Die kalte Sonne website, which is now one of Germany’s most widely read and respected climate science sites, presents two more articles on temperature reconstructions below. The reconstructions are just the latest in a long, growing series of temperature reconstructions globally.
They all have two things in common: 1) almost all show wide temperature variations in sync with solar activity (note here I write “activity” and not “irradiance”, and it sure would be nice if warmist scientists some day learned the difference) and 2) they all disagree with the IPCC CO2-centric computer simulations.
Which one should we believe? Models written by end-of-world physicists or the real, measured data gathered by geoscience experts? Duh! That’s a tough one!
(Click here for some advice to modellers who think they can model the universe from within the confines of their air-conditioned offices.)
What follows are two short essays from Die kalte Sonne website:
No. 1
Sun Beneath the Earth: Solar Activity Cycles in Tropical Caves Are Revealed
Translated by P Gosselin
A Danish team of scientists led by geoscientist Mads Faurschou Knudsen of the University of Aarhus published a study on the climate impact of solar activity fluctuations in the sub tropics in the journal The Holocene. The group studied how four stalactites in caves in China, Turkey and the USA archived the climate over the last 10,000 years. Using oxygen isotopes, the scientists reconstructed the moisture development at these locations, whereby the corresponding delta-18O-values reflected monsoon intensity.
Applying frequency analysis, the scientists could show characteristic cycles in the monsoon history in the regions of study that follow the known 210-year Suess/de Vries solar cycle. The authors conclude:
The temporal relationship between the Suess solar cycle and particularly significant 210 yr oscillations in the speleothem δ18O records therefore supports the notion that solar variability played a significant role in driving centennial-scale changes in the hydrological cycle in the subtropics during the Holocene.“
Additional suggested reading: Mangini’s-curves-stark-natural-climate-fluctuations-over-last-8000-years/“.
Thanks to MC for research help.
No. 2 New Finnish Study Confirms Coupling Between Sun and NAO, NAO and Temperature
Translated/edited by P. Gosselin
Global and regional temperature development is impacted by numerous climate factors. A reliable quantitative weighting of the various natural and anthropogenic processes is, despite what the IPCC likes to have us believe – still not possible. Finnish scientists Samuli Helama and Jari Holopainen have investigated and checked the springtime temperature development over the last 260 years for southwest Finland for a statistical correlation to see if there are signs of solar activity cycles and ocean cycles being involved.
Their study appeared recently in the renown geosciences journal Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology.
The scientists found that the temperature is strongly coupled to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which represents the atmospheric pressure difference between Icelandic lows and Azores highs. It concerns foremost the last 160 years, as the barometric pressure measurements for reconstructing the NAO for the time before 1850 are possibly not reliable, the authors write.
The scientists took it a step further and asked themselves what actually could be driving the NAO? And they discovered something surprising. Over long periods during the 20th century they found a statistically significant correlation between solar sunspot activity and the NAO Index. The correlations improved when the time intervals were viewed on decadal scales and the data filtered accordingly. A significant impact on the NAO by the sun has also already been shown by other studies as well.
After Helama and Holopainen were able to show good agreement between sunspots and the NAO, as well as the NAO and the temperature for their southwest region of investigation, they checked the direct relation between solar activity and temperature. Here it turned out there was only a correlation for part of the time, and there were longer periods that were not statistically coupled.
How can this be explained? Climate is a very complex product of multiple, interacting factors. A direct correlation between solar activity and temperature development is thus something that just cannot be expected. The scientists suspect that the sun as the primary pulse generator also possibly causes internal climate cycles that are superimposed on the solar signal. The NAO here could act as a sort of intermediator between the solar activity fluctuations and the Earth’s climate.
Other factors that could adversely impact the correlation between the sun and temperature include time lags in the transposition of a climate impulse, or cooling events through sun-blocking aerosols from large volcanic eruptions. Moreover in needs to be checked if the correlation improves when one checks the development of cosmic rays (instead of sunspots) with temperature.
The study makes an important contribution to the puzzle in understanding the interaction between the sun, ocean cycles and temperature development. Research in this area needs to be intensified.
Nearly everything in nature has a resonant frequency. There is no reason to think that this isn’t true of the various ocean basins. Sound can resonate. So can temperature. Temperature resonance usually has very long periods. The North Atlantic seems to resonate at either 60 to 70 years, or, during ice ages, shorter times on the order of 20 to 25 years. The South Pacific may resonate at about 200 years, in time with the Suess/DeVries cycle. The El Niño/La Niña cycles spawn rainfall cycles in the US that are at 1/3 of the 11-year sunspot cycle. Something in the mid-pacific is resonant at that frequency. And so on….
Right, and when you get multiple systems resonating at their own individual frequencies, you can get weird amplifications at times when their periods line up in certains ways. The system can become quiet if they cancel each other out, or go wild if they line up to amplify each other. It’s like turning off the grinding wheel on your workbench. When the frequency of the wheel matches the natural frequency of the workbench, the whole system growls and shakes. So I could imagine that when certain resonating climate systems align, things could cancel each other out – or amplify. That’s the risk we are facing with the AMO, PDO and solar activity all headed down in sync together – maybe for the first time in a long time. Just adding up amplitudes may be a serious under-estimation.
Very useful post – to add to the long list of disappointments for the modellers. I think the GCMs have some practical value in supporting weather forecasts where they can extrapolate and interpolate amongst real observations of existing features for a few days ahead. But they have demonstrated no practical value whatsoever in climate forecasting.
In fact we would be better off without them. See for example the ludicrous desalination plants built in Australia, or the ten successive years of positive bias in year-ahead temperature forecasts in the UK, and the local difficulties encountered with shortage of de-icing resources at airports and for roads after heavy snow followed not long after forecasts of a mild winter there.
