Scientists Ascribe Climate Changes
To Solar Forcing – No CO2 Attribution
In recent months, there have been dozens of papers published in the scientific literature ascribing variations in temperature and precipitation (climate) to corresponding variations in solar forcing.
Another new paper, Zhang et al., 2017, has just been published online. The nine scientists contributing to the research place special emphasis on the relationship between solar activity and climate for the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau region of Central Asia for the last 10,000-12,000 years.
The authors link high and low solar activity to correspondingly high and low temperatures and precipitation. Undulating millennial- and centennial-scale temperatures are found to vary by about 2.5°C throughout the Holocene. No mention is made of carbon dioxide as an influential factor affecting climate change.
Although the instrumental record for the region documents an abrupt warming in recent decades (which aligns with the Modern Grand Maximum), the proxy evidence from subfossil chironomids used to reconstruct temperature does not show a significant or unusual regional warming trend during the last century.
Holocene high-res. quantitative summer temp. reconstruction …
southeast margin of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau [Central Asia]
Zhang et al., 2017
1. The record suggests the summer temperature varies by ~2.5 °C across the entire period. A generally warmer period occurred between c.8500 and c.6000 cal yr BP and a cooling trend was initiated from c.5500 cal yr BP. The overall pattern broadly matches the summer insolation at 30N and the Asian Summer Monsoon records from the surrounding regions suggesting that summer temperatures from the southeast margin of the QTP [Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau] respond to insolation forcing and monsoon driven variability on a multi-millennial time scale. Modifications of this overall trend are observed on the finer temporal resolution and we suggest that solar activity could be an important mechanism driving the centennial-scale variability. It may have a strengthened effect in the late Holocene when the monsoon influence weakened.
2. We highlight that solar activity likely plays an enhanced role in changes of summer temperatures because of the high elevation of the QTP when the monsoon is weaker. The results also indicate that summer temperature variability at the QTP responds rapidly to solar irradiance changes in the late Holocene.
3. The temperature drop may be also due to a decline in the solar activity related to the Hallstatt cycle, with solar minima centered at approximately 8200, 5500, 2500 and 500 cal yr BP (Steinhilber et al., 2012).
4. All three records broadly follow the decreasing trend of summer insolation at 30 N (Berger and Loutre, 1991) and this pattern is widely recorded across southern and eastern Asia including from Dongge and Qunf Caves (Dykoski et al., 2005; Fleitmann et al., 2007). The trend is marked by a broad shift to lower average summer temperature values from ~5500 cal yr BP in the lake records, suggesting that long-term summer temperature and precipitation changes in southwestern China respond to changes in insolation forcing (Gray et al., 2010).
5. The delayed response of regional climate to orbital forcing in the early Holocene may be linked to the temperature variability predominantly being driven by centennial scale solar irradiance fluctuations during this period (Fleitmann et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2005). In addition, the existence of remnant ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere high latitudes in the early Holocene could have also caused the delay of the attainment of a temperature optimum in southwestern China in response to the solar insolation maximum (Xiao et al., 2009; Wen et al., 2010).
6. The chironomid record from Tiancai Lake shows a 2.2° C summer warming just after ~2500 cal yr BP and the alkenone-based record from Qinghai Lake also shows a warming at this time interval. The warm period persisted for nearly 1000 years until ~1600 cal yr BP. This temporal coherence suggests a regional climate response and indicates that secondary forcing mechanisms can modify the insolation driven system. This warm period is possibly related to the rapid and overall rise of solar activity (Steinhilber et al., 2012).
7. [T]hese observations may reflect the variability of the Indian Summer Monsoon as a result of the enhanced solar activity influence. It is in line with evidence suggested in a few studies (Lihua et al., 2007; Thamban et al., 2007; Hiremath et al., 2015) from the Indian Summer Monsoon (e.g. Bay of Bengal) influenced area. In summary, the solar irradiance fluctuation is inferred to affect the summer air temperatures at the QTP either by directly raising lake water temperatures at the high altitude under a weakened summer monsoon condition or alternatively, it could also result in variations of the Indian Summer Monsoon activity at decadal to centennial scale in the late Holocene.
8. In general, the pattern of millennial summer temperature changes is driven by the summer insolation-forced intensity of Asian summer monsoons during the Holocene. Variations from this general pattern were evident during the late Holocene and may be related to a shift in solar activity (e.g. from ~2500 to 1600 cal yr BP).
64 responses to “Another New Paper Traces Variations In Temperatures, Precipitation To Variations In Solar Activity”
Amazing that all that solar activity had a large warming effect during the Holocene Optimum..
