Do you think CAGW is just a UN scheme to impose global governance...

[bobbutts]

I think much of the denial is caused by overzealous reporting of doomsday predictions.  Deniers identify these as false and then assume that the entire field is overstated or fabricated.  It doesn't hurt that there's a decent size group re-enforcing this belief for them.  In the internet age, there's an echo chamber for everything.

[Bob Chill]

I think much of the denial is caused by overzealous reporting of doomsday predictions. Deniers identify these as false and then assume that the entire field is overstated or fabricated. It doesn't hurt that there's a decent size group re-enforcing this belief for them. In the internet age, there's an echo chamber for everything.

I agree with this. I'm in the middle of the pack with my thoughts on the topic. We are influencing our climate in a negative way. It's hard to deny that. But how extreme one way or another divides the group. It's natural for me to root against the alarmists and flat out deniers.

[GaWx]

I was never aware that you were ever a skeptic for that long Skier. What eventually convinced you that anthropogenic climate change was significant? For me it was the persistent energy imbalance despite low solar activity. That was key evidence that solar factors are no longer dominant, which is incredibly impressive, since it's likely solar variability played an important role in past climate change.

I see that you did a pretty sharp 180 on the sun in a pretty short amount of time as you were among the biggest dominant solar factor advocates here as recently as about a year ago with very long and detailed posts. I recall you harping on a multiyear lag. I'm still giving it some more time...til ~2018, which is ~10 years after the prior cycle min., to see if a decent global cooling trend finally starts to take hold. One thing that keeps me open-minded is the record high Antarctic ice and the overall cooler SST's in the southern hem. vs. northern. Is that the first effect of the lower solar activity? Is there a longer lag in the N Hem.? Will the N Hem. be next? We'll see. I'm expecting that the next cycle min. will be even quieter than this past one and, quite possibly, the quietest one since at least the Dalton min.

I went back and found an interesting post from you from 5/27/13: http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/160-all-things-solar/?p=2305450

"My post referred to skier's claim that if Solar Activity caused a large part of the 20th Century Warming, then we should be cooling right now, given that solar activity has declined dramatically in recent years. I responded saying that there are papers that document a 10-30 year lag, and some that document a 40 year lag. Given that such a lag may exist, the solar activity decrease may only just be starting to have a cooling influence. Thus, assuming a large solar role in the 20th Century Warming doesn't mean that we have to cool rapidly right now in order for the hypothesis to be legitimate. If we don't cool by 2020, I'm going to be with GaWx in supporting a minor solar role over the 20th Century"

Later that same day you said this: http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/160-all-things-solar/?p=2305587

"I question our ability to measure Earth's Energy Balance. We can try and do so through satellites, but the estimated imbalance is a magnitude too small for satellites to detect with any confidence. Thus, Energy Balance measurements mainly come from OHC measurements, which are more than uncertain at best."

Like Bob Chill, I'm in the middle of the pack. I still can't help but think about most daily high temp.'s being several hours after the high point of the sun and whether or not that is somewhat relevant and, therefore, supportive of a lag in global cooling from an overall quieter sun since we're only ~14 years from the end of the most active 50 years for the sun in 350+ years.

[The_Global_Warmer]

If the sun was the primary climate driver the Earth would have already cooled.  Whatever effect the sun has in terms of it's recent plunge is being off-set by something greater. 

 

What is the lag when a Volcano erupts like the 1991 one?  Pretty much almost no time at all.  The forcing changed and the temperatures responded abruptly.

 

You have to remember the Earths energy budget has to maintain a level of warmth way above 1880, 1920, 1950, 1980.  The math on the kind of heat that has to be stored in the upper layers of the ocean, land, ice, lower troposphere ect is HUGE. 

 

The drop in TSI started in the early to mid 2000s. There would easily be a response by 2005 and subsequently afterwards as the Earth balanced itself out.  The moment the incoming insolation drops the upper ocean, land, ice, atmosphere will start cooling.  OHC would start dropping as well. 

 

None of that has happened.

