2012 Hottest Spring Ever in US

[Snow_Miser]

http://www.ann-geophys.net/22/725/2004/angeo-22-725-2004.pdf

Our findings represent a solar-climate relationship that has

practical, as well as statistical significance, evidenced by the

importance of the NAM to Northern Hemisphere climate.

The crucial question now relates to how solar/geomagnetic

activity is coupled to the lower atmosphere. For part of

this mechanism it is likely that geomagnetic activity influences

the meridional temperature gradient, and subsequently

the stratosphere zonal wind structure of the stratosphere,

which, in turn, impacts upon tropospheric circulation

through a number of possible processes outlined in Shindell

et al. (2001) and Baldwin and Dunkerton (2001). The

seasonality of the relationship is a function of stratosphere troposphere

coupling, which only occurs during winter

months.

Further research must consider how these stratospheric

changes originate. Crucial to this endeavour is the elucidation

of which physical processes in the atmosphere can be

associated with geomagnetic activity. It is also important to

explain the temporal pattern, as well as the role of the QBO

in modulating the relationship.Therefore, we conclude that

geomagnetic activity plays an important role in recent climate

change, but that the mechanism behind this relationship

needs further clarification.

[GaWx]

The change in radiative forcing involving solar variation occurred during the first half of the 20th century.

OTOH, 1950-2000 was more active per this graph than any prior 50 year period going back to before Maunder. We've only just come out of this.

[bluewave]

OTOH, 1950-2000 was more active per this graph than any prior 50 year period going back to before Maunder. We've only just come out of this.

The strongest warming since 1980 occurred while the sun was in decline.

[Snow_Miser]

The strongest warming since 1980 occurred while the sun was in decline.

I hope you are aware that there are three datasets that measure TSI and not just PMOD.

This is the caption to the image you posted from Skeptical Science:

Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

In addition to PMOD, there are also the IRMB and the ACRIM TSI datasets, both which show an increase in TSI over the late-20th Century.

The IRMB dataset shows a mean increase of 0.15 w/m^2 from 1986-1996. This is not very much at all, but with large amplifying mechanisms from GCRs, this could represent a significant contribution from the sun to the recent warming.

The ACRIM dataset shows a statistically significant trend upward in TSI from 1986-1996, and therefore could represent a possibly dominant climate forcing over the last 30 years. In fact, with ACRIM, 65% of the warming over the last 30 years can be explained by solar activity variations.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not know that other TSI datasets existed other than PMOD, but your post is definitely misleading.

[donsutherland1]

When you account for all of the sun's geomagnetic activity (with the AA Index) the temperature is highly correlated to solar activity in all periods during the last 150 years.

Georgieva et. al 2005,

Notice how the distance between the global temperature and AK Index lines increases beginning with the 1951-80 base period. Even the AK Index graph shows a weakening relationship between solar activity and global temperatures.

[Snow_Miser]

Notice how the distance between the global temperature and AK Index lines increases beginning with the 1951-80 base period. Even the AK Index graph shows a weakening relationship between solar activity and global temperatures.

Sure, you could say that, this could be due to co2 or another factor.

However the aa index is positively correlated to the temperatures, and can explain 85 percent of the variances in temperatures over the last 150 years.

[bluewave]

I hope you are aware that there are three datasets that measure TSI and not just PMOD.

This is the caption to the image you posted from Skeptical Science:

Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

In addition to PMOD, there are also the IRMB and the ACRIM TSI datasets, both which show an increase in TSI over the late-20th Century.

The IRMB dataset shows a mean increase of 0.15 w/m^2 from 1986-1996. This is not very much at all, but with large amplifying mechanisms from GCRs, this could represent a significant contribution from the sun to the recent warming.

The ACRIM dataset shows a statistically significant trend upward in TSI from 1986-1996, and therefore could represent a possibly dominant climate forcing over the last 30 years. In fact, with ACRIM, 65% of the warming over the last 30 years can be explained by solar activity variations.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not know that other TSI datasets existed other than PMOD, but your post is definitely misleading.

