culmination of the Grand Solar Maximum that commenced in 1924 and ended in 2008.
• Since TSI estimates based on proxies are relatively poorly constrained, they vary considerably between authors, such as Wang et al. (2005) and Hoyt and Schatten (1997). There is also considerable disagreement in the interpretation of satellite-derived TSI data between the ACRIM and PMOD groups (Willson and Mordvinov, 2003; Fröhlich, 2009). Assessment of the Sun’s role in climate change depends largely on which model is adopted for the evolution of TSI during the last 100 years (Scafetta and West, 2007; Scafetta, 2009; Scafetta, 2013).
• The ACRIM TSI satellite composite shows that during the last 30 years TSI averaged at 1361 Wm-2, varied during solar cycles 21 to 23 by about 0.9 Wm-2, had increased by 0.45 Wm-2 during cycle 21 to 22 [1980s to 2000s] to decline again during cycle 23 and the current cycle 24 (Scafetta and Willson, 2009).
• By contrast, the PMOD TSI satellite composite suggests for the last 30 years an average TSI of 1366, varying between 1365.2 and 1367.0 Wm-2 that declined steadily since 1980 by 0.3 Wm-2.
• On centennial and longer time scales, differences between TSI estimates become increasingly larger. Wang et al. (2005) and Kopp and Lean (2011) estimate that between 1900 and 1960 TSI increased by about 0.5 Wm-2 and thereafter remained essentially stable, whilst Hoyt and Schatten (1997) combined with the ACRIM data and suggest that TSI increased between 1900 and 2000 by about 3 Wm-2 and was subject to major fluctuations in 1950-1980 (Scafetta, 2013; Scafetta, 2007).
It’s the Wilson and Scafetta (2014) update that’s been used here.
GISS????
Your blood flows with climate kool-aide, Philip.
Temperature trend from 2001 to present is pretty much dead flat, (actually slightly downwards) until the latest El Nino transient.
https://s19.postimg.org/b9yx58cxf/UAH_after_El_nino.png
Sorce also shows the 2002 peak about level with the previous two. Seems W. Soon was CORRECT, “no-realscience” propaganda site.. not so much. 🙂
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction-1.png
But I guess they will keep “adjusting” it, won’t they 😉
Come back to reality some day, and realise that the slight warming out of the COLD ANOMALY of the LIA has been HIGHLY BENEFICIAL for all life on Earth.
Does this leave any website with credible information that we can post links to here? Instead we get Dailymirror, Breitbart, Eike, Principia Scientifica, Kaltesonne from skeptics … great 😉
Cherry picking again. We directly cite many data sites here with the real observed data.
RC, credible??????? ROFLMAO !!!
About as much real science as we get from seb. !
ie EMPTY !!
Next you’ll want to use SkS or some other comedic site.
I see, when AndyG55 calls a website comedic that’s ok, when I do it, it’s not … #doublestandards
Poor seb doesn’t know that SkS is run by a cartoonist.
Although, to be fair, NONE of Cook’s cartoons could ever really have been called comedy.
“High Farce” would be a more appropriate description of both.
The idea that low solar states will increase cloud cover is irrational as that amounts to a large positive feedback. In reality cloud cover has declined since the solar wind weakened from the mid 1990’s.
“The temperature series is obtained by combining
the reconstruction of Mann et al. (1998)…….”
And the paper IMMEDIATELY breaks down.
The problem is not with the correlation, its with the FABRICATED temperatures used.
The temperature series in Fig 4 is total nonsense.
There was basically ZERO warming from 1980-1997.
I see that Sebastian and Philip, have no cogent reply to the paper.
Waiting, waiting for something beyond veiled ad homs and empty paragraphs,
“It should be fairly obvious why this author has it wrong. I don’t know why the skeptic community demands that the other side addresses everything they come up with or else it’s true.
The qualifications aside – not much to find about this author – someone who writes “there is no propensity for CO2 to store heat in a systematic way over time to produce a climate change effect”
Yawn………Zzzz…….
Come on you guys!