 

 

 

The SH even with increased ice hasn't cooled off at all. 

 

 

OHC responded abruptly as well in the early 1990s.  You can infer what you want from this but OHC had a slow down that kind of mirrors the big solar plunge.  If solar was the responsible party for this it couldn't even drop OHC for a little while or even hold it steady.  That clearly shows solar being trumpeted. 

 

 

 

Again in the early 1990s right after the volcano went the Earth cooled and glacial loss slowed globally as the forcing came back it went back up and continued to go up a lot when the Earth warmed a lot in the late 1990s.  It has only accelerated since then.

 

 

 

 

Spring NH snow cover actually started dropping a lot faster around 2005 but the trend goes back to the mid 90s.  May and June have really plummeted like clockwork.

 

 

Global ssta are currently at record highs. It's being power driven by explosive anomalies all over the Northern Hemisphere.  Natural weather patterns may be playing a role but something else is the catapult.

 

It's not a coincidence that the NH has a myriad of positive feedbacks.  Ice albedo feedback, snow albedo feedback, highest concentration of methane, highest concentration of Co2, warming land feedback, water vapor feedback, land ice darkening feedback, ssta feedback's.

 

All of these things work together to sustain an ever increasing amount of warmth in the NH during the solar insolation period that fades in winter but lays the foundation for the next year to bring if further because an underlying force(GHG's) is always increasing which makes every possible feedback stronger incrementally.

 

It would be physically impossible for the oceans to be this warm with solar forcing being the main driver with it declining back to the early 2000s. 

 

Something else is the driver.

[WXheights]

Empirical data sets offer the answer. If approached without any biases its overwhelming anthro as we know right now.

 

I think its a good 60% anthro (time to act and not sit on our hands which makes me alarmist sounding) and 40% natural variation. In a couple decades that will be 70% anthro 30% natural and so forth based on business as usual increases.

 

How much carried baggage is ideological lets say plus or minus 20% for most who try to keep that under the rug and more like 100% for science challenged numnuts.

 

I think wanting to get off fossil fuels faster makes one sound falsely "extremist, alarmist insert adhominen" on the science of AGW. I think we build in a buffer not to go positive feedback  and that is debatable for sure but yeah alarmist camp but realizing as time goes on more and more folks will take this position and eventually do something about it personally (libertarian solutions)  or through government regulations - which is the real "boogyman" for the non scientist skeptic which I think is the meat of the question - One world order UN black helicopter crowd.

[Snow_Miser]

I see that you did a pretty sharp 180 on the sun in a pretty short amount of time as you were among the biggest dominant solar factor advocates here as recently as about a year ago with very long and detailed posts. I recall you harping on a multiyear lag. I'm still giving it some more time...til ~2018, which is ~10 years after the prior cycle min., to see if a decent global cooling trend finally starts to take hold. One thing that keeps me open-minded is the record high Antarctic ice and the overall cooler SST's in the southern hem. vs. northern. Is that the first effect of the lower solar activity? Is there a longer lag in the N Hem.? Will the N Hem. be next? We'll see. I'm expecting that the next cycle min. will be even quieter than this past one and, quite possibly, the quietest one since at least the Dalton min.

Like Bob Chill, I'm in the middle of the pack. I still can't help but think about most daily high temp.'s being several hours after the high point of the sun and whether or not that is somewhat relevant and, therefore, supportive of a lag in global cooling from an overall quieter sun since we're only ~14 years from the end of the most active 50 years for the sun in 350+ years.

 

There should be a lag with surface temperatures, which makes sense because peak solar insolation occurs a month or so peak temperatures during the summertime. However, we have declined in solar activity for 50+ years now. Net solar forcing over the 20th Century is now very close to being zero, because of how much solar activity has dropped in recent decades. We should have at least noticed a small perturbation in Earth's Energy Imbalance at this point. If Sea Level Rise was to suddenly stop in response for example, or if the oceans stopped warming, that would be a whole another story.