… but the slight warming during the 2nd half of last century, when there was a Grand Solar Maximum, was totally due to CO2, which has no provable warming ability on anything.
Wonders will never cease. 😉
Look at the paper again. Solar activity caused minor variations during the Holocene while seasonal insolation caused by orbital procession drove the overall trend.
And global changes caused by the Grand Solar Maximum, Maunder Minimum and Medieval Maximum? I took the red and blue colors that Kennith added to the solar activity graph and added them to all the data shown in Figure 6. http://imgbox.com/VfcaOMyY
You’ll see that the temperature of the Tibetan lakes fell during the Medieval Maximum, rose during the Little Ice Age and fell during the Grand Solar Maximum. This supports the idea that the LIA and Medieval Warm Period were regional events. Even in the GGISP2 ice cores temperatures fell during the last half of the Medieval Maximum despite solar activity being just as high as the first half.
Yes, I also noticed that, according to this reconstruction, the Tibetan Plateau region didn’t have temperature changes that were in sync with much of the rest of the globe with regard to the MWP, LIA, and MGM. I wonder, though, Craig, why (a) there has been no recent warming in that region considering all the, you know, anthropogenic forcing, and (b) why it is you completely ignored every one of my cogent questions below in reply to your post.
By the way, here are some other new (2017) reconstructions for the same region that clearly show a MWP peak, a LIA low, and a MGM (that isn’t as warm as the Medieval times). It’s interesting how there can be such contrasts from one reconstruction to the next.
And here are a few other new ones for SW China and N China that also show the same trajectory, in line with solar maxima/minima:
I’m still waiting for you to at least answer the percentage question I asked:
What percentage of climate change do you believe is caused by 0.000001 changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations? How much of the 0.09ºC of 0-2000 m ocean “warming” between 1955-2010 (Levitus et al., 2012) was caused by CO2? What percentage? Support your answer scientifically. In other words, cite a study that has physical measurements explaining how much heating actually occurs in water bodies when CO2 concentrations are raised by, say, 0.00001 (+10 ppm). Let’s see what evidence you have.
“By the way, here are some other new (2017) reconstructions for the same region that clearly show a MWP peak, a LIA low, and a MGM (that isn’t as warm as the Medieval times). It’s interesting how there can be such contrasts from one reconstruction to the next.”
Your image is part of figure 5 from Sainia 2016 and shows Holocene temperatures of Lake Qinghai. That is one of the lakes from Zhang 2017 Figure 6C, which cooled in the MWP and warmed during the LIA.
Exactly! Same location, different results. Which is why you correctly quoted me as saying: “It’s interesting how there can be such contrasts from one reconstruction to the next.”
The entire Northern Hemisphere matches the solar activity variances (Medieval Maximum, Sporer, Maunder, Dalton Minima, Modern Grand Maximum) quite well, with a much better correlation curve than CO2. For example:
Not just the same location, it was the same data. Both sited Hou 2016 for the source. Here is Figure 3 from the Hou paper with temperatures from Lake Qinghai. Again, the lake cooled during the MWP and warmed starting at 1500 in the depths of the LIA.
So what do you think was the mechanism causing the lake to warm, Craig? Wouldn’t that once again affirm that CO2 was not a factor, and that natural variability rules, and that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about the modern era?
Here’s Liu et al., 2011 (Tibetan Plateau), who also found most of the medieval warmth occurred before 1,000 CE, cooling thereafter, and warming in concert with the modern Grand Maximum. Notice they project cooling in the coming decades due to a decrease in solar activity. Once again, CO2 doesn’t appear to be a factor they thought was worth considering.
Here is the reconstruction from Hou et al., 2015:
Hou et al., 2015
Lake Qinghai also displays significant temperature oscillations in the past 3000 years, which may reflect an amplified response to volcanic and/or solar forcings [Stuiver et al., 1995]. The warm period peaking around 2 ka coincides with the Roman warm period, which is followed by cooling into the little ice age, peaking at about 500 years ago
Notice that its oscillating temperatures follow patterns of solar activity…
…better than they do patterns of CO2 variations.
Chinese researchers have been looking at the urban heat island effect and have some very interesting results.
I wonder how these UHI effects impacts on US, European, and Australian stations and the reliability of their results.
Could you provide a link to this paper?
Finally the UHI is being looked at thoroughly but the same should be done in arctic regions also, since the effect might be very extensive due to thermal leaks from the buildings etc.
Ren et al., 2007
“The annual urban warming at the city stations can account for about 65∼80% of the overall warming in 1961∼2000, and about 40∼61% of the overall warming in 1981∼2000.”
•The seasonal and temporal variability and trends of UHI in Athens was studied.