The professor that you quote agrees that the warming was caused by carbon dioxide and not the sun since 1980.

http://www.mpg.de/49...Release20040802

the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide," says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.

[Snow_Miser]

The professor that you quote agrees that the warming was caused by carbon dioxide and not the sun since 1980.

http://www.mpg.de/49...Release20040802

the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide," says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.

What does this quote have to do with the material that I just posted concerning multiple datasets measuring TSI besides the PMOD dataset?

I provided the caption for the Skeptical Science graph you posted, and it has a TSI reconstruction from one of Solanki's papers before 1979.

[cmc0605]

There is now good evidence that PMOD has better accuracy than ACRIM, but it doesn't matter all that much either way, since the forcing from ACRIM is still substantially smaller than with GHGs. It's easy to do the math yourself. Snowlover tries to get around this with "indirect amplifying" mechanisms for which there is no evidence, and of which he has continually and intentionally distorted a number of resources on the matter, and quotes irrelevant papers (in addition to showing poor judgment concerning the quality of crackpot papers from people like Scafetta, Shaviv, etc, none of which hold weight in the more serious community). Aside from no good physical mechanism for these indirect mechanisms, the trends and correlations all break down on a global scale.

The reason Snowlover prefers these mechanisms is because you obviously can't prove a negative, so he can continue to lean on them without setting any criteria for falsification. I have no interest in re-visiting these arguments, and I think the only one who is really believing Snowlover's arguments is Snowlover. Readers can be referred to the solar thread for more detail.

[Snow_Miser]

There is now good evidence that PMOD has better accuracy than ACRIM, but it doesn't matter all that much either way, since the forcing from ACRIM is still substantially smaller than with GHGs. It's easy to do the math yourself. Snowlover tries to get around this with "indirect amplifying" mechanisms for which there is no evidence, and of which he has continually and intentionally distorted a number of resources on the matter, and quotes irrelevant papers (in addition to showing poor judgment concerning the quality of crackpot papers from people like Scafetta, Shaviv, etc, none of which hold weight in the more serious community). Aside from no good physical mechanism for these indirect mechanisms, the trends and correlations all break down on a global scale.

The reason Snowlover prefers these mechanisms is because you obviously can't prove a negative, so he can continue to lean on them without setting any criteria for falsification. I have no interest in re-visiting these arguments, and I think the only one who is really believing Snowlover's arguments is Snowlover. Readers can be referred to the solar thread for more detail.

Once again, there is no evidence to back up your claim that PMOD is more accurate than ACRIM, as is the case for the rest of your claims. I would argue the other way around, since there are many indicies which indicate an increase in solar activity during the late-20th Century, with one of them being the record low in GCRs observed during 1992.

Image is from Svensmark and Marsh 2000

It has been observed that there is a forcing that amplifies changes in solar irradiance, and you have not been able to refute the Shaviv paper so you are resorting to ad-hominem attacking Nir Shaviv by calling him a crackpot, as if that would somehow refute the research and results that he has done and found.

Sad.

BTW I do encourage everyone to look at that thread, and you will see that CMC evades many of my points concerning solar activity and temperature, and likes to misrepresent my position frequently.

[TerryM]

I think both of you are on the right track when you advise moving the argument to the Solar thread, where the subject has already been dealt with in some depth.

The fact is that this year experienced the hottest spring ever recorded in the US. If this statement is being disputed, this would seem the proper venue for rebuttal.

Terry

[Snow_Miser]

I think both of you are on the right track when you advise moving the argument to the Solar thread, where the subject has already been dealt with in some depth.

The fact is that this year experienced the hottest spring ever recorded in the US. If this statement is being disputed, this would seem the proper venue for rebuttal.

Terry

Thank you, apologies for the OT discussion.

Snowlover

[bluewave]

What does this quote have to do with the material that I just posted concerning multiple datasets measuring TSI besides the PMOD dataset?

I provided the caption for the Skeptical Science graph you posted, and it has a TSI reconstruction from one of Solanki's papers before 1979.