 

However, while some may be skeptical or dismiss OHC data (I was skeptical at one point), another independent dataset fully confirms the energy imbalance. That is the sea level rise dataset. It has continued unabated, and shows no signs of stopping. That indicates that the Earth continues to be in a massive energy imbalance, despite record low solar activity. That was enough evidence for me to fully reject the solar hypothesis. The solar hypothesis is also inconsistent with stratospheric cooling and thermospheric contraction, something the greenhouse hypothesis explains well over the late-20th Century. 

 

The southern ocean has a whole has warmed at a fairly steep pace, which is once again consistent with a rise in radiative forcing globally. The cooler SSTs are likely attributable to natural variability from the bipolar seesaw, and changes in wind patterns from stratospheric ozone depletion.

 

https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/boning2008.pdf

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL042793/abstract

 

While Antarctic Sea Ice volume changes are negligible, changes in the Arctic volume are enormous. Another indicator that natural variation is superimposed on a long term anthropogenic trend.

 

There are currently no signs the Earth is cooling off in response to solar activity. We just had the highest SST anomaly ever on record according to HadSST3, and the warmest June on record according to NCDC and HadCruT4. This alongside a persistent energy imbalance, continued warming oceans, and continued sea level rise is enough evidence to reject a dominant solar role in recent warming. 

[StudentOfClimatology]

If the sun was the primary climate driver the Earth would have already cooled. Whatever effect the sun has in terms of it's recent plunge is being off-set by something greater.

Actually, the problem is that changes in solar activity are too weak to affect climate, in any way

Response time to radiative perturbation is another story and latest research into ocean-dynamics suggests it is a very drawn out process, even at the sea surface. So any tiny warming from the modern maximum is probably still occurring or has flat-lined.

TSI from Wang et al reveals that the effective increase in surface radiative forcing is about 0.29W/m2 since the Maunder Minimum...in other words, a warming effect of 0.09C..essentially undetectable

[chrisf97212]

  As nearly everyone agrees, the climate is enormously complex.  The hiatus wasn't predicted in the AGW models but few minds have been changed regarding AGW existence because of the hiatus.  Along the same lines, I believe it premature to declare the solar impact to be undetectable.  Perhaps it is even part of the hiatus, masking the impact of CO2.   By the way, there are other proposed solar/climate interactions other than TSI. 

 

I suppose this fits better in the solar thread.

[Snow_Miser]

  As nearly everyone agrees, the climate is enormously complex.  The hiatus wasn't predicted in the AGW models but few minds have been changed regarding AGW existence because of the hiatus.  Along the same lines, I believe it premature to declare the solar impact to be undetectable.  Perhaps it is even part of the hiatus, masking the impact of CO2.   By the way, there are other proposed solar/climate interactions other than TSI. 

 

I suppose this fits better in the solar thread.

 

When you account for short term variability, the models actually predict the hiatus period at the surface quite well. Meanwhile, other parts of the world continue to gain heat. 

 

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2105.html

 

And of course solar variability impacts climate. There is variability from the 11 year cycle superimposed on the long term anthropogenic trend. However, the magnitude of solar variability is considerably smaller than from anthropogenic sources, and this is observed with the persistent energy imbalance despite low solar activity. 

[ORH_wxman]

When you account for short term variability, the models actually predict the hiatus period at the surface quite well. Meanwhile, other parts of the world continue to gain heat. 

 

schmidt et al 2014.png

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2105.html

 

And of course solar variability impacts climate. There is variability from the 11 year cycle superimposed on the long term anthropogenic trend. However, the magnitude of solar variability is considerably smaller than from anthropogenic sources, and this is observed with the persistent energy imbalance despite low solar activity. 

 

 

Of course they do....the problem is the climate models cannot account for this variability or simulate it even by random chance.

 

The model failings will only get worse until they rerun them with a better representation of natural variability of the climate. When that is...who knows. But the latest generation of models...CMIP5 models....are pretty much useless in predicting global surface temperatures.

[Snow_Miser]

Of course they do....the problem is the climate models cannot account for this variability or simulate it even by random chance.