•UHI [the Urban Heat Island effect] accounts for almost half of Athens’ warming.
The study explores the interdecadal and seasonal variability of the urban heat island (UHI) intensity in the city of Athens. Daily air temperature data from a set of urban and surrounding non urban stations over the period 1970–2004 were used. Nighttime and daytime heat island revealed different characteristics as regards the mean amplitude, seasonal variability and temporal variation and trends. The difference of the annual mean air temperature between urban and rural stations exhibited a progressive statistically significant increase over the studied period, with rates equal to + 0.2 °C/decade. A gradual and constant increase of the daytime UHI intensity was detected, in contrast to the nighttime UHI intensity which increases only in summer, after the mid 1980s.
linked at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL027927/full
A better title would be “Scientists ascribe Holocene climate changes to orbital forcing – modified by solar forcing – not driven by CO2.”
From the paper’s conclusions: “Our record suggests that the millennial summer temperature variability at Tiancai Lake is driven by the insolation-forced Asian summer monsoon intensity and the latitudinal shift of the ITCZ. The overall pattern is likely modified by regional climate drivers and solar irradiance.”
The paper found changes in the summer insolation (incoming solar radiation) to be the primary cause of changes in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau climate during the Holocene. Changes in seasonal insolation is caused by precession, one of the Milankovitch Cycles. Precession has a cycle of 23,000 years, so 12,000 years is almost half of the cycle. http://imgbox.com/4qYLOfFB Figure 6b from Zhang 2017 shows precession caused a 30 W/m2 drop in summer insolation during the Holocene. http://imgbox.com/VfcaOMyY
Figure 6 shows lake temperatures in the QTP follow the trend of the change in summer insolation. I added the blue bars from figure 5 showing Hallstatt cycle solar minima around 8200, 5500, 2500 and 500 cal yr BP. Those are the periods the paper thought dips in solar activity lowered QTP temperatures somewhat. They were minor deviations in the overall trend. (Hallstatt cycles last 2100-2500 years. If the LIA was caused by the Hallstatt minima 500 years ago, don’t look for the next little ice age until after the year 3500.)
The subheader for the post would be “Paper supports consensus.”Climate textbooks teach about the impact of Milankovitch Cycles on climate. http://w ww.climate.be/textbook/chapter5_node12.xml No scientist ever claimed that CO2 was the driving factor in all climate change.
The Holocene optimum has been shown to be world wide.
6b from Zhang?? the Earth was not closer, precession is wobble of the Earth’s axis, not change in distance from sun.
I think we can dismiss anything Zhang says , as he seems to have a somewhat tenuous grip on even what he preaches.
And much warmer than modern temperatures…
The Holocene Climate Optimum was a period of global climate warming that occurred between six to nine thousand years ago. At that time, the global average temperatures were somewhere between four to six degrees Celsius higher than they are today.
You may also be interested in these 2 papers —
Temperature changes over the past 2000 yr in China and comparison with the Northern Hemisphere
Q. Ge, Z. Hao, J. Zheng, and X. Shao
Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
Revised: 23 April 2013 – Accepted: 2 May 2013 – Published: 27 May 2013
Clim. Past, 9, 1153–1160, 2013
© Author(s) 2013. CC Attribution 3.0 License.
From the conclusions –
March 2013 Vol.58 No.9: 1053–1059
Solar influenced late Holocene temperature changes on the northern Tibetan Plateau
HE YuXin1, LIU WeiGuo2*, ZHAO Cheng1, WANG Zheng2, WANG HuanYe2, LIU Yi3, QIN XianYan3, HU QiHou3, AN ZhiSheng2 & LIU ZhongHui1*
Received July 1, 2012; accepted September 12, 2012; published online January 11, 2013
So their little deflection/EXCUSE of axial precession is yet another load of ****
Also of note is that oceanic CO2 gradients were a lot different from today’s by this account —
From ‘Glacial-to-Holocene Redistribution of Carbonate Ion Glacial-to-Holocene Redistribution of Carbonate Ion in the Deep Sea Wallace S. Broecker* and Elizabeth Clark’ DOI: 10.1126/science.1064171
Andy, before you dismiss the entire Zhang paper go back and see what the paper was about. The main driving force was the change in summer insolation. Currently the Earth is closest to the Sun during the Northern Hemisphere winter. 12,000 years ago the Earth was closest during the Northern Hemisphere summer. Over the Holocene the summer insolation lost 30W/m2.
Precession didn’t change the distance from the Earth to the Sun, it changed the season the Earth was in while closest to the sun.
And Kenneth, I will get back to you about the percentage of climate change caused by 0.000001 changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. I’ll be tied up for a week, but after that I’ll post it on one of the blog pages.
