Solar Minumums vs. Solar Maximums

[beneficii]

You should probably leave then. Why do you think debates occur? It doesn't matter what the opponent is "convinced" by, it should be for the sake of science itself, not because I disagree with you. Otherwise there would be 100% consensus with no debates. Whatever it takes to "convince" me, or visa-versa, doesn't matter.

Debates where neither side can be convinced are for the sake of science? When scientists debate, they know that they are always in danger (as some would put it) of being convinced by their opponents' arguments. The kind of debate you envision seems to be one for cranks. Luckily, I suspect that most here do not share your views on the matter.

[BethesdaWX]

There is an even smaller body of evidence to support the MWP being caused by solar than there is for CO2 forced AGW. I'm not saying it's not the case... in fact I think it was solar, but correlation =/= causation and it is interesting to see you embrace so fully one proxy record while rejecting so completely another.

It depends how you put it......"evidence" is a relative term. We know that nothing in our realm of knowledge could have created the MWP besides Solar, and our proxies reveal that solar was indeed high during that time.

However, measuring the eventual temperature during that time is much different. Its one thing to say "solar was high, and so were global temperatures" Its another thing to plot temperatures, & then overly weight certain proxies at the end, as was revealed in the now debunked "hockeystick".

This is why using proxies is so dangerous. We know that the vikings grew vinyards up in Scandi, which would be impossible in todays climate. Our results are never certain, but if solar was indeed the cause of the MWP, there is no reaspon they cannot be the underlying cause of our current warm period.

[BethesdaWX]

Debates where neither side can be convinced are for the sake of science? When scientists debate, they know that they are always in danger (as some would put it) of being convinced by their opponents' arguments. The kind of debate you envision seems to be one for cranks. Luckily, I suspect that most here do not share your views on the matter.

When did I say I couldn't be convinced? I need evidence that I cannot shoot down/rebut, and there is nothing that has been thrown at me that threatens me except a few hypothesis & debunked reconstructions.

[Vandy]

It depends how you put it......"evidence" is a relative term. We know that nothing in our realm of knowledge could have created the MWP besides Solar, and our proxies reveal that solar was indeed high during that time.

However, measuring the eventual temperature during that time is much different. Its one thing to say "solar was high, and so were global temperatures" Its another thing to plot temperatures, & then overly weight certain proxies at the end, as was revealed in the now debunked "hockeystick".

This is why using proxies is so dangerous. We know that the vikings grew vinyards up in Scandi, which would be impossible in todays climate. Our results are never certain, but if solar was indeed the cause of the MWP, there is no reaspon they cannot be the underlying cause of our current warm period.

This is true, but the Vikings did not set off at the beginning of the MWP. Who's to say that one hundred years of the high global temps we saw during the early 2000s would not result in similar Greenland conditions? Takes time to melt that ice!

Regardless, I think looking at the magnitudes of the proxies for MWP and modern day temperatures and saying they are similar is only telling half of the story. The rate of change of temperature in the past 100 years is unlike anything found in the recent proxy record. The MWP saw a very gradual temperature increase. Of course, they are still proxies so one must be careful, but it is certainly something to note.

[beneficii]

When did I say I couldn't be convinced? I need evidence that I cannot shoot down/rebut, and there is nothing that has been thrown at me that threatens me except a few hypothesis & debunked reconstructions.

Here:

Also, let me ask again, What would it take for you to become convinced of AGW?

As for "what it would take for me to believe in AGW"... If We continue warming through 2045 wiith decreasing solar, then I'm definitely in the AGW camp.

[BethesdaWX]

Here:

First, is that 45 years? Second, did I say that I couldn't be convinced if proof was given?

both = NO

[beneficii]

First, is that 45 years?

You're the one that came up with 45 years out of 2045:

You on the other cannot be convinced until 2045--you said so yourself.

Well then, can we please get back on topic? It doesn't matter if it will take me 45 years to be convinced (your words), it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Oops.

[BethesdaWX]

This is true, but the Vikings did not set off at the beginning of the MWP. Who's to say that one hundred years of the high global temps we saw during the early 2000s would not result in similar Greenland conditions? Takes time to melt that ice!

