2015 the hottest year on record

[Jara 1,153]

15 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

The worst drought ever and hottest temperature ever?

I'm guessing worst and hottest since the beginning of temperature records i.e 1910 and I'm being generous.

Just suppose it was the hottest temperature and worst drought ever can you really say it was a result of man made climate change when CO2 has been much higher ppm previously?

Sorry, of course I meant the hottest 'since records were kept' (although - again, I'm just shooting from the hip - but it may well have been the hottest ever, since, one of the scientists told me, the continent has been gradually heating for at least 80,000 years, as it drifts towards the equator - i.e. the deserts used to be forests. Maybe Jackaub, with his 'earth sciences background;, might be able to enlighten us).

 

I don't have the science to respond to your last comment - although I suspect the highly-credentialled scientific advisors to the governments that signed the Paris Climate Agreement might.

[Gator 17,383]

Stozhkov et al., 2017

Cosmic Rays, Solar Activity, and Changes in the Earth’s Climate

 

A new scientific paper authored by seven scientists affiliated with the Russian Academy of Sciences was just published in the scientific journal Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics.

The scientists dismiss both “greenhouse gases” and variations in the Sun’s irradiance as significant climate drivers, and instead embrace cloud cover variations — modulated by cosmic ray flux — as a dominant contributor to climate change.

A concise summary: As cosmic ray flux increases, more clouds are formed on a global scale.  More global-scale cloud cover means more solar radiation is correspondingly blocked from reaching the Earth’s surface (oceans).   With an increase in global cloud cover projected for the coming decades (using trend analysis), a global cooling is predicted.

You can view here  https://link.springer.com/article/10.3103/S1062873817020411

 

Edited November 19, 2017 by ProDee

[Gator 17,383]

Long-term global temperature variations under total solar irradiance, cosmic rays, and volcanic activity

 

Conclusions

The results presented above permit the following conclusions: a large proportion of climate variations can be explained by the action of TSI and CR action on the state of the lower atmosphere and meteorological parameters. The trends of SSN, CRs, and IMF B for 20–23 solar cycles do not show a significant effect, whilst the GSAT trend is very large, and significant. This is a forcible argument to attribute GSAT trend to human activity. The role of volcanic signals in the 11-year variations of the Earth's climate can expressed as several years of global temperature drop. This suggests that there are combined effects of solar, cosmic rays, geophysical and human activity on climate change patterns. It should be noted that more detailed investigations of such complex interactions are necessary.

You can read more here  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090123217300334

[Jara 1,153]

Spent ten minutes reading one of those interminable posts old Pro bombards us with.

 

My reaction: huh? I don't get where he's coming from. Pro is always rabbiting on about how human activity doesn't affect climate, it's all a commie conspiracy, whatever... 

 

But the article clearly suggests that climate is affected by a combination of solar, geophysical (i.e. volcanic)  and human activity.   

 

Don't imagine we can do much about one and two, but number three is exactly what the more enlightened members of this thread have been saying all along: that climate is being influenced by human activity.

 

Is Pro secretly one of us? 

 

  

[Gator 17,383]

Scientists: It’s The Sun

“The emerging causal effects from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperatures], especially for recent decades, are overwhelmingly proved” – Huang et al., 2017

“Climate … follows SA [solar activity] fluctuations on multidecadal to centennial time scales” – Moreno et al., 2017

“The solar ‘activity’ increase is the chief driver of the global temperature increase since the LIA [Little Ice Age]” – Page, 2017

“A large proportion of climate variations can be explained by the mechanism of action of TSI [total solar irradiance] and cosmic rays (CRs) on the state of the lower atmosphere and other meteorological parameters” – Biktash, 2017

“The activity level of the Modern Maximum (1940–2000) is a relatively rare event, with the previous similarly high levels of solar activity observed 4 and 8 millennia ago” – Yndestad and Solheim, 2017

“The main driver of the large-scale character of the warm and cold episodes may be changes in the solar activity. Four warm periods – 1626–1637, 1800–1809, 1845– 1859, and 1986–2012 – have been identified to correspond to increased solar activity” – Tejedor et al., 2017

[Gator 17,383]

4 minutes ago, Jara said:

Spent ten minutes reading one of those interminable posts old Pro bombards us with.