“Precession didn’t change the distance from the Earth to the Sun, it changed the season the Earth was in while closest to the sun.
And the southern hemisphere.?
It also shows the Holocene optimum.
Nothing to do with precession.
“it changed the season the Earth was in”
You really are a moron if you think the Earth has a season.
Either make a coherent argument or STFU.!!!
“I will get back to you about the percentage of climate change caused by 0.000001 changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations”
lol.. heading of to visit a Mills and Boon writer , are you. !!
Another piece of fantasy dribble on its way.
The “percentage of climate change” due to 0.000001 changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is too general, as “climate change” could mean anything. I’m specifically asking you to identify the percentage of change in ocean heat content attributable to CO2 variations of parts per million. To determine this, you’re going to need to find a scientific experiment with actual physical measurements showing how much cooling is caused by drops of 0.000001 CO2 over bodies of water, and gains of 0.000001 over bodies of water. In other words, you’re going to need to find something other than models and assumptions and presuppositions to support your beliefs.
Because the laws of physics aren’t universal, right? Somehow water is special and doesn’t comply with radiative energy transfers seen in other materials …
Turning in circles around we are.
You don’t have clue about the laws od physics.
Why do you keep yapping about stuff you do not comprehend.? !!!
Try to explain it! With more substance than “all LW radiation increase will be countered by an according evaporation increase”. Give us numbers! Should be easy, right?
Seems the statement is too complicated for seb to comprehend.
That’s because he has ZERO clue about gravity based pressure/density gradients.
Only variation in LW comes from H2O, you know that. And how did that H2O get into the atmosphere??
Try to THINK, for once in your life.
Your base-level wilful ignorance is becoming quite hilarious, little child mind.
And you STILL can’t provide even the tiniest bit of real evidence that CO2 causes warming of oceans or of a convective atmosphere.
Still EMPTY and VACANT, poor seb !!
No I don’t: https://i2.wp.com/www.skepticalscience.com/images/infrared_spectrum.jpg
By evaporation. Are you seriously suggesting that the heat transported by evaporation and convection directly drives the downwelling LW radiation and back? A circular thing despite positive feedback if that were the case?
I asked you about numbers for a reason … please quantify those fluxes. How much W/m² due to evaporation and what’s the amount of LW radiation in W/m² in your world?
Or maybe you have an image of these circular runs like those Trenberth graphs?
You do know.. you just DENY.
You KNOW you cannot show that CO2 causes any warming in a convective atmosphere,.
You KNOW that CO2 does not warm ocean water.
Why are you living in a trance of scientific DENIAL , seb.
And SkS,,, roflmao !!!
Credibility ZERO !!
CO2 DOES NOT emit below 11km.
At precisely 15 microns, the mean free path under today’s CO2 concentrations is just over 30 cm.
On line center it is less than 10 meters.
End of story, seb !!
Not my problem if you don’t know how H2O operates in the atmosphere, you have shown you haven’t the least interest in actually learning.
So you don’t want to tell us/me how this is supposed to work on your planet. Ok, noted.
Do you have a source for your claim that there can’t be any CO2 related LW radiation below 11 km? Aren’t you skeptic of that claim when spectrometers looking up can measure the radiation in those wavelengths?
My planet is Earth..
Which hallucinogenic alternative do you live on?
Mush be one without a gravity/density/thermal effect..
Where-ever your mind exists, its NOT of this galaxy, that is for sure.
Source has been given before.
You seriously do not have even the most basic comprehension or learning skills do you, seb.
High pressure hose used in your brain-washing…. nothing left by green slime.
Hey seb, did you know that back to back Pyrgeometer units measure a net surface loss.
And with the sustained long term gradient, energy is transferred to space. ie COOLING.
CO2 does absolutely nothing to modify the heat transfer or temperature gradient in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Only H2O does that.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of increased thermal energy in the surface layer or the surface of Earth itself due to any mythical “trapping” of radiant energy.
CO2 is just another cooling conduit, the balance always maintained by the gravity enforced pressure/density/temperature gradient.
Tests have shown that CO2 actually transfers radiant heat better than normal air.
No blocking, No blanket !!
You have yet to provide one single paper that counters this basic physics and scientific FACT !!
CO2 does not cause warming of oceans, or of a convective atmosphere.
You have been challenged time and time and time again to prove that it does.
But you have come up with TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY ….. NOTHING !!!
You are nothing but an empty sad-sack.
Ok, so no source … also noted.
Why wouldn’t they?
Correct. However, can you tell how much W/m² that constitutes? How much W/m² are added by the other ways of surface cooling (evaporation, etc)?