It should have been enough to point your attention to the author thinking that he is arguing against “CO2 stores heat”. Further, the author claims that CO2 warming is net zero because any warming at the bottom gets compensated by cooling at the top.
This is Harde (or Khan from last week) all over again. Maybe we are lucky and someone does a write up of what is wrong with that paper. If not, then nobody wanted to waste his/her time enough for you guys.
So, zero science from seb, yet again.
And the rude interjection at the end.
Expected.
CO2 does not store heat…. period.
Coming from you, that remark is really weird …
“This is Harde (or Khan from last week)”
Which you had zero scientific response to.
Nothing has changed.
Sebastian,
You go on and on about CO2 storage heat, which is actually is quite similar to CO2 is TRAPPING heat which warmists, media and ecoloonies say many times.
Come on, is that the best you got?
“which is actually is quite similar to CO2 is TRAPPING heat “
CO2 doesn’t TRAP heat, either.
Its a radiative gas, so it acts as a conduit for radiative energy. Basic physics.
And because some people like analogies,
….. its like using copper wire for passing electricity, rather than horse hair.
Shocking analogy, I know 😉
I know Andy.
Just pointing out the similarities to the meaning of the phrases.
I know you know.
And you know I know you know.
No, I am not and neither is anyone in climate science. Literally nobody is claiming that CO2 stores heat.
So it’s pretty telling if someone argues against this. One could almost call it a straw man …
Arguing this is similar to those arguments that try to explain that the greenhouse effect isn’t at all how a real greenhouse works and therefore it would be not real or something. That’s barking at the wrong tree and a sign that the author hasn’t understood what he/she is opposed to.
What are you trying to accomplish with this tactic? Posting something obviously false and then trying to waste peoples time by claiming that without a “scientific” reply the authors’ claims would be true because they stayed unrefuted?
So if I claim 23092039580349582 is a prime number and nobody can be bothered with replying in a scientific manner (no, saying it can be divided by 2 doesn’t cut it), this claim will hold and everyone in my community will now celebrate and use this number as evidence that mathematicians are all wrong because the claim has not been refuted in a blog’s comment section despite obviously being false? Is that how it works? 😉
Is there a difference between the claim that CO2 stores heat and CO2 holds heat long enough to keep us warm?
https://news.thomasnet.com/imt/2012/03/06/carbon-dioxide-how-can-one-little-molecule-be-such-a-big-troublemaker
“Greenhouse gases, especially CO2 and water vapor, are very good at absorbing infrared radiation, particularly around 15 µm. Eventually, almost all of the radiation in the earth’s atmosphere gets re-radiated back out into space, but the greenhouse gases hold it in long enough to generate a greenhouse effect in the planet’s atmosphere and keep us at a toasty 15°C.”
If CO2 acts like a blanket, absorbing heat energy, and prevents the heat from escaping, is this different than CO2 stores heat?
https://www.livescience.com/37743-greenhouse-effect.htm
“Carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases act like a blanket, absorbing IR radiation and preventing it from escaping into outer space.”
Do you agree or disagree that greenhouse gases retain heat before re-emitting it? What’s the definition of retain?
“So if I claim 23092039580349582 is a prime number and nobody can be bothered with replying in a scientific manner”
OMG, yet another mindless analogy to try to distract from your incompetence.
You obviously have zero comprehension of what constitutes REAL science.
“Posting something obviously false and then trying to waste peoples time ……”
So STOP DOING IT !!
” a sign that the author hasn’t understood”
No, its a sign that YOU haven’t understood.
Yes
Is this a scientist quote? “Holding it in long enough” in this context is a simplification, it doesn’t mean that each CO2 molecule holds the heat, waits long enough, and then releases it again.
Yes
Greenhouse gases retain heat in the system, not in the molecules they consist of.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retain
More zero-science, anti-fact rhetoric from seb.
“Greenhouse gases retain heat in the system”
RUBBISH.
Lets call CO2 what it actually is, a LWIR radiative gas….. nothing to do with a greenhouse. That anti-science nonsense has to stop.