 

The model failings will only get worse until they rerun them with a better representation of natural variability of the climate. When that is...who knows. But the latest generation of models...CMIP5 models....are pretty much useless in predicting global surface temperatures.

 

ENSO is inherently difficult to predict, thus any short term impacts it has on global temperature are also hard to predict. Hence with the strongly negative ENSO trend since 2001, we have observed a slowing of the surface temperature increase since 2001.  

[ORH_wxman]

ENSO is inherently difficult to predict, thus any short term impacts it has on global temperature are also hard to predict. Hence with the strongly negative ENSO trend since 2001, we have observed a slowing of the surface temperature increase since 2001.  

 

 

ENSO can't explain all of it...but that aside, the models don't simulate ocean-atmosphere coupled processes well at all. That is a serious problem when trying to predict the earth's climate.

 

The models might get the direction of the temperature trend right, but that is about all they can do correctly when it comes to global surface temperatures.  

 

 

There seems to be two camps in the literature regarding the climate models: One camp looks at the failures, acknowledges them, and  hypothesizes on what may need to be remedied...the other camp seems to just explain away the shorter term failure as no big deal, but that they are still confident of their predictions on a longer time scale.

 

Perhaps the 2nd group may ultimately end up correct, but it isn't the path I personally support. I support the "fixing the problem" route. Especially when with each passing year, more and more evidence points to an underlying flaw in the models versus just a 2 sigma natural variability event they couldn't predict over a 20 year period.

 

 

But this is how science works...as stronger evidence emerges, then more literature will be published and we'll have more answers than we do right now.  

[chrisf97212]

When you account for short term variability, the models actually predict the hiatus period at the surface quite well. Meanwhile, other parts of the world continue to gain heat. 

 

schmidt et al 2014.png

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2105.html

 

And of course solar variability impacts climate. There is variability from the 11 year cycle superimposed on the long term anthropogenic trend. However, the magnitude of solar variability is considerably smaller than from anthropogenic sources, and this is observed with the persistent energy imbalance despite low solar activity. 

 

 

I'll register for the nature article later but I haven't seen that model range before.

 

I've been re-reading the solar thread and you have indeed done a 180 in a short time frame.  Was there a singular event or study that caused the flip?  Or did someone get your password?  jk

 

[Snow_Miser]

I'll register for the nature article later but I haven't seen that model range before.

 

I've been re-reading the solar thread and you have indeed done a 180 in a short time frame.  Was there a singular event or study that caused the flip?  Or did someone get your password?  jk

 

More or less a culmination of factors, some of which I've explained here. I'm not ashamed of my previous views, that people change their viewpoints in light of new evidence. Perhaps I have a more open mind to change than some people might have previously assumed. 

[GaWx]

There should be a lag with surface temperatures, which makes sense because peak solar insolation occurs a month or so peak temperatures during the summertime. However, we have declined in solar activity for 50+ years now.

 

Snowlover,

 Thanks for the detailed reply. I have to question what I bolded, especially considering your pretty sudden 180 degree change on solar. From where are you getting that solar activity has declined for 50+ years now? I'm guessing that you're referring to cycle 19, which has the highest peak on record and peaked in the late 1950's. However, cycles 21 and 22, which went into the 1990's, were two of the strongest cycles of the last few hundred years besides 19. So, I don't think that saying it has declined for 50+ years is accurate.

[Isotherm]

Larry, I had the same reaction when I read that, so you saved me some time in this reply.

 

It's my honest opinion snowlover that you made an about-face too quickly with regards to giving up on the Sun, but as I've said, time tells all, so we'll see.

 

There's much more to solar forcing than simply TSI and sunspot variations. When one really digs into the research on climate-solar dynamics, it becomes apparent that there is an amplification over time, i.e. a "lag" in the correlation between solar forcing and global temperatures.