Every molecule that isn’t transparent to radiation does that. It’s called insulation and the atmosphere is the surface insulation against the cold of space (the ultimate heat sink). Changing the composition of an insulator of course changes it’s properties.
Many solar scientists have concluded it will occur this century.
A Swelling Volume Of Scientific Papers Now Forecasting Global Cooling In The Coming Decades
Gavin Schmidt, NASA mathematician and overseer of adjustments to temperature data, believes 110% of climate change since 1950 is due to human activity, with CO2 the “driving factor”. Do you disagree with him, then? Or does he not count?
“The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%.”
By the way, Craig. What percentage of climate change do you believe is caused by 0.000001 changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations? How much of the 0.09ºC of 0-2000 m ocean “warming” between 1955-2010 (Levitus et al., 2012) was caused by CO2? What percentage? Support your answer scientifically. In other words, cite a study that has physical measurements explaining how much heating actually occurs in water bodies when CO2 concentrations are raised by, say, 0.00001 (+10 ppm). Let’s see what evidence you have.
And while you are at it, find a paper that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
(NO, not the Marty Feldman paper that relied of modelling, data torture and an El Nino spike.)
“Gavin Schmidt, NASA mathematician and overseer of adjustments to temperature data, believes 110% of climate change since 1950 is due to human activity, with CO2 the ‘driving factor’.”
He actually ran a probability density function of the chance that all warming was attributable to human activity. The 5-95% range of confidence was 80–130% with the mean 110%. That would mean there is only a 5% chance that less than 80% of the warming was AGW. He was defending the IPCC statement that it was extremely likely (90% chance) that more than half of the observed increase in temperature was caused by humans. I can agree with what the IPCC said.
Again he was talking about the last 70 years not the entire Holocene. Schmidt has published many papers on that period including this one from 2004. In it he discusses Holocene forcings including greenhouse gases. “In fact the history of these gases over the pre-industrial Holocene is remarkably stable, with CO2 variations of 20 ppmv around the preindustrial value of 280 ppmv and N2O values of around 260718 ppbv…The largest perturbation in radiative forcing since the disappearance of the Laurentian and Fenno-Scandinavian ice sheets is undoubtedly the change in insolation (incomingsolar radiation) from the mid-Holocene to the present due principally to the change in precession.”
Craig, like you, Gavin simply ignores evidence that contradicts his beliefs. For example, he ignores the effects of cloud radiative forcing since the 1980s, which completely dwarfs the modeled effects of CO2. He doesn’t mention the increasing trend in water vapor since the 1980s. He doesn’t believe that the solar minima and high volcanic activity during the Little Ice Age (1300-1900) or the high solar activity and low volcanic activity since then have contributed more than negligibly to climate change. He claims that El Nino warming is actually human-caused warming…and so on. Obviously, you’re a believer too, since you believe, without actual physical evidence, that CO2 concentration variations heat or cool water when raised or lowered in volumes of 0.000001, and that all the other factors that apparently “used to” contribute to climate changes have, for some reason, stopped doing so since 1950.
So explain to us scientifically (no models, real physical measurements and observations) how it is that water bodies are heated up by 0.000001 variations in CO2 more than by tiny variations in cloud cover or SW solar absorption changes since, you know, SW radiation penetrates 20-30 m into the ocean to heat it up, whereas LW IR cannot penetrate past the micrometer layer. How much of the 0.09 C warming in the 0-2000 m layer (1955-2010) was caused by CO2? Why do you believe the modern Grand Maximum had little or nothing to do with that 0.09 C warming? Why do you believe that cloud cover variations had little or nothing to do with that 0.09 C warming? Do you just believe whatever you read that supports your presuppositions? It sure seems that way.
Kenneth, do you dismiss the possibility that cloud cover and water vapor content in the atmosphere is just a feedback of temperature variations? If we could drain the atmosphere of all the water vapor at once, what do you think will happen in the following days?
Regarding you persistent question about CO2 warming of the oceans and your request for “real physical measurements and observations” despite there being plenty of measurements of the effects in other situations (I don’t ask you to provide real temperature and CO2 measurements instead of all the proxy data that is often referenced by you):
1) CO2 absorbs and emits LW radiation
2) Spectrometers can measure the presence of this LW radiation on the surface
3) There is no difference if the surface is liquid or solid, the radiation is there
4) Bodies of whatever material will reach an equilibrium temperature when externally or internally heated that enables them to shed all incoming energy with no internal heat buildup
5) The oceans get rid of energy by evaporation, conduction and radiation. Convection helps by transporting heated air parcels away from the surface.