 

My reaction: huh? I don't get where he's coming from. Pro is always rabbiting on about how human activity doesn't affect climate, it's all a commie conspiracy, whatever... 

 

But the article clearly suggests that climate is affected by a combination of solar, geophysical (i.e. volcanic)  and human activity.   

 

Don't imagine we can do much about one and two, but number three is exactly what the more enlightened members of this thread have been saying all along: that climate is being influenced by human activity.

 

Is Pro secretly one of us? 

 

  

Anyone ever posted close to the time you have someone on ignore ?  For some reason you see their post, which has happened here.

So, I'll answer your question.

I don't edit or hide information.  If a paper says human activity has some effect on the climate I'll happily include it.  The paper you're referring to intimates the human contribution is modest.  But you need to read more of the paper to establish that.

I also need to point out that hundreds of scientists who don't believe man is warming the planet dangerously, or that global warming is an issue of concern, still acknowledge that man contributes some warming and is responsible for increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

I'm in the camp that doesn't believe CO2 is warming the planet and that solar activity (sunspots), ocean cycles, and cloud forcing drives temperatures.  There's increasing evidence this is the case.  We'll look back at how CO2 was blamed in embarrassment.

4 million poor people die around the world because of their cooking habits (soot particles) yet we spend billions on a non existent problem.  I'd much rather help drag these countries into the 21st century than waste the money we're wasting.

I trust we won't post at the same time again anytime soon, so this unfortunate meeting is indeed an aberration. 

[jnrmac 20,109]

On 11/18/2017 at 8:22 AM, ProDee said:

NASA's own datasets.  Wonder why the 2016 version is different ?

Their funding is tied to it?

[Jara 1,153]

16 hours ago, ProDee said:

Anyone ever posted close to the time you have someone on ignore ?  For some reason you see their post, which has happened here.

So, I'll answer your question.

I don't edit or hide information.  If a paper says human activity has some effect on the climate I'll happily include it.  The paper you're referring to intimates the human contribution is modest.  But you need to read more of the paper to establish that.

I also need to point out that hundreds of scientists who don't believe man is warming the planet dangerously, or that global warming is an issue of concern, still acknowledge that man contributes some warming and is responsible for increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

I'm in the camp that doesn't believe CO2 is warming the planet and that solar activity (sunspots), ocean cycles, and cloud forcing drives temperatures.  There's increasing evidence this is the case.  We'll look back at how CO2 was blamed in embarrassment.

4 million poor people die around the world because of their cooking habits (soot particles) yet we spend billions on a non existent problem.  I'd much rather help drag these countries into the 21st century than waste the money we're wasting.

I trust we won't post at the same time again anytime soon, so this unfortunate meeting is indeed an aberration. 

But Pro - you miss my point (maybe I didn't make it clear enough).

 

You're forever banging on about how Global Warming is some sort of lefty conspiracy, that humans have got nothing to do with it, that it's a myth.  Then you go and post an article suggesting that it's real.  If the latter is true, then why are you at least not open to doubt, why are you so fixed in your belief that it's (to quote your beloved leader) "crap."  Why do you spend your life cherry-picking, cruising the net looking for for evidence that it's a myth and posting it here? (I could just as easily cherry-pick articles to the contrary, but what's the point? Better things to do than preach to the four or five readers of this thread who are all pretty fixed in their attitudes anyway.)

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Jara

[Gator 17,383]

New Paper: From 1992-2014, There Was A

Pause In CO2’s Influence On Temperature

“Monthly variations of the areal averaged atmospheric and surface greenhouse effect parameter anomalies (G_aa and G_sa) from 1979 to 2014 for the (a) globe”

 

Between the years 1992 and 2014, anthropogenic CO2 emissions rates grew by 65%, or from a yearly average of 6.1 gigatons of carbon (GtC) in 1992 to a rate of 10.1 GtC by 2014 (Global Carbon Budget, 2014).

However, according to a new Nature paper entitled “A Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect” by Song, Wang, & Tang (2016), there has been an overall hiatus to slight decline in the influence of the greenhouse warming effect on temperature beginning in 1992, which has coincided with the well-established pause in global warming since the early 2000s.