 

The following peer-reviewed article concludes that the length of a particular solar cycle is strongly correlated to temperatures in the duration of the following solar cycle, and a lag of up to 10-12 years is cited.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000417

 

 

The study notes that solar forcing could have a 40% to 72% contribution to the temperature increase over the past 150 years. Consequently, given the expectations of the solar cycle going forward, we should begin to see a temperature decline over the coming 10-15 years. Utilizing their methodology, we should really begin to see the effects of the forcing as we approach 2018-2020.

 

 

 

 

Abstract:

Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least <img height="11" border="0" style="vertical-align:bottom" width="36" alt="View the MathML source" title="View the MathML source" src="http://origin-ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1364682612000417-si0030.gif">1.0°C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.

 

 

 

Other peer-reviewed articles on the relationship between the length of the solar magnetic cycle and temperature:

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360544293900167

 

 

Length of solar cycle and temperatures:

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360544293900156

 

 

And another on this topic:

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/254/5032/698.abstract

 

 

 

Thus, it is unwise in my view to isolate only TSI when it concerns potential solar forcing on Earth's climate, as it ignores other mechanisms, such as the cycle length temperature lag amplification as cited above, not to mention other issues such as solar activity modulation of galactic cosmic rays and the corresponding low level cloud dynamic changes (ionization, etc.).

[Snow_Miser]

Snowlover,

Thanks for the detailed reply. I have to question what I bolded, especially considering your pretty sudden 180 degree change on solar. From where are you getting that solar activity has declined for 50+ years now? I'm guessing that you're referring to cycle 19, which has the highest peak on record and peaked in the late 1950's. However, cycles 21 and 22, which went into the 1990's, were two of the strongest cycles of the last few hundred years besides 19. So, I don't think that saying it has declined for 50+ years is accurate.

It is fairly accurate over the last 50 years:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1964/last:2014/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1964/last:2014/trend

And since 1950:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/last:2014/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/last:2014/trend

[GaWx]

It is fairly accurate over the last 50 years:http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1964/last:2014/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1964/last:2014/trend

And since 1950:http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/last:2014/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/last:2014/trend

Snowlover,

I don't at all agree with that straight green line on either graph. It is simply a line drawn from the first cycle on each graph to the weak cycle 24. Because cycle 24 was the weakest cycle in the better part of 100 years, a straight line drawn starting from just about any cycle between 15 and 23, inclusive, to cycle 24 would be sloped downward. That is very deceiving! There should be curves instead. I'd argue that the downtrend is no older than since the 1990's. Why would the line go down through cycles 21 and 22, which were two of the strongest cycles outside of 19? That makes zero sense to me.

The cycles 18-22, which cover the period from the mid 1940's into the late 1990's, include the most active five consecutive cycle period (and by a significant margin) since at least around the late 1500's through early 1600's. It could even go back quite a bit further but reliable data isn't available before then. Because of this, I still wonder how much of the late 20th century warming as well as possible lag afterward may have been due to this strong 50 year period overall. Does the scientific community as a whole really know the approximate answer? This uncertainty and possible lag is why I'm waiting til ~2018 (~10 years after the prior cycle minimum) to see if global cooling finally starts to take hold.

[Isotherm]

The solar cycles up through cycle 22 in the 1990s were very strong in comparison to the majority of cycles over the past 150 years. Cycle 22's full effects were likely realized in the late 90s-early 2000s period, and thus, it's no surprise to me that we saw some of our warmest global temperatures during that time frame (in conjunction with oceanic forcing and other variables).

[ORH_wxman]

The solar theory lacks compelling evidence for the lagged temperature response on a decadal scale. The only solid physical response that might be lagged would be cloud feedback..however, this is difficult to prove. I know there is some research ongoing about this, but until there is a "golden nugget" of evidence on this theory, it is going to remain fairly weak IMHO.

 

This doesn't mean solar has no influence, but in order to prove the influence is more than just minor as per TSI variation, there needs to be some good evidence of cloud feedback on a decadal scale and we really don't have that right now.