6) If any of those mechanisms gets disturbed internal heat builds up. So if the air pressure increases, there would be less evaporation. If the surroundings get warmer (more LW radiation towards the surface), there would be less upwelling radiation.
Do you disagree so far?
7) The Feldmann paper concluded that CO2 forcing increased by 0.2 W/m² in the decade from 2000 to 2010 (corresponding CO2 concentration change was 22 ppm). IPCC says the forcing has now increased by 1.7 W/m² from preindustrial levels.
8) OHC increased by 3*10^23 Joules in the last 50 years which requires an average forcing of 0.525 W/m²
9) 0.2 W/m² increase in 5 decades (I am assuming equal increase, in reality it accelerated, because our CO2 output increased exponentially) equals an average forcing of 0.5 W/m². So CO2 forcing alone without any feedback would be enough to cause the observed internal heat build up.
There is no penetration of LW radiation that heats anything, the ocean/surface just cannot radiate as much as before if the downwelling LW radiation increases. I don’t know why you repeatedly bring the question of penetration up as if you completely ignored what others presented to you. Radiative energy transfers don’t work that way.
You probably have heard of the infamous steel greenhouse in WUWT. Do you agree or disagree that the core in such a “greenhouse” will warm beyond initial temperatures without the steel shell?
The other avenues of energy loss for the oceans (evaporation, etc) could very well pick up the slack of the disturbed radiation avenue. But – as you wrote – there have been additional increases in forcing due to cloud cover and water vapor. So it boils down to an accounting problem. Just like in our CO2 concentration discussion about whether or not humans cause all the increase. And since we want to know what difference the human presence makes, we need to look at what would have happened without changes in CO2 forcing. 0.5 W/m² less forcing means almost no internal heat build up in the oceans.
What parts are unclear and why does this need “real physical measurements and observations”? What part is not backed by extensive scientifc research? The effects of radiation (and insulation) are known, every space ship makes use of that, every oven works this way, etc. It’s known that CO2 and GHGs in general radiate. It’s known that water doesn’t behave different than any other molecule regarding the laws of physics.
While a direct confirmation would be nice to finally stop you from clinching to a thin possibility that the laws of physics somehow don’t work the same for oceans, it’s not really needed. The same way as you probably don’t need to conduct an experiment with every hot surface whether or not your skin will burn when you touch it, do you?
That could be interpreted in more than one way, sorry. The temperature of the core without the steel shell should be A and with the steel shell B. Do you agree or disagree that B will be greater than A in the equilibrium state?
There is an enormous difference between heating water and heating air. Only SW can heat water 20-30 meters deep. LW cannot do that. Heat from LW cannot penetrate past the micrometer (hair-thin) skin layer, which has a heat gradient of a negligible 0.002 K according to an experiment using clouds as a proxy for CO2 (since no results from an experiment actually using CO2 exists). Therefore, any tiny variation in the amount of absorbed SW radiation via, say, changes in albedo, will necessarily have much more to do with the temperature of the first 20-30 meters of the ocean than 0.000001 changes in an atmospheric gas like CO2 will.
Why do you think you don’t need a real-world, controlled scientific experiment to believe what you do? Why do you believe that CO2 variations over water bodies cause heat changes in those water bodies without having real-world physical measurements to back up those beliefs? If there is “extensive scientific research” demonstrating how much water is heated or cooled by varying CO2 concentrations up or down, why is it that after 5 months of asking, you have failed to produce one single scientific paper that demonstrates what you believe to be true is true?
I realize that, for you, it is “the laws of physics” that varying CO2 concentrations over a body of water causes heating or cooling in that body of water. It’s never actually been observed to occur, nor has it been measured in the real world. Does it matter that we don’t have actual real-world physical measurements? It doesn’t to you, obviously. That’s because you believe it to be true. So, therefore, it is. Scientific evidence is “not really needed.”
That’s why you’re the believer, and I’m the skeptic.
So cloud radiative forcing isn’t really radiative forcing. It ceases to be radiative forcing because…CO2. Right?
Cloud-radiative forcing and climate
The monthly averaged longwave cloud forcing reached maximum values of 50 to 100 W/m2 over the convectively disturbed regions of the tropics. The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2. The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling.
And once again you manage to evade … why do you even bother to reply to my comments Kenneth?
I didn’t write anything about water and air being the same and that paragraph still reads like you do not understand how radiative energy transfers work. There is no incoming energy that somehow additionally warms the oceans, it’s all internal heat build up from not being able to get rid of the incoming energy at the current temperature. It works the same for liquids, for solids and for gases. There is no difference … anything with mass and heat capacity behaves that way. Do you disagree?