TSI has a very small impact so any differences that you cite are not significant.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Benestad_Schmidt.pdf

[87] Claims that a substantial fraction of post 1980 trends can be attributed to solar variations are therefore without solid foundation, and solar-related trends over the last century are unlikely to have been bigger than 0.1 to 0.2°C.

[Snow_Miser]

TSI has a very small impact so any differences that you cite are not significant.

Yes, TSI is not a very important climatic factor. Decreasing low cloud cover due to solar activity would however be a MAJOR climatic factor.

[PhillipS]

http://www.ann-geoph...22-725-2004.pdf

2004, huh? Still posting old, superceded research I see. Can't you find anything older - say, a translated Babylonian tablet?

Science advances as more data is collected and more analysis is done - so anybody wanting to discuss our current understanding of global climate change would cite the most recent research. You consistently post data and research on the 20th century and talk about solar cycles 20 or 21. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but this isn't the 20th century, its' the 21st - and we're not in solar cycle 20 or 21, since December 2008 we've been in SC24. Why is it you won't post up-to-date data or current research? Is it because the science doesn't support your pet theories?

[cmc0605]

2004, huh? Still posting old, superceded research I see. Can't you find anything older - say, a translated Babylonian tablet?

Science advances as more data is collected and more analysis is done - so anybody wanting to discuss our current understanding of global climate change would cite the most recent research. You consistently post data and research on the 20th century and talk about solar cycles 20 or 21. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but this isn't the 20th century, its' the 21st - and we're not in solar cycle 20 or 21, since December 2008 we've been in SC24. Why is it you won't post up-to-date data or current research? Is it because the science doesn't support your pet theories?

Phillip, this is not a very good objection...there are a lot of papers from the 1970s that are still good. Now it's true that how well cosmic rays correlate with clouds depends on the solar cycle you look at, the timeframe, and the location of interest. This is one reason I don't think it's a very robust mechanism. Snowlover can disagree, but the arguments out there have not been compelling to virtually anyone in the scientific community.

I haven't looked at the cited paper or followed up on, but it is not really relevant for what anyone here is talking about. Whether or not the papers conclusions are valid, I don't think anyone disagrees that there is some solar influence on atmospheric dynamics, especially in the upper atmosphere.

[Snow_Miser]

2004, huh? Still posting old, superceded research I see.

:lol:

8 years is not a long time at all for something like climate change.

[Snow_Miser]

Phillip, this is not a very good objection...there are a lot of papers from the 1970s that are still good. Now it's true that how well cosmic rays correlate with clouds depends on the solar cycle you look at, the timeframe, and the location of interest. This is one reason I don't think it's a very robust mechanism. Snowlover can disagree, but the arguments out there have not been compelling to virtually anyone in the scientific community.

I haven't looked at the cited paper or followed up on, but it is not really relevant for what anyone here is talking about. Whether or not the papers conclusions are valid, I don't think anyone disagrees that there is some solar influence on atmospheric dynamics, especially in the upper atmosphere.

I posted the paper to show that there are MANY ways in which the sun can impact the atmospheric dynamics besides just TSI.

It is simply absurd to claim that CO2 is the driver of climate change, when the sun can impact the atmosphere of the Earth in so many different ways.

[Vergent]

I posted the paper to show that there are MANY ways in which the sun can impact the atmospheric dynamics besides just TSI.

It is simply absurd to claim that CO2 is the driver of climate change, when the sun can impact the atmosphere of the Earth in so many different ways.

You mean like the "solar magnetic flux"?

[Snow_Miser]

You mean like the "solar magnetic flux"?

The geomagnetic activity of the sun has been shown to be correlated to ENSO in the Tropical Pacific, the NAO, a large impact on the Northern Annular Mode, and temperature.

[donsutherland1]

Sure, you could say that, this could be due to co2 or another factor.

However the aa index is positively correlated to the temperatures, and can explain 85 percent of the variances in temperatures over the last 150 years.

The explanatory power has been weakening in recent decades. The 85% figure reflects the earlier decades where the relationship was much stronger. It would be interesting to get a figure for just the most recent 3-5 decades.