Explanation: Cloud Variations, Water Vapor Dominate Greenhouse Effect, With Insignificant CO2 Influence

As scientists Song, Tang, & Wang (2016) point out, during the 2003 to 2014 period, global temperatures “stop rising”.  In fact, temperatures declined slightly during this period according to HadCRUT and RSS.

You can read more here  https://www.nature.com/articles/srep33315

[Gator 17,383]

“The analysis showed that the main atmospheric parameters that affect the amount of global radiation received on earth’s surface are cloud cover and relative humidity. Global radiation correlates negatively with both variables. Linear models are excellent approximations for the relationship between atmospheric parameters and global radiation. A linear model with the predictors total cloud cover, relative humidity, and extraterrestrial radiation is able to explain around 98% of the variability in global radiation.”

You can read more here  https://search.proquest.com/docview/1794167817

[Gator 17,383]

By Kenneth Richard on 17. July 2017

 CO2 Contributed Only 0.12°C

 To Global Temps Since 1850

Abstract The well-known absorption properties of CO2 and the physics of thermal radiation permit to estimate the infrared absorption of the atmospheric CO2. The earth is considered as a homogeneous spherical black body emitter with a temperature of 288 K. An idealized atmosphere, the CO2 content of which is the only infrared absorber, surrounds the emitter. The CO2 concentration at sea level amounts to 400 ppm and the density exponentially tapers off with height. Accordingly, the average black body temperature contains the so-called greenhouse contribution. Over 200’000 discrete absorption lines of CO2 are used for the numerical calculations. If the absorbed energy is converted entirely into heat, we deliberately overestimate the heat retention capability of CO2. The thermal occupation statistics of the CO2 energy states plays a key role in these calculations. The calculated heat retention is converted into a temperature increase, ∆T. Doubling the present CO2 concentration only results in ∆T < 0.24 K. At the present rate of CO2 concentration increase of 1.2% per year, it will take almost two hundred years to reach ten times the present concentration yielding ∆T < 0.80 K.

Conclusion

Our results permit to conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and cannot be accepted as the main driver of climate change. The observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times is close to an order of magnitude higher than that attributable to CO2. We find that the increase of CO2 only might become dangerous, if the concentrations are considerably greater than 4000 ppm. At present rates of increase this would take more than 200 years. Therefore, demands for sequestering CO2 are unjustified and trading of CO2 certificates is an economic absurdity. The climate change must have a very different origin and the scientific community must look for causes of climate change that can be solidly based on physics and chemistry.

You can read more here  http://www.entrelemanetjura.ch/BLOG_WP_351/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017.01-20-FKR-sur-CO2.pdf

Edited November 22, 2017 by ProDee

[Gator 17,383]

Note: this was written 9 years ago:

BUT some will keep believing the alarmists.

Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered

There's something rotten north of Denmark

By Steven Goddard 15 Aug 2008 at 10:02

229  SHARE ▼

Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the "North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer". Others predicted that the entire "polar ice cap would disappear this summer".

The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The sun is now very low above the horizon and will set for the winter at the North Pole in five weeks. And none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Yet there is, however, something odd going on with the ice data.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado released an alarming graph on August 11, showing that Arctic ice was rapidly disappearing, back towards last year's record minimum. Their data shows Arctic sea ice extent only 10 per cent greater than this date in 2007, and the second lowest on record. Here's a smaller version of the graph:

Note: Arctic minimum sea ice extent was 120,000 square kilometres greater in 2017 than when this article was written.

Link to article here  https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

[dieter 3,325]

As Jara says, most of these points of view are tarnished and paid for by the petro/coal industry.

ProDee must spend a lot of time trying to substantiate the indefensible.

He sounds like Hockey and Abbott calling wind farms eyesores.