Radiative gases DO NOT retain heat in the system, they get rid of it out of the system at altitude.
Energy in the lower atmosphere is passed immediately to the other 99.96% of the atmosphere and dealt with by convection and conduction.
There is ZERO science that allows anything but H2O to retain heat in the system and only then through its properties of latent heat and phase, and only for short periods.
There is NO empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does ANYTHING except enhance plant growth.
There is a problem when one tries to link solar output with temperature. Over the last 600 million years the Sun has increased its output by 6% while temperatures have dropped by 5C.
According to Fleming’s logic the increased solar output should have made the climate warmer and the resulting decrease in cosmic rays should also have made the climate warmer.
There is a technical term for a hypothesis like Fleming’s, which predicts the opposite of what happens. It is wrong.
I beg your pardon. That should have read
“Over the last 600 million years the Sun has increased its output by 6% while temperatures have dropped by 15C.”
The forcing equation used to predict the change in temperature due to changes in CO2 is
∆T = 5.35ln(final CO2/initial CO2) climate sensitivity/ warming rate due to forcing
Using the mid-range IPCC values and CO2 from Figure 2
5.35ln(280/7000)3/3.7 = -12.7C
Climate science produced a theoretical prediction of 12.7C cooling over 600 million years, compared with observed cooling of 15C This is much better than Fleming managed.
Can you point out where in “climate science” there is real-world experimental evidence of how much heating or cooling is caused in a body of water by increasing or decreasing CO2 concentrations in volumes of parts per million (+ or – 0.000001) in the air above it? How much water body cooling does a decrease in airborne CO2 concentration by -10 ppm cause? What are the real-world physical measurements?
You do understand that just because a “theoretical prediction” on scales of years to decades turns out to coincide with observed results, that doesn’t mean that that “theoretical prediction” has been scientifically verified. It’s still an hypothesis, if not just an assumption.
For example, the oceans’ heat content (0-700 m) has plummeted since the Medieval Warm Period (-0.65 C lower than 1,000 years ago):
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Ocean-Heat-Content-Rosenthal-13.jpg
During this time, CO2 levels have risen:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Holocene-CO2-10500-0-R.jpg
Therefore, CO2 levels rising cause ocean heat content to plummet.
If we predicted it, and it came true, therefore CO2-rise-causes-plummeting-ocean-heat-content is scientifically proved. Right, Entropic man?
roflmao.
Anyone who can see CO2 v temp correlation in this is having major hallucinations
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/CO2_Phanerozoic.png
Now apply your little imaginary formula to 200M years ago when the temperature was the same as 550M years ago, and CO2 levels were 1000ppm
OOPS !!
What’s the comment about a stopped clock ?
Kenneth Richard 5
Stop changing the subject.
I was discussing the data in Figure 2, which covers 600 million years.
You are complaining that the equation I used was theoretical. These equations are based on existing physics and tested by comparing prediction with observation.
Lacking duplicate planets on which to do controlled trials,that is the best one can do.
What I would like from you is an equation using physics which does not involve CO2 and correctly predicts the observed cooling over the last 600 million years.
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/CO2_Phanerozoic.png
Spot any correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Using Fig 2, have you done a calculation between 550M year when CO2 was 7000ppm, and 200M years, when CO2 was about 1000ppm.. but Earth was the SAME temperature.
Your little exercise is totally meaningless.
But its all you have.
Considering the oceans are where 93% of the heat energy in the Earth system resides, and the atmosphere only holds 1% or less, it is not “changing the subject” to ask you to provide observational evidence/physical measurements from a real-world experiment showing how much cooling or warming is elicited in a body of water (which corresponds to the oceans, of course) by decreasing or increasing the CO2 concentration in the air above it (the body of water) by, say, 10 ppm (0.00001). Please provide the real world observational results. The physical measurements. “Comparing prediction with observation” is not confirmation that the real-world physics operate as one believes they do. That’s not how science works. Especially since climate models have been so flagrantly wrong over the last few decades. (For example, 114 of 117 climate model simulations failed to accurately predict 1993-2012 temperature changes by more than a factor of two.)