Regardless, I think looking at the magnitudes of the proxies for MWP and modern day temperatures and saying they are similar is only telling half of the story. The rate of change of temperature in the past 100 years is unlike anything found in the recent proxy record. The MWP saw a very gradual temperature increase. Of course, they are still proxies so one must be careful, but it is certainly something to note.

Again, misteps. That is one proxy.

- Glaciers in the Arctic were lower than todays, as viking burial grounds are being revealed underneath todays melting glaciers, as well as as old Plant Material. This is being found under permafrost

-The voyages between iceland and greenland by the vikings were rarely hindered by ice

-Trees blooming near strasbourg

-Treeline in the alps was 6000ft higher than todays!

-Wheat was grown to 70N

-In Asia, cultivation of citrus was higher during the 13th century than any othertime, estimated it had to be over 1C warmer than today

Again, we have evidence of a very warm time period.

Here are a few other proxies

The regular voyages of the Vikings between Iceland and Greenland were rarely hindered by ice, and many burial places of the Vikings in Greenland still lie in the permafrost.Glaciers were smaller than today

Also the global retreat of glaciers that occurred in the period between about 900 to 1300 [2] speaks for the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. An interesting detail is that many glaciers pulling back since 1850 reveal plant remnants from the Middle Ages, which is a clear proof that the extent of the glaciers at that time was lower than today [3].

Furthermore, historical traditions show evidence of unusual warmth at this time. Years around 1180 brought the warmest winter decade ever known. In January 1186/87, the trees were in bloom near Strasbourg. And even earlier you come across a longer heat phase, roughly between 1021 and 1040. The summer of 1130 was so dry that you could wade through the river Rhine. In 1135, the Danube flow was so low that people could cross it on foot. This fact has been exploited to create foundation stones for the bridge in Regensburg this year [4].

Clear evidence of the warm phase of the Middle Ages can also be found in the limits of crop cultivation. The treeline in the Alps climbed to 2000 meters, higher than current levels are [5]. Winery was possible in Germany at the Rhine and Mosel up to 200 meters above the present limits, in Pomerania, East Prussia, England and southern Scotland, and in southern Norway, therefore, much farther north than is the case today [6]. On the basis of pollen record there is evidence that during the Middle Ages, right up to Trondheim in Norway, wheat was grown and until nearly the 70th parallel/latitude barley was cultivated[4]. In many parts of the UK arable land reached heights that were never reached again later.

Also in Asia historical sources report that the margin of cultivation of citrus fruits was never as far north as in the 13th century. Accordingly, it must have been warmer at the time about 1 ° C than today [7].

Archeology and history confirm interglacial

Insects can also be used as historical markers for climate. The cold sensitive beetle Heterogaster urticae was detected during the Roman Optimum and during the Norman High Middle Age in York. Despite the warming of the 20th century, this beetle is found today only in sunny locations in the south of England [8].

During the medieval climate optimum, the population of Europe reached hitherto unknown highs. Many cities were founded at this very time with high-altitude valleys, high pastures and cultivated areas, which were at the beginning of the Little Ice Age again largely abandoned [9].

The Middle Ages was the era of high culture of the Vikings. In this period their expansion occurred into present-day Russia and the settlement of Iceland, Greenland and parts of Canada and Newfoundland. In Greenland even cereals were grown about this time.. With the end of the Medieval Warm Period the heyday of the Vikings ended. The settlements in Greenland had to be abandoned as well as in the home country of Norway, during this time, many northern communities located at higher altitudes [10]. The history of the Vikings also corresponds very well to the temperature reconstructions from Greenland, which were carried out using ice cores. According to the reconstructions, Greenland was at the time of the Vikings at least one degree warmer than in the modern warming period [11].

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/

[BethesdaWX]

You're the one that came up with 45 years out of 2045:

Oops.

Dude, just stop.

You make no sense. 2045.....So, I want to wait for a cold ocean phase to get going? Who gives a f**K? I never said I would not be convinced if new data came out with proof.

[beneficii]

You make no sense. 2045 is 34 years.

Just making clear to everyone that that was your error, not mine. We wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong impression, now would we?

[BethesdaWX]

Just making clear to everyone that that was your error, not mine. We wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong impression, now would we?

who cares? No one

[BethesdaWX]

Again, misteps. That is one proxy.

