Michaelyya/contrarian-claims huggingface dataset:
These results agree with the evidence mustered by Hoyt and Schatten and Georgieva, Kirov, and Bianchi for a phase shift circa 1920 in the relationship between solar activity and terrestrial temperatures. However, we can suggest, here, that the supposed negative correlation between solar activity and terrestrial temperatures prior to 1920 rests on a misconstrued understanding of the data. As can be seen in Figure 6, the relationship between the change in the warming rate and solar activity is still positive, i.e. the warming rate is peaking near the peaks of solar cycles 10, 12, and 14, but at a much reduced level, indicative of the lower level of solar activity during the period. Indeed, for much of solar cycle 12, and all of solar cycle 14, the warming rate is negative, but the change in the warming rate is still following the level of solar activity, becoming less negative as solar activity increases, and more negative as solar activity decreases. Still, there is a strong suggestion in Figure 6 of a phase shift circa 1920 in which the relationship between solar activity and terrestrial temperatures changes dramatically before and after the shift. Before the shift, the lunar period dominates, and the solar period is much weaker. After the shift, the solar period dominates, and the lunar period becomes subordinate.
Some of the global warming on other planets (and our blue, not green planet) has been attributed to the Sun and/or nearby cosmic rays. The shared positive sign in most cases is suggestive but I remain an agnostic here. The internal, mostly random planetary variability is still a plausible explanation for all the changes.
Henrik Svensmark described how the sun controls the Earths climate through its effect on cloud formation via cosmic rays. His research took years, was rejected by the orthodox, and proved difficult to get published. It now seems to be the most important climatic discovery for years.
A recent paper published by the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar Terrestial Physics (74) 2012 87-93 and authored by Souza Echer et al. suggests that solar cycles, to a substantial extent, drive global temperatures, and that likely through amplification mechanisms.
Who knew? However, a casual question back in 2000, from a colleague while I was doing post-doctoral work at the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of Toronto, led to surprising revelations on climate change. My colleague, an astrophysicist, asked me how cosmic rays from supernovae could affect life on earth, which led me to explore this area of study. I found that the sun's variability as well as unrelated cosmic ray variations, explain a surprisingly large amount of the observed climate variations, from the 11-year solar cycle to geological time scales. In fact, models including the real effect of the sun also do a much better job in explaining 20th century global warming than those limited to the influence of human carbon dioxide emissions alone. h/t Kevin B
1) Empirical Solar / CRF / Cloud Cover correlation: In principle, correlations between CRF variations and climate does not necessarily prove causality. However, the correlations include telltale signatures of the CRF-climate link, thus pointing to a causal link. In particular, the cloud cover variations exhibit the same 22-year asymmetry that the CRF has, but no other solar activity proxy (Fichtner et al., 2006 and refs. therein). Second, the cloud cover variations have the same latitudinal dependence as the CRF variations (Usoskin et al. 2004). Third, daily variations in the CRF, and which are mostly independent of the large scale activity in the sun appear to correlated with cloud variations as well (Harrison and Stephenson, 2006).
Solar activity has also been shown to be a driver of Pacific ocean oscillations. Thus, these may be additional solar amplification mechanisms whereby small changes in solar activity are amplified via monsoonal and ocean oscillations to have large effects upon climate.
We know that the Antarctic Peninsula (advertised as the fastest warming place on the planet) is a volcanic chain which has seen recent activity .
There is much more to El Nio event than a simple warming of the eastern tropical Pacific. They have strong impacts on weather around the globe. A strong El Nio event can also cause an upward shift in the temperatures of two-thirds of the surface of the global oceans, while having no apparent long-term effect on the other one-third. Those upward shifts in surface temperatures give the appearance of a relatively steady rise in global surface temperatures when the data are looked at globally. As a result, the rise in global surface temperatures have been incorrectly attributed to human-induced global warming. That means the climate science community is no closer to finding evidence of the human fingerprint in global warming than they were in the early 1990s, the early years of the IPCC. The IPCC has no one to blame for that than themselves, with their focus on carbon dioxide.
The warmer interlude in the 1940s and 50s, and again since 1990, are well correlated with the warm phases of the AMO. Based on previous cycles, we may have another decade to go before the AMO returns to its cold phase. And as NOAA point out, it has been around for at least 1000 years, so it wont be going away tomorrow!
The hypothesis of manmade global warming depends on manmade greenhouse gases being the cause of the recent warming. But the satellite-era sea surface temperature record indicates El Nio and La Nia events are responsible for the warming of global sea surface temperature anomalies over the past 31 years, not manmade greenhouse gases. And ocean heat content data since 1955 indicate the tropical oceans warmed naturally to depths of 700 meters in response to La Nia events. Ive searched sea surface temperature records for more than 4 years and the ocean heat content records for more than 3 years, and I can find no evidence of an anthropogenic greenhouse gas signal in those two datasets. That is, the warming of the global oceans has been caused by Mother Nature, not anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
There was a warming between 1977 and 1999 that coincides with the warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean. The oceans are major drivers of climate, particularly the Pacific, because it covers 35% of the earth??s surface. When it warms, the climate also warms: The atmosphere, the air, is heated from below, the temperatures are higher near the surface.