For decades (1940s, 1950s), frontal lobotomies were believed to “cure” mental illness in patients who had their brain cored with an ice chisel through the eye socket due to “comparing predictions with observations”. In other words, confirmation bias drove the perceptions. They even earned the “discoverer” of this scientific medical practice a Nobel Prize. We don’t “confirm” an hypothesis by making a prediction and then having something close to what we predicted happen.
600 million years is far too remote a time frame to derive anything meaningful. Every year it seems like we “discover” something we never knew before about the mya past. For example:
http://phys.org/news/2016-05-early-earth-air-today-atmosphere.html
Early Earth’s air weighed less than half of today’s atmosphere
The idea that the young Earth had a thicker atmosphere turns out to be wrong. New research from the University of Washington uses bubbles trapped in 2.7 billion-year-old rocks to show that air at that time exerted at most half the pressure of today’s atmosphere. The results, published online May 9 in Nature Geoscience, reverse the commonly accepted idea that the early Earth had a thicker atmosphere to compensate for weaker sunlight. The finding also has implications for which gases were in that atmosphere, and how biology and climate worked on the early planet.
“For the longest time, people have been thinking the atmospheric pressure might have been higher back then, because the sun was fainter,” said lead author Sanjoy Som, who did the work as part of his UW doctorate in Earth and space sciences. “Our result is the opposite of what we were expecting.”
Using more manageable (recent) dating, can you explain why Holocene CO2 increased as ocean heat content (in degrees C) plummeted…since you believe CO2 increases cause OHC to rise?
“comparing prediction with observation.”
….. not just for one pair of points. !!
A formula has to hold for all points.
AND YOUR’S DOESN’T.
Those are measurements at over half a kilometre depth; it takes a long time for the heat to penetrate that deep, so there’s a substantial lag in the response. As the paper notes:
“The current response of surface temperatures to the ongoing radiative perturbation is substantially higher than the response of the ocean’s interior, due to the long whole-ocean equilibration time. ”
And, as the Press Release for Rosenthal stated
” The authors attribute the cooling from 7,000 years ago until the Medieval Warm Period to changes in Earth’s orientation toward the sun, which affected how much sunlight fell on both poles. In 1600 or so, temperatures started gradually going back up. Then, over the last 60 years, water column temperatures, averaged from the surface to 2,200 feet, increased 0.18 degrees C, or .32 degrees F. That might seem small in the scheme of things, but it’s a rate of warming 15 times faster than at any period in the last 10,000 years,”
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3130
“it takes a long time for the heat to penetrate that deep, so there’s a substantial lag in the response.”
You say that, and then you expect the solar energy from the Grand Solar Maximum of the latter half of last century to magically dissipate over night?
Cognitive dissonance. !
ARGO from 2003, pre-adjustment.
https://s19.postimg.org/7h5rb639f/ARGO_NH.png
Before 2003, was based on AGW Agenda driven models, data was sparse, infilling and fabrication was rife. (like the current surface temperature farce)
And again, why are people SO SCARE of a slight warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.
CRAZY !!
We went through this just a few days ago. They get the 15-times-faster claim by comparing a 60-year (or 55-year) trend to an 8,000-year overall trend, which is statistical malpractice. We don’t compare the temperature change that occurred over the course of 1 year to the change that occurred over a 35-year period and claim that because the 1-year period changed by, say, 0.5°C (like 2015 to 2016 did), that therefore we are warming at a rate o 5.0°C per decade and this is 30 times faster than the 1979-2014 rate (0.12°C per decade). Why do you insist on repeating this claim, Philip? Here’s (the red line) what the 0.18°C between 1955 and 2010 looks like when added on to the Rosenthal et al., 2013 graph. Does this look like it’s 15 times faster?
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/two_millennia_annotated.png
Statistical malpractice from Rosenthal et al.:
“Levitus et al. (2012) report a mean ocean warming of the 0-700 m ocean layer of 0.18°C between 1955 and 2010 [55 years], corresponding to ~0.033°C per decade. To obtain a first order comparison, we assume that our records represent the World Ocean and thus are comparable in volume with the current estimates (Levitus et al., 2012). Assuming the intermediate depth ocean (0-700 m) cooled between 10 and 2 Ka [8,000 years] by ~1.5 °C we calculate a cooling rate 0.002°C per decade.”