On the global scale, we would undoubtedly be hugely better off – politically, economically, morally, intellectually and scientifically – if these models had never existed – given the prominent role given them by the odious IPCC to help it achieve one political success after another.
“…no practical value whatsoever in climate forecasting”
They could have some value if the climate factors were honestly parameterized. But the way they are now, they are pure trash. A series of scientists have confirmed that just in the recent days, e.g. Lohmann, Marotzke to name 2.
It strikes me that it ought to be a good thing that there are people researching into and experimenting with these models. The problem is the de facto Faustian bargain between them and political players. The cautions and provisos of the modellers are swept aside by scientists who want to downplay uncertainty to get political influence, and by politicians for whom the headline is far more important than the small print that few will read. Hence we are in the current mess of absurdities such as carbon trading, Climate Change Acts, windfarms, bio-fuels, and so on, and behind all of that, uncounted consultancies, agencies, NGOs, and even lots of ordinary decent people fooled by all the confident talk of crisis. Would this have gotten this far without the models? I think not. There really is nothing else to build a CO2 crisis on. Not observations of weather events, nor ice extents, nor sea level rises, nor ocean heat content, etc etc. All unremarkable given past variability and trends over the last 150 years or so. Not basic theory which gives modest rises in mean temperature for doublings of CO2. It is only in the models that we see displayed a magical positive feedback that produces the stuff for headlines and scaremongering. A positive feedback the climate system itself has failed to display during many a big excursion of CO2 levels in the past, as well as in the present.
It might be all fake, but the sickness I experience from it is authentic enough
The work by Samuli Helama and Jari Holopainen makes for fascinating reading – thanks PG.
As you say at the end: “Research in this area needs to be intensified.” Aye to that indeed.
“That’s the risk we are facing with the AMO, PDO and solar activity all headed down in sync together – maybe for the first time in a long time. Just adding up amplitudes may be a serious under-estimation.”
That is a kinda frightening thought.
Prepare for funfairs on the Thames. 😉
Just to reiterate that the Hockey Stick formula made two fatal errors. One, it chose the lowest point in the 60 year multidecadal oscillation for the anomaly measurement, so of course doubled the slope since instantly. Not only is it dishonest and bad statistics, it is so openly obvious to those in the business that it means he is protected from all sides against questioning mainly because he was producing it for those very authorities who would monitor him.
Secondly the same formula has been shown to produce an upward trend in a sine wave which is neutral by nature at all points. This proved the slope was artificially introduced and as such only exists on Michael Mann’s computer.
The IPCC have been exposed as complicit as in 1995 their old graph showing a much warmer MWP vanished and was replaced with the other. The other science manuals around the world however still have the older graph if anyone thought it didn’t ever exist, so clearly both can’t be right, and as the hockey stick is pretty much the creation of a single individual, while the older universally used graphs were, to use their own term in its correct place, a consensus, the collusion required to literally rewrite history soviet style was truly universal. The evidence is here for all to see and no one has ever been called to account. Yet.
Statistics is applied mathematics. The decision to start with a low is an example of bad research. For the same reason a government should preferably start at an economic low, if they want to attribute expected improvements to their politics. The Hockey Stick is a compilation of more errors. First, it copied a property of Piltdown Man, whose skull was composed of fragments from a human and a monkey. Here proxy estimates were combined with recent temperature measurements in order to hide a decline. Second, it used a small and biased sample of trees. Third, it used the exploratory technique of principal components analysis combined with a obscure weighting formula, producing hockey sticks from random data. It is a good example of fraudulent research.
Excellent synopsis.
I reviewed Mann’s method, and found that the statistical bias he applied was for temperatures proportional to the time rate of change of temperatures, which defines an exponential function of temperature independent of the initial data.
The main obstacle to overcome, of course, was the MWP. This he eliminated by taking an “average” of what he knew about the Northern Hemisphere, and what he manufactured about the Southern Hemisphere (there were insufficient data to draw any conclusions). This “average” came out to be a null variation.
Did Mann know that his “hockey stick” would look like a “hockey stick” no matter what the input data were? Of course he knew, but his only work since the “hockey stick” has been fighting abuse from “deniers” and this has been his full-time job.
If he had any confidence in what he did he would have no concern for “deniers.”
Mr Mann is nothing but a criminal, with a most irritating condescending and supercilious air about him
Should the title not read Climat Change Is Natural ???
This via climate depot; German science skeptical has analyzed sea level adjustments over time using the wayback machine. It looks like the taxpayer-funded sea level researchers try their best to keep the adjusted sea level rise over 3 mm/yr no matter what the data from satellites or tide gauges say.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.de/2012/04/analysis-finds-satellite-data-has-been.html
Mörner is right; never trust them. They have NEVER adjusted downwards.
“Adjusted downwards”
Does not compute – we haven’t got an algorithm for adjusting downwards……. .
I wonder if damages could be brought, given that Australian property owners get blocked from building on their land based on sea level rise projections.
Good question Dirk;-)
Pas de chance (or, if you want to Accentuate the Positive: that of a snowball in hell): first you would have to have something like a revolution, so the former powers might be subjected to a principal reckoning on all fronts. Which is neither to be expected nor in any way desirable. As it is, any government will invoke the precautionary principle and point to The Consensus: “We trusted the UN and 97 % of Those Who Know; you blind skeptics trusted only your own shortsighted reason…” The fact that they were not only 97 %, but 100 % wrong changes nothing.
“The fact that they were not only 97 %, but 100 % wrong changes nothing.”
So, off they go in their CL class Merx, back to their ill-gotten gains and nothing and nobody can everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr be found to blame, made responsible and….. “I was only following orders”………. .
Of course, in the UK they will have all been Knighted as well.