The scientific evidence is the known effects/behaviours of each component. When you have difficulties measuring the actual event you can do that. We do that all the time, believe it or not … even for things we could actually measure. You wouldn’t ask for a paper that actually measured the distance to or the mass of the Sun, would you? Do you doubt that the numbers we derived indirectly are correct?
Do you believe that clouds change all by themselves? That is highly unlikely.
Again seb comes out with yet another load of incoherent, anti-science, meaningless yapping.
Prove that CO2 warms oceans…
or prove that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere…
or take your baseless AGW religious prattling elsewhere.
Again seb comes out with yet another load of incoherent, anti-science, meaningless yapping.
Prove that CO2 warms oceans… or prove that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere…
or take your baseless AGW religious prattling elsewhere.
The Feldman paper was load of modelled and data tortured farce that relied on a period from a La Nina trough to an El Nino peak.
It is a rubbish paper.
And your continued lack of any knowledge on the effects of surface evaporation is now bordering on the insane !!
You have even to the hallucinogenic stage of thinking the Earth is surrounded by a metal sphere or something equally moronic.
Seriously deluded is about all that can now be said about you, seb. !!
“There is no incoming energy that somehow additionally warms the oceans, it’s all internal heat build up from not being able to get rid of the incoming energy at the current temperature”
… where do you get these manic hallucinogenic based load of scientific NONSENSE from !!
So you believe this is not how the world works? Please explain how an oven gets heated and what measures are used to reduce the energy needed to warm a meal. If you can do that without this very basic physics principle I am impressed 😉
WTF does an oven have to do with a convective atmosphere.
Just another meaningless brain-fart analogy from seb.
If you don’t know how an oven works, you really do need to go and learn some actually science. fool !!
“WTF does an oven have to do with a convective atmosphere?”
The oven heats the atmosphere because of CO2 and the laws of physics. And, you know, Feldman.
“The scientific evidence is the known effects/behaviours of each component.”
Which you continue to completely and absolutely ignore is your fevered, incoherent, anti-science, attempts to support your farce of an AGW religion.
You have proven time and time again that you have zero comprehension of how the atmosphere works, how LW affects water… and basically everything else you keep yapping about.
You are batting an extreme ZERO on anything to do with physics of science.
Oh Andy, classic non-answer from you … you can’t be helped 😉
It was a simple task: explain how an oven works without the described effect.
Explain how an oven is in ANY way analogous to the atmosphere.
This should HILARIOUS !!!
Waiting for your comedy filled response, ye-of-little-brain.
Your continued CLOWN act will be most eagerly awaited.
“Many solar scientists have concluded it will occur this century.”
You’re not a little skeptical when two men working for two years claim they have found the “cause of all causes” of climate, reject all current models for solar dynamics and instead claim external forcing of solar irradiation is generated by the planets, especially Uranus and Neptune?
“Although the various dynamo models can explain the variations to some extent, few or no constraints on the periods exist. The majority of the explanations operate with a range of possible periods. The models do not explicitly determine whether the observed periods are random and stochastic or whether some period-forcing from external or internal sources occurs. In the following section, we investigate the external forcing that is generated by the planets in the solar system.”
“This analysis indicates that the sunspot variations are controlled by the Uranus period P(U, 84.02), which introduces a 2/3 resonance to the period P(sn, 55, t) and a 5/2 resonance to the period P(sn, 210).” “These estimates support the identification of Uranus, in resonance with Neptune, as the major cause of TSI-HS variability.”
Sorry, Craig, but your intention to laughingly claim that only “two men working for two years” agree that the Sun is the primary driver of climate and temperature changes for the Earth system is not supported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There have been almost 400 papers published within the last 3 years linking absorbed variations in the Sun’s radiant energy to climate changes. Your attempts to gleefully smear two scientists out of your non-scientific humans-heat-the-oceans beliefs is rather amusing.
Are you ever going to answer the question, Craig? According to Levitus et al., 2012, the 0-2000 m world ocean warmed by 0.09 C between 1955-2010. How much of that warming was caused by the 0.00007 increase (70 ppm) in the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide concentration? Please support your answer scientifically. In other words, provide physical measurements from an actual scientific experiment that shows how much heating occurs in water bodies when CO2 concentrations are varied in volumes of ___ parts per million. No models. Real observations. Or can’t you do it?
Just a short reply (rest see above):
Are you just doubting that CO2 concentration changes cause any change in downwelling LW radiation or are you doubting that downwelling LW radiation has something to do with the internal heat content of an “object” (like the ocean or solid surfaces) with a constant heat source?
Or is it the combination of both and the fact that it’s water and not a solid causing you to doubt that this* is what is happening?