 

[Jara 1,153]

Here's another one for you Pro

 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/melbourne-to-set-two-weather-records-for-hot-spring-days/news-story/2285f48c7e838a9f8e97fa20a8a65035

 

All fake news, of course. Nothing to worry about. Herald Sun and the BOM - all in on the Commie conspiracy. Hottest spring days on record? Just a coincidence. Nothing to do with global warming. 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Jara

[Gator 17,383]

Solar wind and electric-microphysical process is the key mechanism that affects climate … [T]he wintertime Iceland Low in the North Atlantic was very sensitive to solar wind variations and played an important role in the process of solar wind and electric-microphysical effects on climate. Tinsley and Zhou (2015) improved the collision and parameterization scheme that varied with electric quantity in a cloud microphysics process and quantitatively evaluated the effects of high-energetic particle flux on cloud charge. This achievement not only supports the marked association of solar activity with weather and climate change on various time scales, but also but also avails the quantitative accession of solar impacts on climate.

Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters

You can read more here  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/16742834.2017.1321951

[Jara 1,153]

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

Solar wind and electric-microphysical process is the key mechanism that affects climate … [T]he wintertime Iceland Low in the North Atlantic was very sensitive to solar wind variations and played an important role in the process of solar wind and electric-microphysical effects on climate. Tinsley and Zhou (2015) improved the collision and parameterization scheme that varied with electric quantity in a cloud microphysics process and quantitatively evaluated the effects of high-energetic particle flux on cloud charge. This achievement not only supports the marked association of solar activity with weather and climate change on various time scales, but also but also avails the quantitative accession of solar impacts on climate.

Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters

You can read more here  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/16742834.2017.1321951

Thanks Pro. Breaking news: the sun affects the climate. Who'd have thought....

[Gator 17,383]

POSSIBLE SOLAR MODULATION OF GLOBAL LAND-OCEAN TEMPERATURE

The modulation action from solar activity plays an important role in the temperature change, and there is a possible association existing in the global land-ocean temperature and solar activity on decade time scales. … About 11-year period, a remarkable oscillation of solar activity, continually exists in wavelet transform of solar variation. According to the cross wavelet transform, solar activity influences global land-ocean temperature change on ~11-year time scales during 1935-1995 with above the 5 % significance level.

You can read more here https://www.irsm.cas.cz/materialy/acta_content/2017_doi/Ma_AGG_2017_0008.pdf

[Gator 17,383]

Solar and tropical ocean forcing of late-Holocene climate change in coastal East Asia

Late Holocene climate change in coastal East Asia was likely driven by ENSO variation.   Our tree pollen index of warmness (TPIW) shows important late Holocene cold events associated with low sunspot periods such as Oort, Wolf, Spörer, and Maunder Minimum. Comparisons among standard Z-scores of filtered TPIW, ΔTSI, and other paleoclimate records from central and northeastern China, off the coast of northern Japan, southern Philippines, and Peru all demonstrate significant relationships [between solar activity and climate]. This suggests that solar activity drove Holocene variations in both East Asian Monsoon (EAM) and El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). In particular, the latter seems to have predominantly controlled the coastal climate of East Asia to the extent that the influence of precession was nearly muted during the late Holocene.

You can read more here  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018217300044

[Gator 17,383]

North Atlantic sea surface temperature, solar activity and the climate of Northern Fennoscandia

Significant correlation was found between SST [sea surface temperatures] in NA [the North Atlantic] and solar activity (both instrumental data and proxies) during AD 1716–1986. … Thus, the connection between Northern Fennoscandian climate and solar activity, which has been previously established at century-scale (Ogurtsov et al., 2001, 2002, 2013) and millennial-scale (Helama et al., 2010), is confirmed for AD 1716–1986 over the entire frequency range using unfiltered records (with the exception for AMO reconstruction after Mann et al. (2009)). … Changes in solar ultra-violet (UV) radiation might provide a solar-climatic link over Northern Europe. Actually, modeling work by (Ineson et al., 2011) showed that that solar UV (200-320 nm) decadal variability drives appreciable temperature changes in mesosphere and upper stratosphere largely through absorption of UV by ozone. This variation results in a corresponding change in the pattern of stratospheric winds, which propagates downwards and appreciably influences atmospheric circulation over the North Atlantic basin. Studies using an atmosphere–ocean coupled climate model have shown that solar-induced changes in atmospheric circulation also influence changes of heat storage in North Atlantic Ocean that can integrate and amplify solar effect (Ineson et al., 2011; Scaife et al., 2013).