@Entropic. I would be looking to know what ranges of radiation the sun has increased by and whether some bands had decreased, less solar wind perhaps, allowing more cosmic days through. Also I would be keen to know by how much the atmosphere had thinned over that time. I don’t think you can dismiss the argument by saying that the suns output has increased by 6% yet temoersfures have devlined. co2 over the last 600 million years won’t account for tempsture changes. A more nuanced understanding of solar and magnetic effects may well do.
[…] Ref.: https://notrickszone.com/2018/04/05/ex-noaa-climate-scientist-no-role-of-co2-in-any-signi%EF%AC%81can… […]
Kenneth Richard 5
Your link was paywalled. Please give me the numbers.
I hope you are aware that Ocean Heat Content is measured in Joules, not degrees centigrade. The oceans are currently gaining energy at 3×10^22 Joules/ year,equivalent to an imbalance of 0.7watts/sq. M. and a warming of 0.05C/year
I have done a number of OHC calculations over the years and the numbers you quote are ridiculously large.
OHC is modelled before 2003. (very sparse measurements, Southern ocean “mostly made up”)
https://s19.postimg.org/ixs2bgg1f/OceanHeat.jpg
And WHY do all AGW sympathisers seem to want everyone to go back to the cold bleak period of the LIA.
Quite bizarre !!!
Show us how and where measurements of OHC were taken before 2003..
Funny how much measure OHC has changed recently
http://i55.tinypic.com/2i7qn9y.jpg
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
If you can’t see the problem where the measured OHC level has suddenly become adjusted to the same trend as Agenda based pre-2003 models, then you obviously have both eyes blinded by too much AGW kool-aide.
Funny how you managed to compare 0-700m to 0-2000m OHC …
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png is the correct NOAA graph … your “flat” area is visible, isn’t it?
Yes we know they splice on new data and very sparse data in an attempt to hide the non-warming in the 0-700m layer.
Meanwhile to placate seb’s utter panic at a tiny rise in heat content out of the coldest period in 10,000 years.
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/rosenthal-2013-figure-2c-annotated.png
Let’s put it in perspective
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Ocean-Rosenthal-13-CO2.jpg
Rosenthal in degrees C, cooling to the COLDEST period in 10,000 years
recent in joules x 10⁻²², ie fractions of degree C
Yes, I am aware. I’m using the degrees Centigrade figures from the Rosenthal et al., 2013 abstract (which are merely converted from Joules).
The oceans warmed by “only about 0.1°C” in the last 50 years.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180103160129.htm
“Our precision is about 0.2 ºC (0.4 ºF) now, and the warming of the past 50 years is only about 0.1 ºC,”
Here’s what that looks like relative to the last 10,000 years. Notice the high resolution graph on the far right:
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/rosenthal-2013-figure-2c-annotated.png
Also notice that far more conspicuous rises and falls in temperatures in decadal and centennial scale occurred during the Holocene than now.
Only about 0.1°C in 50 years is 0.02°C per decade. Compare this to natural variability, which has been estimated to occur at 6 times this rate.
Bova et al., 2016
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL071450/abstract
“The observational record of deep-ocean variability is short, which makes it difficult to attribute the recent rise in deep ocean temperatures to anthropogenic forcing. Here, we test a new proxy – the oxygen isotopic signature of individual benthic foraminifera – to detect rapid (i.e. monthly to decadal) variations in deep ocean temperature and salinity in the sedimentary record. We apply this technique at 1000 m water depth in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific during seven 200-year Holocene intervals. Variability in foraminifer δ18O [ocean temperature] over the past 200 years is below the detection limit [a change in ocean heat cannot be detected in the past 200 years], but δ18O [ocean temperature] signatures from two mid-Holocene intervals indicate temperature swings >2 °C within 200 years.”