Most climate scientists believe that the relative decline in the impact of natural forcings is the result of the growing forcing associated with CO2.

[Snow_Miser]

The explanatory power has been weakening in recent decades. The 85% figure reflects the earlier decades where the relationship was much stronger. It would be interesting to get a figure for just the most recent 3-5 decades.

Most climate scientists believe that the relative decline in the impact of natural forcings is the result of the growing forcing associated with CO2.

There should be some extra warming due to CO2 that is not due to natural factors. How much warming, however, is still very uncertain.

[donsutherland1]

There should be some extra warming due to CO2 that is not due to natural factors. How much warming, however, is still very uncertain.

The estimates in terms of forcing impact of CO2 and the other factors have been estimated and the error range is not very large.

[WeatherRusty]

There should be some extra warming due to CO2 that is not due to natural factors. How much warming, however, is still very uncertain.

How much uncertainty is there in the physics which says for a radiative forcing equaling 3.7W/m^2 (which you get from a doubling of atmospheric CO2) there will be a corresponding temperature response at the surface a little less than 1.2C at radiative equilibrium? I believe there is very little uncertainty at all.

[Snow_Miser]

The estimates in terms of forcing impact of CO2 and the other factors have been estimated and the error range is not very large.

A chart of radiative forcings does not tell us how much warming we would get from that radiative forcing. That is climate sensitivity, which is HIGHLY uncertain.

By the way, for comparison's sake, if Low Cloud Cover decreased by 10% over the 20th Century due to Cosmic Rays, it would give you a forcing of about 8 w/m^2, which is about a factor of 5 higher than the forcing from net anthropogenic contributions.

[Snow_Miser]

How much uncertainty is there in the physics which says for a radiative forcing equaling 3.7W/m^2 (which you get from a doubling of atmospheric CO2) there will be a corresponding temperature response at the surface a little less than 1.2C at radiative equilibrium? I believe there is very little uncertainty at all.

This value is without any feedbacks, which are probably the largest uncertainty in climate science.

[beneficii]

A chart of radiative forcings does not tell us how much warming we would get from that radiative forcing. That is climate sensitivity, which is HIGHLY uncertain.

By the way, for comparison's sake, if Low Cloud Cover decreased by 10% over the 20th Century due to Cosmic Rays, it would give you a forcing of about 8 w/m^2, which is about a factor of 5 higher than the forcing from net anthropogenic contributions.

This chart does reflect that uncertainty. Even if you were to minimize the warming factors that are anthropogenetic as much as possible and maximize the natural factor of the sun, you would still get a majority of the forcing from anthropogenetic factors. That is what the chart shows.

[Snow_Miser]

This chart does reflect that uncertainty. Even if you were to minimize the warming factors that are anthropogenetic as much as possible and maximize the natural factor of the sun, you would still get a majority of the forcing from anthropogenetic factors. That is what the chart shows.

No the solar forcing this chart shows is the direct forcing from TSI and it has been observed that an amplifying forcing is at work during the solar cycle, so this is not an accurate representation of the solar forcing. The impacts of the indirect variations in solar activity are highly uncertain, and it can not be said with confidence with how much the indirect variations have contributed since there is no cloud data before 1983, and even the data we have now is uncertain.

[TerryM]

No the solar forcing this chart shows is the direct forcing from TSI and it has been observed that an amplifying forcing is at work during the solar cycle, so this is not an accurate representation of the solar forcing. The impacts of the indirect variations in solar activity are highly uncertain, and it can not be said with confidence with how much the indirect variations have contributed since there is no cloud data before 1983, and even the data we have now is uncertain.

It this an example of trying to cloud the issue?

I apologize, but just could not restrain myself.

Terry

[cyclonebuster]

Dr. Masters is definitely correct...the climate is warmer now than it was at the beginning of the U.S. Climate record.

Unfortunately much of the climate change debate is deeper than the actual temperatures being warmer now than 100+ years ago.

Interestingly as you can see solar radiance doesn't change much but temperature still rises. I think NOAA has it right.

Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased

Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.

The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/