The number of papers appearing recently showing that the sun has a major impact on the Earth’s climate is truly baffling. After all how could a twinkly little star 150 million kilometers away, separated from the Earth by empty space, possibly impact our climate?
Everyone knows that trace gas CO2 drives climate 95%, that it’s the Earth’s climate-control knob, and that those who don’t believe it are like malicious Holocaust deniers, see here and here.
Also “Holocaust-like deniers” are a Chinese-British team of scientists led by Fengling Yu. They actually had the temerity to publish a skeptic paper in the journal The Holocene. The paper’s title: Mid-Holocene variability of the East Asian monsoon based on bulk organic δ13C and C/N records from the Pearl River estuary, southern China. Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne website.
According to the paper’s abstract, the Chinese-British team reconstructed “the mid-Holocene EAM history from the Pearl River estuary, southern China, using bulk organic carbon isotopes (δ13C), total carbon to total nitrogen (C/N) ratios and total organic carbon (TOC) concentration.”
From the results they conclude (emphasis added):
Results suggest a general decreasing trend in monsoonal precipitation from 6650 to 2150 cal. yr BP because of the weakening Northern Hemisphere insolation most likely related to the current precession circle. Superimposed on this trend are apparent dry–wet oscillations at centennial to millennial timescales most likely in response to solar activity.”
Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and chemist Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt comment at their Die kalte Sonne website:
Especially the cold phases of the North Atlantic described by Gerard Bond were represented by distinct dry periods in the investigated core from southern China. Fengling Yu and colleagues concluded that the largest part of the observed climatic fluctuations in their study can be explained by changes in solar activity.
The authors also gave thought to how the the sun has an impact on on climate. Presented are the two most important solar amplification models via UV and cosmic radiation. With respect to impact on monsoons, the scientists speculate that the solar-dependent temperature changes influence the strength of Siberian highs. During phases of strong solar activity the Siberian highs were more intense, which led to stronger winter monsoons with reduced precipitation.
Many of the solar-synchronous climate cycles documented in the study are well-known from Chinese history. During the warm and stable wet phase of 7200 to 6000 years before present, the Neolithic Yangshao culture of the Yellow River as well as the Majiabang culture at the lower Yangtze level reached its zenith. The sudden cold phase 4000 years ago led to the failure of the Longshan and Liangzhu cultures in eastern China.”
So there we have it: yet another relatively new study showing the sun is the main driver and that human cultures flourish in warm phases and fail when it turns cold.
But be careful! Believing that hard science will get you accused of behaving like a Holocaust denier by the intolerant, oppressive CO2 zealots, a.k.a. frustrated scientists fully exhausted of scientific argument.
Yet, if one gives even just an ounce of thought to what Micha Tomkiewicz asserts, then you can only reach the conclusion that he’s got some loose bolts rattling around upstairs.
He is obviously totally clueless to how insulting and offensive he is being to researchers like Fengling Yu et al who are solely doing honest science. Tomkiewicz is a sad case that warrants only our deepest pity.
=========================
Update: And yet another NEW study! Hat-tip: reader Roger L.
you may also check this one out:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1460.html
Thanks
I wonder how long it’s going to take before the masterminds at Nature figure out that all the different “regionals” combined make up the “global”.
Pierre, the article is already mentioned on Kalte Sonne .. did not see it there before .. i got the full paper two days ago by mail.
http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=3254
The original paper of Fengling Yu
“Mid-Holocene variability of the East Asian monsoon based on bulk organic δ13C and C/N records from the Pearl River estuary, southern China”
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/10/11/0959683611417740.full.pdf+html
[Yes, and it continues: “Results suggest a general decreasing trend in monsoonal precipitation from 6650 to 2150 cal. yr BP because of the weakening Northern Hemisphere insolation most likely related to the current precession circle. Superimposed on this trend are apparent dry–wet oscillations at centennial to millennial timescales most likely in response to solar activity.” -PG]
PG, i’ve got quickly through the paper, can you please show me, where this paper exactly contradicts GW theory ?
That’s not the question.
The question is: Would you even read or listen to anything in any paper that contradicts AGW?
You haven’t done so in 10 years or more, and so there is no reason to think you are about to begin doing so today. It doesn’t matter how many papers or data get presented. You and your lot will continue believing trace gas CO2 is the control knob of the world’s climate no matter what. That’s why it is a waste of time having you in this discussion.
How does one “contradict the GW theory”? Has it risen to the status of a scientific theory yet? If so, it should make predictions. Are the IPCC projections predictions? If so: they have already failed, as the current temperatures are below the predicted ones for the real emissions scenario.
So come up with a new theory or leave the field.
And more failure of the “Global Warming theory”, if one wants to call it that.
Models fail to hindcast past climate on local, regional and global level:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/we-cant-predict-the-climate-on-a-local-regional-or-continental-scale/
Of course, the Global Warming-Industrial Complex will ignore this; they have in the past. Which tells me that what they are doing is not science.
The Local: Snow in the Black Forest and elsewhere; photo
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20120516-42589.html
(not entirely uncommon during this time of year, we currently have the “Eisheiligen” – “ice saints”, some May nights in which frost does happen. )
According to the warmists snow was supposed to be rare and exciting in the dead of winter, never mind the middle of May! Oh, I forgot. Snow in May is a sign of accelerating warming.
A thing from the past.
One orchestra won’t come out to play because it’s too cold.
http://www.lz.de/aktuelles/aktuelle_meldungen_aus_der_region/6725782_Landluftkonzert_verschoben.html
Concert postponed due to it being to cold to play wood-wind instruments.
Can’t they bring some bottled CO2 with them to create a local backradiation heat island? Or even better, Methane; it’s 22 times as strong.
I thought there’d be plenty of methan in the “Landluft”. 😉
That was before we had bio gas converters. Now, cow dung and everything else that fouls is used in those. The countryside doesn’t smell like it used to.
It was a day of the Cold Sophie – Tag der kalten Sophie
The same thing happened in Zakopane and Tatra Mountain last night. The temperature in country doesn’t exceed 13°C, and in the mountain it was snowing at freezing point. It’s a cold-rain and windy weather, typical for November, however.
http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,1342,title,Na-Podhale-nawet-wrocila-zima-prognoza-pogody,wid,14492710,wiadomosc.html
Merkel ditches environment minister Röttgen after sending him to Kamikaze mission in NRW poll, where he got routed. Successor is Altmaier, tasked with completing the Energiewende.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/05/16/uk-germany-minister-idUKBRE84F0PK20120516
Impossible to say at the moment whether this signals a return to sanity in the energy politics or a continuation of the destabilizing trends of the past.
Peter Heller at Science Skeptical has a good essay and insights on that. Röttgen is also the subject of my latest post.