- Glaciers in the Arctic were lower than todays, as viking burial grounds are being revealed underneath todays melting glaciers, as well as as old Plant Material. This is being found under permafrost

-The voyages between iceland and greenland by the vikings were rarely hindered by ice

-Trees blooming near strasbourg

-Treeline in the alps was 6000ft higher than todays!

-Wheat was grown to 70N

-In Asia, cultivation of citrus was higher during the 13th century than any othertime, estimated it had to be over 1C warmer than today

Again, we have evidence of a very warm time period.

Here are a few other proxies

The regular voyages of the Vikings between Iceland and Greenland were rarely hindered by ice, and many burial places of the Vikings in Greenland still lie in the permafrost.Glaciers were smaller than today

Also the global retreat of glaciers that occurred in the period between about 900 to 1300 [2] speaks for the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. An interesting detail is that many glaciers pulling back since 1850 reveal plant remnants from the Middle Ages, which is a clear proof that the extent of the glaciers at that time was lower than today [3].

Furthermore, historical traditions show evidence of unusual warmth at this time. Years around 1180 brought the warmest winter decade ever known. In January 1186/87, the trees were in bloom near Strasbourg. And even earlier you come across a longer heat phase, roughly between 1021 and 1040. The summer of 1130 was so dry that you could wade through the river Rhine. In 1135, the Danube flow was so low that people could cross it on foot. This fact has been exploited to create foundation stones for the bridge in Regensburg this year [4].

Clear evidence of the warm phase of the Middle Ages can also be found in the limits of crop cultivation. The treeline in the Alps climbed to 2000 meters, higher than current levels are [5]. Winery was possible in Germany at the Rhine and Mosel up to 200 meters above the present limits, in Pomerania, East Prussia, England and southern Scotland, and in southern Norway, therefore, much farther north than is the case today [6]. On the basis of pollen record there is evidence that during the Middle Ages, right up to Trondheim in Norway, wheat was grown and until nearly the 70th parallel/latitude barley was cultivated[4]. In many parts of the UK arable land reached heights that were never reached again later.

Also in Asia historical sources report that the margin of cultivation of citrus fruits was never as far north as in the 13th century. Accordingly, it must have been warmer at the time about 1 ° C than today [7].

Archeology and history confirm interglacial

Insects can also be used as historical markers for climate. The cold sensitive beetle Heterogaster urticae was detected during the Roman Optimum and during the Norman High Middle Age in York. Despite the warming of the 20th century, this beetle is found today only in sunny locations in the south of England [8].

During the medieval climate optimum, the population of Europe reached hitherto unknown highs. Many cities were founded at this very time with high-altitude valleys, high pastures and cultivated areas, which were at the beginning of the Little Ice Age again largely abandoned [9].

The Middle Ages was the era of high culture of the Vikings. In this period their expansion occurred into present-day Russia and the settlement of Iceland, Greenland and parts of Canada and Newfoundland. In Greenland even cereals were grown about this time.. With the end of the Medieval Warm Period the heyday of the Vikings ended. The settlements in Greenland had to be abandoned as well as in the home country of Norway, during this time, many northern communities located at higher altitudes [10]. The history of the Vikings also corresponds very well to the temperature reconstructions from Greenland, which were carried out using ice cores. According to the reconstructions, Greenland was at the time of the Vikings at least one degree warmer than in the modern warming period [11].

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/

[beneficii]

who cares? No one

Well, considering that during our back and forth, I noticed a fair number of active users in this thread who didn't post, I imagine there was a bit of during our back and forth.

[BethesdaWX]

Well, considering that during our back and forth, I noticed a fair number of active users in this thread who didn't post, I imagine there was a bit of during our back and forth.

Again, who cares?

[skierinvermont]

Yay you posted the kiddie graph again without providing the citation for it. Your graph is total garbage. There is literally no scientific source that supports it.

Look I can draw pretty graphs too!:

[WeatherRusty]

Just wait a little bit, and WeatherRusty will reproduce his figures showing how the CO2 forcing overwhelms any forcing from the sun. In case you didn't remember, he did post those figures a week or 2 ago. I don't remember which thread though, so again we must wait. I find it reasonable to request of you, because afterall we must wait until 2045 to try to convince you.