[Snow_Miser]

Snowlover,

I don't at all agree with that straight green line on either graph. It is simply a line drawn from the first cycle on each graph to the weak cycle 24. Because cycle 24 was the weakest cycle in the better part of 100 years, a straight line drawn starting from just about any cycle between 15 and 23, inclusive, to cycle 24 would be sloped downward. That is very deceiving! There should be curves instead. I'd argue that the downtrend is no older than since the 1990's. Why would the line go down through cycles 21 and 22, which were two of the strongest cycles outside of 19? That makes zero sense to me.

The cycles 18-22, which cover the period from the mid 1940's into the late 1990's, include the most active five consecutive cycle period (and by a significant margin) since at least around the late 1500's through early 1600's. It could even go back quite a bit further but reliable data isn't available before then. Because of this, I still wonder how much of the late 20th century warming as well as possible lag afterward may have been due to this strong 50 year period overall. Does the scientific community as a whole really know the approximate answer? This uncertainty and possible lag is why I'm waiting til ~2018 (~10 years after the prior cycle minimum) to see if global cooling finally starts to take hold.

The green line represents the statistical regression line to best fit the data. It is not just drawing a line from 1950 to the end while ignoring all the rest of the data in between.

The point is, whether you agree with it or not, the data indicates a decline in solar activity since 1950.

[Isotherm]

The point is, whether you agree with it or not, the data indicates a decline in solar activity since 1950.

 

 

 

 

This to me is almost akin to saying, "there was a decline in summer temperatures in NYC from the summer of 2010 to the summer of 2012. One can see a linear decline in average temperatures." While, yes, summer temperatures were cooler in 2011 and 2012 than 2010, both of those summers were still much hotter than normal. The point is, while an overall slight downward trend has occurred over since 1960, that downward trend is not a significant one when examining the entire picture of solar cycles in the past 200 years. The first cycle of much longer length was cycle 23, which reached a minimum about 5-7 years ago.

[GaWx]

This to me is almost akin to saying, "there was a decline in summer temperatures in NYC from the summer of 2010 to the summer of 2012. One can see a linear decline in average temperatures." While, yes, summer temperatures were cooler in 2011 and 2012 than 2010, both of those summers were still much hotter than normal. The point is, while an overall slight downward trend has occurred over since 1960, that downward trend is not a significant one when examining the entire picture of solar cycles in the past 200 years. The first cycle of much longer length was cycle 23, which reached a minimum about 5-7 years ago.

 

 I agree with the general idea of your post, which can be seen visually in the attached graph. Even so, I do not think that there has been a linear downward trend since 1960 as is shown on the links given by Snowlover. The line is way too simplistic of a representation of what occurred imo. Do you agree? Instead, I think it probably looks similar to what the attached graphs shows: a slight downward curve from the early 1960's to the mid 1970's, followed by a slight rise from the mid 1970's to early 1990's (almost up to where it was in the late 1950's due to two strong cycles), followed by a slight downward trend from the early 90's to the early 2000's, and then followed by a stronger downtrend over the last 10 years or so due to the weak 24 (not shown on the graph).

 

 Also, as can be seen in the bigger picture per this graph, which is consistent with the general idea you were stating, the 50 year period 1950-2000 was more active than any prior 50 year period by a good margin going back at the very least to the early 1600's. So, that is why I still wonder if it is possible that a significant % of the global warming of the late 1900's was from solar influences and if there is still a significant lag/hangover effect from that warmest 50 year period that has delayed the start of a cooling period. I'm giving it til ~2018 (~10 years after the prior cycle's weak minimum) to see if cooling finally appears to be taking hold. I've been saying this for awhile.

 

 Edit: I'm still thinking (as I have for several years) that a Dalton-like minimum is very much a possibility over the next couple of decades into at least the 2030's. Also, I suppose that an even deeper minimum (more like Maunder) isn't out of the realm of possibilities though I think that chance is a good bit smaller as of now.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

 

[Isotherm]

 I agree with the general idea of your post, which can be seen visually in the attached graph. Even so, I do not think that there has been a linear downward trend since 1960 as is shown on the links given by Snowlover. The line is way too simplistic of a representation of what occurred imo. Do you agree? Instead, I think it probably looks similar to what the attached graphs shows: a slight downward curve from the early 1960's to the mid 1970's, followed by a slight rise from the mid 1970's to early 1990's (almost up to where it was in the late 1950's due to two strong cycles), followed by a slight downward trend from the early 90's to the early 2000's, and then followed by a stronger downtrend over the last 10 years or so due to the weak 24 (not shown on the graph).