It is beyond my comprehension why anyone would seek to force fit an alternative explanation based on CO2 since 1975/particulates from 1940-1970/solar forcing before 1940 etc. when the ENSO explanation explains the temperature trend extremely well and much more elegantly.
3. And ENSO, changes in Sea Level Pressure, and the AMO/AMOC are major contributors to the rise in North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content.
Global warming and cooling have closely followed the phases of the PDO. The most significant pattern of PDO behavior is a shift between warm and cool phases that last 20 to 30 years. In 1905, the PDO shifted to its warm phase. In 1946, the PDO changed to its cool phase. In 1977, the PDO returned to its warm phase and produced the current warming. In 2007-8, the PDO turned cold again, so we can expect several decades of naturally-caused global cooling.
Hmm, Ill have to go back and update the ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data post to make sure the ENSO-induced step changes are still there and verify the North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Is Governed By Natural Variables hasnt changed, too.
The whole CO2 argument is tiresome and absurd.The unmoved mover is the sun. The system below responds to the variations in the sun with alag. The warming was because when the oceanswent into their warm cycle (remember there is far greater energy in warm water than in cold dry air), the natural response had to be a warming in the north where there is more land- because equatorialocean warming increases the transport of warm humid air northward. That air has to then warm areas where there is dry air. Ifyou dry out warm humid air,then you warm the airtemperature if the wet bulb is constant. So there is warming over the continents, BUT IT ONLY CONTINUES UNTIL THE OCEANS HAVE ADDED THEIR INPUT. The leveling off of temps is completely consistent with an atmosphere that has absorbed the heat from the warming cycles of the oceans that occurred in tandem from 1995-2007 (warm PDO was 1978-2007, warm AMO 1995 till present, but it will shift).
When the impossible has been eliminated, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. The culprit is plainly not atmospheric, not extra-terrestrial, not land-based, but oceanic.
Not only do these cycles profoundly influence North American climate, there is considerable evidence that they are partly responsible for that popular hobgoblin, "global warming".
Again this is simply saying there is a natural large-scale thermostat called the ocean. The warmer the ocean, the more it drives the whole climate system.
The new record captures climate variability in this globally important region and suggests that the warming observed here since the 1950s is not the largest in the past 300 years.
According to the authors, "the significance of this record is that it suggests almost half of the warming occurred prior to 1900, before the dramatic buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases." Hence, if something other than greenhouse gases caused the first half of the most recent global warming event (in which we are still imbedded), something other than greenhouse gases may be responsible for the second half of the warming as well.
A larger point is that the current warming is not unusual. Even greater warming has occurred many times in the last 11,000 years. It has been as much as two degrees warmer than now three times in the last 10,000 years. More important, warming episodes are followed by cooling episodes that can be disastrous for mankind. The long-term trend for the last 3000 years of the Holocene has been cooling. We are slowly sliding into the next long cold at about half a degree C per millennium.
Of the 102 studies that looked at the twentieth century temperature record to determine whether it showed unusually extreme warming, only 3 concluded that it did. Sixteen produced equivocal results, and 79 identified fifty-year-long periods of time that were warmer than any equivalent period in the century, suggesting that recent warming is not particularly unusual.
So the Spitzbergen warming the trough to peak warming of 1917 to 1934 may have been more rapid and greater than in magnitude that the similar warming from 1976 to 2006. But from the adjusted data one gets the opposite conclusion.
This refutes the government claim that recent warming (which occurred when man-made CO2 was rising) was notably different from an era when man-made CO2 was not claimed to be a factor.
Both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were major climatic events, notwithstanding the attempt of a number of climate alarmists to reduce them to such insignificance that they do not even appear on the temperature history of the world over the past thousand years (see our Editorials of 15 June , 1 July , 15 July and 2 August 2000). Why do the climate alarmists do this? Because they want to promote the idea that the world is currently experiencing unprecedented warming due to increases in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, particularly CO 2 . As the results of this study clearly show, however, whatever warming may have occurred over the past century or so may be easily nothing more than a return to more normal conditions from the global chill of the Little Ice Age.
In the case of the Younger Dryas, average temperatures based on the Greenland ice plummeted as much as 15 degrees Celsius in a few centuries, and then shot back up nearly as much (over just decades) about 1,000 years later.
So, this data confirms Obamas assertion that the Exit Glacier has retreated 1.25 miles in the last 200 years. But it also makes it quite clear that it was retreating as fast, or faster, 100 years ago.