Here you go beneficii........

If I could point out one very overlooked point when assessing the impact of solar variation on global temperatures...

Take a close look at the TSI graphics presented in the above arguments. You will notice that total TSI CHANGE is on the order of 0.3W/m^2 between ~1900 and ~2000. To put this change into perspective versus the anticipated change in forcing by one greenhouse gas, namely CO2, we note that for a doubling of CO2 we get 3.7W/^2.

We have +0.3W/m^2 change in solar irradiance versus 3.7W/m^2 per 2X CO2. Now, CO2 has not doubled since 1900. It is up by a bit less than 40% of one doubling. Combining all known forcings we get about +1.6W/m^2 of which only +0.3W/m^2 is of solar origin.

We all should acknowledge that these relatively small changes in solar radiance have played a large part in past episodes of climate change. This only emphasizes the problem we face when introducing a forcing several orders of magnitude greater than that of known solar forcing.

To complicate things further, the forcing applied by the enhanced greenhouse effect is 24 hours per day and over the entire curved surface area of the Earth. The solar value is measured against a one square meter flat plane rather than a curved surface. In other words, the +0.3W/m^2 increase in solar energy received at Earth's top of atmosphere is spread out over a curved surface which greatly reduces it's warming intensity. So much so that the change in intrinsic solar output would require +22W/m^2 to equal the warming effect of CO2's greenhouse impact at 3.7W/m^2 per doubling.

[aslkahuna]

Once cycle doesn't make a trend. Long term trends in global temps as a result of several 11yr cycles, and our recent mondern max still has that lingering effect.

My point... if its not observed, it hasn't been recorded obviously.

Cycle 19 WAS part of the modern maximum which began to develop with Cycle 18. Cycle 23 is the 5th cycle in this maximum period which is important to consider as well. My point was that cycle 23 was not historically the highest cycle observed at least in terms of R number which is the only record of any real length sating back to the Maunder minimum which began not long after telescopic observations of the Sun began.

Steve

[aslkahuna]

Just as an aside, the Pinatubo eruption of June 1991 occurred during the peak of the secondary maximum of cycle 22. In fact, during the week before and during the peak eruptive activity of the volcano, On region produced NINE X-Ray Flares of X10.0 or greater.

Steve

[BethesdaWX]

Here you go beneficii........

If I could point out one very overlooked point when assessing the impact of solar variation on global temperatures...

Take a close look at the TSI graphics presented in the above arguments. You will notice that total TSI CHANGE is on the order of 0.3W/m^2 between ~1900 and ~2000. To put this change into perspective versus the anticipated change in forcing by one greenhouse gas, namely CO2, we note that for a doubling of CO2 we get 3.7W/^2.

We have +0.3W/m^2 change in solar irradiance versus 3.7W/m^2 per 2X CO2. Now, CO2 has not doubled since 1900. It is up by a bit less than 40% of one doubling. Combining all known forcings we get about +1.6W/m^2 of which only +0.3W/m^2 is of solar origin.

We all should acknowledge that these relatively small changes in solar radiance have played a large part in past episodes of climate change. This only emphasizes the problem we face when introducing a forcing several orders of magnitude greater than that of known solar forcing.

To complicate things further, the forcing applied by the enhanced greenhouse effect is 24 hours per day and over the entire curved surface area of the Earth. The solar value is measured against a one square meter flat plane rather than a curved surface. In other words, the +0.3W/m^2 increase in solar energy received at Earth's top of atmosphere is spread out over a curved surface which greatly reduces it's warming intensity. So much so that the change in intrinsic solar output would require +22W/m^2 to equal the warming effect of CO2's greenhouse impact at 3.7W/m^2 per doubling.

I think you just debunked yourself.

The MWP being caused by Solar......why is our current WarmPeriod not caused by Solar? But the MWP was? Solar is the Same, Except the MWP was most likey Much Warmer.

During the MWP, the Glaciers were MUCH smaller than today (dead vikings & plant/tree remains are found under the melting permafrost), Vinyards were grown in Scandi, The Treeline in the Alps was 6000ft higher than it is currently, and Asia saw citrus grown farther north in the 13th Century than anytime else. Unlike Our Current Warm period, there is also evidence of heavy Antarctic ice Melt in the MWP, and sea level was likely Much higher as well.