 

 Also, as can be seen in the bigger picture per this graph, which is consistent with the general idea you were stating, the 50 year period 1950-2000 was more active than any prior 50 year period by a good margin going back at the very least to the early 1600's. So, that is why I still wonder if it is possible that a significant % of the global warming of the late 1900's was from solar influences and if there is still a significant lag/hangover effect from that warmest 50 year period that has delayed the start of a cooling period. I'm giving it til ~2018 (~10 years after the prior cycle's weak minimum) to see if cooling finally appears to be taking hold. I've been saying this for awhile.

 

 Edit: I'm still thinking (as I have for several years) that a Dalton-like minimum is very much a possibility over the next couple of decades into at least the 2030's.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

 

400yrsSunspots.png

 

 

 

Agree with your post on all counts, including the possibility of a Dalton-like minimum in the coming decades. As I've said in some of my other posts recently, most natural forcing mechanisms over the past 10-30 years predominately favored an increase in global temperatures, which makes it very difficult to determine the possible percentage influence of anthropogenic activity on said warming. However, going forward, if we see a disconnect between global temperatures and natural forcings given a reversal of the aforementioned factors (such as the solar constant, being one of them), then it will become increasingly apparent that anthropogenic activity is mostly to blame for the 20th/21st century temperature rise. If global temperatures remain level or begin decreasing over the coming decade, then it will become apparent that anthropogenic influence was overestimated by climate models.

[Snow_Miser]

ENSO can't explain all of it...but that aside, the models don't simulate ocean-atmosphere coupled processes well at all. That is a serious problem when trying to predict the earth's climate.

 

The models might get the direction of the temperature trend right, but that is about all they can do correctly when it comes to global surface temperatures.  

 

 

There seems to be two camps in the literature regarding the climate models: One camp looks at the failures, acknowledges them, and  hypothesizes on what may need to be remedied...the other camp seems to just explain away the shorter term failure as no big deal, but that they are still confident of their predictions on a longer time scale.

 

Perhaps the 2nd group may ultimately end up correct, but it isn't the path I personally support. I support the "fixing the problem" route. Especially when with each passing year, more and more evidence points to an underlying flaw in the models versus just a 2 sigma natural variability event they couldn't predict over a 20 year period.

 

 

But this is how science works...as stronger evidence emerges, then more literature will be published and we'll have more answers than we do right now.  

 

I didn't say ENSO could explain all of it. Just part of it. Schmidt et al. 2014 attribute most of the discrepancy to solar/volcanic/aerosol forcing and ENSO.

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2105.html

 

One thing is for sure though. Regardless of surface temperatures, global warming continues in the oceans and in the cryosphere. 

[ORH_wxman]

I didn't say ENSO could explain all of it. Just part of it. Schmidt et al. 2014 attribute most of the discrepancy to solar/volcanic/aerosol forcing and ENSO.

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2105.html

 

One thing is for sure though. Regardless of surface temperatures, global warming continues in the oceans and in the cryosphere. 

 

 

That paper is behind a paywall...so I can't read it. But if it is anything like many other recent papers that explain away the lack of warming because of natural variability, then it is an indictment on the models' inability to simulate any of this, even by chance...and it also puts into context that a significant part of the 1975-2000 warming was aided by natural variability and not almost all anthropogenic.

 

 

The discussion on climate models isn't about proving whether AGW exists or not...we are pretty certain that it does. Rather, it is about whether they have the correct TCR and/or ECS. Their is growing compelling evidence that the models have a warm bias on this front.