Our climate is constantly changing for perfectly natural reasons that have nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
There is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about either the timing or the degree of warming experienced by the northern Tibetan Plateau over the past century or so?? Read More
On shorter time-scales, temperatures rose in the early part of the 20th century with little or no man-made emissions of CO2.
After some reversion to colder and wetter climates in the next 300-400 years, sharply renewed warming from about 800 AD led to an important warm epoch.
One does not have to be a climate "rocket" scientist to recognize that the earlier 20th century warming increase was greater than the modern warming. And it is painfully clear, even to proponents of this myth, that the earlier warming increase took place while the CO2 level change was a fraction of that during the modern 50-year period ending in 2013.
FV: The temperature increase since 1850 is nothing unusual. Such changes have occurred time and again in history.
And at their subsequent advanced positions probably around 500 BC as well as between 1650 and 1850 AD the glaciers in the Alps regained an extent, estimated in the Glockner region, at about 5 times their Bronze Age Minimum, when all the smaller ones had disappeared.
Again, the recent era on the right side of the picture has no chance to compete with the late 17th and early 18th century: the 1960-2009 period with the +2.65 C per century ends up outside the top ten. The winner is 1688-1737 with the trend +3.83 C per century. The fastest cooling was in 1722-1771, by -1.69 C per century. These 50-year trends can??t quite be extrapolated to a century, either. But they??re much closer to that than the 10-year or 15-year trends.
So basically, all that the global warming advocates really have, as the evidentiary basis for their theory, is that global temperatures were a little higher than usual in the late 1990s. Thats it. Which proves nothing. The climate varies, just as weather varies, and as far as we can tell, this is all well within the normal range.
So climate changes abruptly, rapidly, and all on its own. No CO2 needed. It can, does, and has, rapidly warmed. Im not going to quote the whole paper at you. Just a couple of cherry picked points about the fact that some places, during some of this time, were warmer than today . At least, per the beetles. Now if it can warm up to warmer than now in some places, all on its own, and without any CO2 from humans, seems to me it could be doing that right now all on its own too.
It is interesting to see on the first Icelandic Met graph that the warming trend has been pretty consistent since 1800, albeit with ups and downs. No sign of any accelerating trend there.
A subsequent post by Tony Brown entitled Historic variations in Arctic sea ice Part II: 1920-1950 provided anecdotal historical evidence of Arctic warmth during this period.
A large team of scientists making a comprehensive study of data from tree rings say that in fact global temperatures have been on a falling trend for the past 2,000 years and they have often been noticeably higher than they are today despite the absence of any significant amounts of human-released carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back then.
It is also clear that the climate of the Earth's polar regions are linked. Intensification of atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere (indicated by a stronger Siberian High and northern circumpolar circumpolar westerlies and a deeper Icelandic Low) and to a lesser degree in the Southern Hemisphere (stronger circumpolar westerlies and deeper Amundsen Sea Low) occurs 8200 8400 years ago. Date from Siple Dome (West Antarctica) and the Greenland Ice Sheet Project ice core climate proxies for northern and southern circumpolar westerlies show remarkably concurrent major intensification periods between 6000 and 5000 years ago and starting 1200 600 years ago. It appears that Antarctic events start earlier and less abruptly than those in Greenland.
These colossal global catastrophes of the past, and the certainty that similar catastrophes will occur again in the future, maybe even in our lifetime, really puts the feeble temperature wobbles which are ascribed to humans into perspective.
Lovejoy??s 99% solution fails to quantify or even accurately describe the patterns of natural variability of the Late Holocene climate. Therefore, his conclusion that the warming since 1880 (~0.4 C per century) cannot be natural is unsupported in his analysis. While it is possible that up.to half of the industrial era warming might be due to the rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this is hardly conclusive and certainly not at 95% confidence, much less 99%. Davis and Bohling demonstrated that 140-yr runs of 0.4 C per century runs of warming and cooling were not unusual in the GISP2 ice core. The fact that the industrial era slope is roughly twice the norm of the past 2,000 years does not prove that it is of anthropogenic origin. The Little Ice Age was quite possibly the coldest phase of the Holocene since the 8.2 KYA Cooling Event. The LIA was characterized by maximum glacial advances and the most extensive sea ice coverage since the onset of the Neoglaciation (end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum).
For instance, after the humorous graph, Spencer showed one that revealed that nearly every century since Roman times has experienced either global warming or global cooling proving that the "norm" is wild change and not some grand mean leveling. The graph also shows that the Roman and Medieval warm periods were just as warm as today's temps.