Uh, no. Levitus et al., has it warming by 0.09°C in the 0-2000 m layer during 1955-2010. 0.05C/yr would be almost 3 degrees C in those 55 years.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2012GL051106
“The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C.”
What numbers are ridiculously large?
In the article Dr Fleming has the absorption of radiation by H2O and CO2 the wrong way around. Look at the NASA diagram in this article (ref included but I do not know how to post the diagram here) https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2011/10/. My estimate is that the H20/CO2 ratio is around 10 and not 5. The graph included by Sunsettommy to the article is another indication. I would have thought everyone knows that CO2 only absorbs radiation in a very small wavelength range (around 14.8 micron) while H2O (gas or water vapor) absorbs over a much larger range. This is in addition to there being a much higher partial pressure of water vapor ( up to 2.5%)in the atmosphere than that of CO2 (400ppm which varies with height)
It should also be noted that the absorptivity and emissivity of liquid water is close to unity across the full range of wavelength from UV to microwaves. The emissivity of solid water (ice) varies from about 0.3 (reflecting much light and other radiation) to about 0.8 depending on its crystal structure. The effect of clouds particularly in the tropic determines and controls much of the weather which in turn determines climate.
That’s laughable. I’ve had every single one of my comments deleted there. Same with SkS. I gave up a long time ago. They only allow skeptics to comment if the comment itself advances their agenda.
It’s not Soon’s reconstruction, Philip.
Honestly, Svensmark should get Nobel Prize for his explanation of climate change. It’s well enough confirmed by palaeoclimate data, and by CERN measurements.
You mean these CERN measurements? https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/10/cloud-experiment-sharpens-climate-predictions
“The results also show that ionisation of the atmosphere by cosmic rays accounts for nearly one-third of all particles formed, although small changes in cosmic rays over the solar cycle do not affect aerosols enough to influence today’s polluted climate significantly.”
That’s no confirmation …
Excellent work. But leaves aside the ozone layer. The amount of ozone depends on the Ultraviolet component of sunlight. Recent intrusions of cold arctic air into the continents may be caused by aberrant behavior of the polar vortex. What is the cause? I speculate it is due to formation of an arctic inversion layer (strong UV) when the sun is active, with a stable polar vortex, and a weakening of the inversion when the sun is quiet, leading to the cold air incursions we have been seeing. This behavior may contribute to the cooling of land areas of the northern hemisphere, in addition to the cloud effects discussed by Dr. Fleming.
“The relationship of when a solar Grand Minima occurs always involves these four giant planets in their relationship with the Sun”
Solar cycles, including solar minima, grand or otherwise, are finely ordered by Earth and Venus in combination with Jupiter and Uranus, and Jupiter and Neptune during a solar minimum. Configurations of the Jovian bodies only have nothing to do with solar minima.
“The length of a sunspot cycle (LSC) is an indicator of the Sun’s eruptional activity.”
The shortest sunspot cycles occur during longer solar minima, because the Jupiter-Earth-Venus triplet return faster to Neptune than they do with Uranus because Uranus orbits faster than Neptune.
[…] Ex-NOAA Climate Scientist: ‘No Role Of CO2 In Any Significant Change Of The Earth’s Climate’ […]
[…] – Ex-NOAA Climate Scientist: ‘No Role Of CO2 In Any Significant Change Of The Earth’s Climate’: […]
I don’t understand how anyone can say that the science is settled, or that there is 99.9% agreement on AGW (David Pakman) after reading these articles and comments. And no one addresses the concern that .04 of .1% of the atmosphere cannot be the main driver of world climate.
Because that’s what is believed to be true. Beliefs are unfalsifiable.
If you really try to argue that something can’t be the driver of the current warming (not world climate) because of the small concentration, you’ve already lost the argument.
Never undererstimated small things.
@Kenneth: it’s not a belief, you can easily disprove a theory by bringing up just one example where it doesn’t work. So far … nothing. What you can’t do is actually proving that a theory (in physics) is correct. The popular skeptics argument that it can’t be correct unless there is proof is just a troll attempt.