[Snow_Miser]

That paper is behind a paywall...so I can't read it. But if it is anything like many other recent papers that explain away the lack of warming because of natural variability, then it is an indictment on the models' inability to simulate any of this, even by chance...and it also puts into context that a significant part of the 1975-2000 warming was aided by natural variability and not almost all anthropogenic.

 

 

The discussion on climate models isn't about proving whether AGW exists or not...we are pretty certain that it does. Rather, it is about whether they have the correct TCR and/or ECS. Their is growing compelling evidence that the models have a warm bias on this front.

 

I think it's very possible ECS/TCR could be on the lower side of things, between 1.5-2.5 K for ECS. I also think it's likely that a significant portion of the late-20th Century warming at the surface was likely aided from natural variability by the PDO. 

 

Here is a link to the full paper:

 

http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/Climate/Reconciling%20Warming%20Trends.pdf

[GaWx]

That paper is behind a paywall...so I can't read it. But if it is anything like many other recent papers that explain away the lack of warming because of natural variability, then it is an indictment on the models' inability to simulate any of this, even by chance...and it also puts into context that a significant part of the 1975-2000 warming was aided by natural variability and not almost all anthropogenic.

 

 

 Could a significant portion of 1975-2000 warming have actually been due to the overall very active sun during ~1950-2000 in combo with some lag effect? It seems like the door is still open to that possibility even today imo. Therefore, I'm keeping an open mind for a few more years. I still wonder if the southern hem., whose SST anomalies appear to be cooler than those of the northern hem., and whose polar ice is near record highs, is somehow foreshadowing what may happen in the northern hem. Could the rebuilding Arctic ice of the last two years be just the start of a lot more rebuilding? Or is it up mainly due to a dead-cat bounce of sorts after the plunge in 2012?

[ORH_wxman]

 Could a significant portion of 1975-2000 warming have actually been due to the overall very active sun during ~1950-2000 in combo with some lag effect? It seems like the door is still open to that possibility even today imo. Therefore, I'm keeping an open mind for a few more years. I still wonder if the southern hem., whose SST anomalies appear to be cooler than those of the northern hem., and whose polar ice is near record highs, is somehow foreshadowing what may happen in the northern hem. Could the rebuilding Arctic ice of the last two years be just the start of a lot more rebuilding? Or is it up mainly due to a dead-cat bounce of sorts after the plunge in 2012?

 

 

It's possible, but the evidence isn't that strong IMHO.

 

What type of lag are we talking? What offset the big solar cycle 19? We really didn't start big warming until 1976-1977 Pacific Climate shift. Is there compelling evidence that solar cycle 19 was responsible for the Pacifc climate shift in lagged fashion? I don't see it but perhaps there is a mechanism via cloud feedbacks.

 

Maybe the strong -PDO and the 1963 eruption of Agung offset some of the larger effects of solar cycle 19 and screwed up feedbacks?

 

I am definitely interested in the lagged effects of solar cycles, but I have yet to see some good physical evidence that it is a dominant factor in our climate. I would have expected there to be a bit more in the literature by now if it existed. It is one of the reasons I never really bought into the solar idea...though I have always remained interested what would happen if we entered another Dalton-esque minimum. If we are indeed entering one now (of which there is some good evidence we might be), then I'll (and everyone else) get my chance to see how the climate responds.

[PhillipS]

Larry, I had the same reaction when I read that, so you saved me some time in this reply.

 

It's my honest opinion snowlover that you made an about-face too quickly with regards to giving up on the Sun, but as I've said, time tells all, so we'll see.

 

There's much more to solar forcing than simply TSI and sunspot variations. When one really digs into the research on climate-solar dynamics, it becomes apparent that there is an amplification over time, i.e. a "lag" in the correlation between solar forcing and global temperatures.

 

Several of those papers are twenty or more years old, and the first one had Ole Humlum as a co-author. (If you're not familiar with Ole, he is the pseudo-skeptic who created and runs the denialist website Climate4you.)  That paper is more recent but it only deals with a handful of Northern European sites, nothing global.  

 

Do you have any recent peer-reviewed papers on solar variability and global warming that you can share?