Experiments for the individual effects exist. Why should the combination not work the same? Is there any evidence to the contrary?
*) warming through internal heat buildup caused by smaller energy output at the current temperature of the object/body of water
I’m doubting that 0.000001 changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations can overwhelm cloud radiative forcing in both the shortwave and longwave and therefore dominate as the cause of net ocean heat content variations.
If the influence of CO2 concentration changes are so dominant, why do scientists fail to mention CO2 as a factor in the surface flux? Why do they mention clouds, aerosols, water vapor…but not CO2?
Alexandri et al., 2017
“Using a radiative transfer model and a set of ancillary data, these biases are attributed to the atmospheric parameters that drive the transmission of solar radiation in the atmosphere, namely, clouds, aerosols and water vapor.”
Observations of the Infrared Radiative Properties of the Ocean
“[I]t is necessary to understand the physical variables contributing to sea surface emitted and reflected radiation to space.The emissivity of the ocean surface varies with view angle and sea state, the reflection of sky radiation also depends on view angle and sea state, and the absorption of atmospheric constituents such as water vapor, aerosols, and subdivisible clouds affect transmittance.” [CO2 not mentioned as a factor affecting transmittance, or anywhere in the paper.]
The heat balance of the global ocean surface layer is calculated using bulk flux formulations. … Incoming solar radiation and latent heat flux are the two dominant components that control net surface energy fluxes. Wind speed, cloud cover, and the gradient of specific humidity are the three most important meteorological parameters in determining surface flux. [CO2 not mentioned as a parameter in determining surface flux, or anywhere in the paper.]
It doesn’t need to be dominant, all other influences could be magnitudes higher, but they seem to cancel each other out since the ocean heat content just increased by an amount that can be completely explained by CO2 forcing.
Also, you evaded the question again. Is it the effect of LW radiation (radiative energy transfer) that you think doesn’t exist or is it just CO2 that you think has no effect (= doesn’t increase LW radiation)?
Or from the comment above: do you think the steel greenhouse (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/) would work that way or not? Would the core get warmer when a shell is added or not?
They are magnitudes higher, and therefore can easily overwhelm the alleged/modeled CO2 effect.
I see. So you believe that all other ocean heat forcing factors “seem” to cancel each other out, but that same “cancelling out” doesn’t apply to 0.000001 variations in CO2 concentrations.
Cloud forcing gets cancelled out with ocean heating. Solar forcing gets cancelled out with ocean heating. CO2 forcing does not get cancelled out…because it’s…special? Got it.
That would be if we accept the non-scientifically verified presupposition as “truth” that 0.000001 variations in CO2 concentrations somehow override all other forcing factors in determining net changes in ocean heat content. Because it’s really, really special.
Cloud radiative forcing can explain the 1980s to 2000s warming. But since that doesn’t fit your beliefs, you claim it’s been magically “cancelled out”.
That calculation and the accounting of OHC entirely to CO2 forcing has nothing to do with CO2 forcing overriding anything. There is also no “overhelming” and CO2 is not special.
You purposely missunderstand what I am writing, every time. It’s “who causes the CO2 concentration increase?” all over again.
Of course you could also say that the OHC increased because of cloud cover changes, because the average forcing of that influence was about 0.5 W/m² too (was it really?). But that still doesn’t change that when you remove the influence of the CO2 concentration increase there would have been no increase in OHC. Same as there would have been no increase in CO2 concentration if we would not emit more CO2 than the increase.
Do you really not understand this? It’s not complicated.
Yes, we know this is your belief that 0.000001 changes in carbon dioxide concentrations are the primary/nearly exclusive cause of changes in 0-2000 meter ocean heat content, and that all other factors stopped influencing ocean heat because they “seem to” have happened to “cancel out” each other.
Yes, we know you believe that cloud cover changes have effectively not influenced net changes in ocean heat content even though the scientific literature is replete with evidence to the contrary.
Yes, we know that you believe the solar minima periods like the Sporer, Maunder, Dalton, and turn-of-the century (1890-1910) periods of low solar activity have effectively not had an influence on ocean heat content, nor do you believe the modern Grand Maximum of solar activity — the highest solar activity since the Medieval Warm Period — has had much of any influence on the heat content of the ocean during the 20th and early 21st century. Because solar activity “seems to” be cancelled out by some other factor(s).
Again, carbon dioxide changes are the cause of ocean heat changes…because all other factors “seem to” cancel each other out. Therefore, they can be dismissed.
“because all other factors “seem to” cancel each other out.”
seb’s scientific limit has been reached and surpassed…..
…long ago !!!
[…] Posted in Paleo-climatology, Solar Sciences | Leave a response […]