Over and over, you heard testimony from your panelists concerning the deteriorating state of the Arctic and its ecosystems, including its human inhabitants. Over and over you heard about how these systems got to be in their current conditiondecades of warming presumably caused by worldwide reliance on fossil fuels as an energy source. No one told you that conditions in the Arctic were nearly as warm, as warm, or warmer, than they are now a mere 60 years ago. Therefore, if Arctic systems are presently struggling more so than in the past, it points to factors other than anthropogenic climate change as the root cause. Below is an international list of scientists whose published work indicates that the current Arctic warmth is of the same approximate magnitude as that of the 1930s and 1940s.
The study published online this week in Nature Geosience (06/05/2012) reports the climatic change that occurred at the beginning of the pre-Roman Iron Age and demonstrates that especially the so-called Grand Minima of solar activity can affect climate conditions in western Europe through changes in regional atmospheric circulation pattern. Around 2800 years ago, one of these Grand Solar Minima, the Homeric Minimum, caused a distinct climatic change in less than a decade in Western Europe.
Oh, and as far as that ???modern record?? stuff goes, that??s sneaky stuff too. As I pointed out, and as this graph shows , it was much warmer in the medieval warming period ??? you know, back when those Viking ships were pumping CO2 in the atmosphere and when the Carolingian empire got most of its power from coal-fired power plants.
As indicated in the figure below, this undertaking revealed that the mean annual SSTs of the 80-year periods centered on AD 990 (MCA) and AD 50 (RWP) were 0.8??C and 1.4??C higher than the mean SST during the AD 1994-2005 portion of the Current Warm Period (CWP). Likewise, they also report that the mean summer SSTs of the MCA and RWP were, respectively, 0.2 and 1.0??C higher than that of the CWP, while the mean winter SSTs of the MCA and RWP were, respectively, 1.3 and 1.8??C higher than that of the CWP.
While acknowledging the existence of the cold, chaotic periods, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has barely factored them into its computer models. The IPCC seems to think it is just coincidence that our warm and relatively stable Modern Warming directly followed the latest awful Little Ice Age.
Proxies from all over the world have shown that global climate was as warm or even warmer during the so-called Medieval Warm Period back around a thousand years. Its not called a warm period for nothing!
This actual climate evidence is corroborated by the empirical ice core dataset from Greenland. As the ice core empirical evidence depicts , the ancient periods of the Minoans, Romans and the Medieval era were warmer than the present.
A scientist from Stockholm University concludes, "The pattern of frequent and rapid changes in climate throughout the Holocene indicates that the warming of the last 100 years is not a unique event and is thus not an indication of human impact on the climate, as is frequently claimed."
The researchers collected pollen spores from sediment cores taken from a lake (referred to as JR01 in Figure 2) in Nunavut. They made the appropriate measurements and statistical analyses to link the pollen pattern through time to variations in local temperatures. Surprisingly (to some) they find Reconstructed mean July temperatures remained around 6.6 C before 5700 cal yr BP. July temperatures then increased to 7.8C between 5700 and 3800 cal yr BP and temperatures have decreased slightly during the past 3800 yr and Maximum estimated July temperatures were reached between 5800 and 3000 cal yr BP, at which time they exceeded present-day values. Finally Reconstructions of July temperature using the modern analog technique showed that the mid-Holocene (58002800 cal yr BP) was approximately 1C higher than during the past 1000 yr. See Figure 3, for their temperature reconstruction.
See also my other posts on the Medieval Warm Period , and Little Ice Age . If anyone tries to claim the Warmth in Greenland 1000 years ago was a local phenomenon, look at this assembly of hundreds of studies from every continent (bar Australia) showing that it was warmer all over the globe, and that the hockey stick is a minor flawed set of studies in disagreement with most of the data.
This brings us to the Number of The Week: 86.7% . As TWTW reported last week, Professor Emeritus of Geology Don Easterbrook has given the annual temperature reports in a different frame of reference. Based on his calculations from the GRIP-2 ice cores from Greenland, for 9,100 of the past 10,500 years it was warmer than today. That is, 86.7% of the time during this 10,500 year period it was warmer than today, and 13.3% of the time it was colder (at least in Greenland).
In conclusion, the results of these several studies demonstrate that the so-called unprecedented warmth of the late 20th century is simply a myth, as far as China is concerned. The apparent great warmth of this period in this particular part of the world appears to have been but a common manifestation of naturally-induced and regularly-recurring conditions similar to those that have been experienced in prior millennia. These results also serve as a testimony against those who would deny the existence of an extensive (hemispheric or global) Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, as well as an extensive Roman Warm Period and Dark Ages Cold Period, and cyclical climate changes in general. Clearly, it's time for everyone to wake up! ... and to recognize the dynamic nature of real-world climate change!
From CO2 Science , another peer reviewed paper with a paleoclimatology reconstruction based on cores containing plankton shells, show that both the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) can be seen in Indonesia. In the past, critics have said these events to be ???regional?? implying they occurred only around Europe, due to lack of historical records in other regions of the world.