You can read more here  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117716306512

[Jara 1,153]

Aaagh! I surrender. Enough is enough.

 

Pro, you're a genius - the Cut and Paste King. Climate change is an illusion, nothing to do with us humans, you can pump squillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and it will have no effect. I'll agree with whatever you want - I'd been wondering whether solar UV (200-320 nm) decadal variability drove appreciable temperature changes in mesosphere and upper stratosphere largely through absorption of UV by ozone, and now I know -- .- just -  pleeeeze - gimme a break from those interminable, incomprehensible articles.

 

All I ever wanted to know is why is it so bloody hot!

 

 

[Gator 17,383]

Anyone here on the mad Left wish we had nuclear power ?  

How does a large-scale source of carbon-free electricity sound to you ?

Why I changed my mind about nuclear power | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxBerlin

 

[Gator 17,383]

Climatic Changes in the East-European Forest-Steppe and Effects on Scots Pine Productivity

Abstract

Climate change during the 20th and early 21st centuries in the transitional zone between forests and grasslands at the center of the East-European Plain (Voronezh oblast) was determined by examining climate trends and variability using tree ring radial increment data as representative of productivity. An increase in atmospheric moisture for the warm period of the year (May–September) since 1890s, and mean annual temperatures since the 1950s was identified. During the same time period, there was a marked increase in amplitude of the annual variations for temperature and precipitation. Study results revealed trends, variability in the climatic indices, and corresponding radial wood increment for the regional stands of Pinus sylvestris L. These fluctuations are consistent with 10–12-years Schwabe–Wolf, 22-years Hale, and the 32–36-years Bruckner Solar Cycles. There was an additional relationship found between high-frequency (short-period) climate fluctuations, lasting for about three years, and 70–90-years fluctuations of the moisture regime in the study region corresponding to longer cycles. The results of this study can help guide management decisions in the study region and elsewhere, especially where climate change induced alterations to the state and productivity of forest ecosystems and associated natural resource commodities are of growing concern.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00024-016-1420-y

[Gator 17,383]

Influence of solar variability on the occurrence of Central European weather types from 1763 to 2009 … Weather types and reanalysis data show that the 11-year solar cycle influences the late winter atmospheric circulation over Central Europe with colder (warmer) conditions under low (high) solar activity. Model simulations used for a comparison do not reproduce the imprint of the 11-year solar cycle found in the reanalyses data.  … Atmospheric circulation over Europe is strongly correlated to the NAO and hence solar activity is thought to have an influence on weather conditions in Europe in winter.  Studies show a preference of cold winters in Europe to be associated with minima in the 11-year solar cycle (e.g., Lockwood et al., 2010; Sirocko et al., 2012). … The 247-year long analysis [1763-2009]  of the 11-year solar cycle impact on late winter European weather patterns suggest a reduction in the occurrence of westerly flow types linked to a reduced mean zonal flow under low solar activity. Following these observation, we estimate the probability to have cold conditions in winter over Europe to be higher under low solar activity than under high activity. Also similar [cold] conditions can occur during periods of prolonged reduced total solar irradiance. …  Solar activity can have effects on the atmospheric circulation through three different mechanisms. These effects may arise from direct changes in total solar irradiance (TSI), from changes in stratospheric ozone induced by changes in solar UV, or from changes in stratospheric ozone induced by energetic particles, whose flux is modulated by solar activity.

You can read more here  https://www.clim-past-discuss.net/cp-2017-8/cp-2017-8.pdf

[Gator 17,383]

The identification of causal effects is a fundamental problem in climate change research. Here, a new perspective on climate change causality is presented using the central England temperature (CET) dataset, the longest instrumental temperature record, and a combination of slow feature analysis and wavelet analysis. The driving forces of climate change were investigated and the results showed two independent degrees of freedom —a 3.36-year cycle and a 22.6-year cycle, which seem to be connected to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively. Moreover, these driving forces were modulated in amplitude by signals with millennial timescales.

You can read more here  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5384247/

[Gator 17,383]

The coming cooling: Usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers

Abstract

This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future, unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60 ± year and, more importantly, 1000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver are discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak – inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0958305X16686488

Edited November 23, 2017 by ProDee