That is ALL solar caused. Yet the modern max is not responsible for our current warming? With Solar hovering around the same for most of the Modern max, and With Solar Causing the LIA, MWP, & RWP, (RWP probably reached 2C above today).............why is our current WP, which is alot less impressive, NOT be solar caused?

Answer... it is solar caused!

I like this graph, so I'll post it again.....

Wait.....Solar Activity looks a bit like a Hockeystick! Look carefully now.....

[beneficii]

I think you just debunked yourself.

The MWP being caused by Solar......why is our current WarmPeriod not caused by Solar? But the MWP was? Solar is the Same, Except the MWP was most likey Much Warmer.

During the MWP, the Glaciers were MUCH smaller than today (dead vikings & plant/tree remains are found under the melting permafrost), Vinyards were grown in Scandi, The Treeline in the Alps was 6000ft higher than it is currently, and Asia saw citrus grown farther north in the 13th Century than anytime else. Unlike Our Current Warm period, there is also evidence of heavy Antarctic ice Melt in the MWP, and sea level was likely Much higher as well.

That is ALL solar caused. Yet the modern max is not responsible for our current warming? With Solar hovering around the same for most of the Modern max, and With Solar Causing the LIA, MWP, & RWP, (RWP probably reached 2C above today).............why is our current WP, which is alot less impressive, NOT be solar caused?

Answer... it is solar caused!

I like this graph, so I'll post it again.....

Wait.....Solar Activity looks a bit like a Hockeystick! Look carefully now.....

How is this relevant to what WeatherRusty just said?

[Sunny and Warm]

haha, what did we say about using hypothesis as proof? Again, as solar caused the MWP, rising GTA to over +0.8, the formulas are obviously not correct anyway. LIA is another example.

Fact is, what gases do inside a controlled impound have no bearings on their behavior in the atmosphere.

I actually like this graph....it vindicates solar big time.....

Regardless of solar or CO2 influences, the big takeaway from this graph is that climate is not stable, unlike what some people would have you believe. How are are supposed to control climate based off a 30 year base period, which as you can see is ludicrous.

[WeatherRusty]

Regardless of solar or CO2 influences, the big takeaway from this graph is that climate is not stable, unlike what some people would have you believe. How are are supposed to control climate based off a 30 year base period, which as you can see is ludicrous.

No authoritative, reputable scientific source would have you believe that climate is stable. It clearly is not, and that is just the point. We are perturbing an intrinsically unstable complex system which is clearly sensitive to factors that force it to change.

[Sunny and Warm]

No authoritative, reputable scientific source would have you believe that climate is stable. It clearly is not, and that is just the point. We are perturbing an inherently unstable complex system which is clearly sensitive to factors that force it to change.

That simply isn't true just because they don't blatantly say it. When govt authorities are setting CO2 limits, what is the goal? It is to get us back to the chosen 30 year average!! As the graph shows, temps go up and down all the time. How can we control one small part of an unstable climate system and hope it remains stable? The answer is that we cannot.

[WeatherRusty]

That simply isn't true just because they don't blatantly say it. When govt authorities are setting CO2 limits, what is the goal? It is to get us back to the chosen 30 year average!! As the graph shows, temps go up and down all the time. How can we control one small part of an unstable climate system and hope it remains stable? The answer is that we cannot.

Here what I want you to do. Go visit this site: HERE

Now you tell me again that the science of paleoclimatology does not recognize the fact that climate is variable. You can't lay blame at the feet of the science just because masses of people are ignorant.

The goal is not to stabilize climate, it is to prevent a global warming that would greatly dwarf the MWP even at just +3C from one doubling of CO2.

[Kevin Druff]

I know, you're my student, as observed by your lackluster post. Congrats on emberrassing yourself

If you're going to try to insult someone, learn how to ****ing spell. You embarrass yourself.

[Vandy]

That simply isn't true just because they don't blatantly say it. When govt authorities are setting CO2 limits, what is the goal? It is to get us back to the chosen 30 year average!! As the graph shows, temps go up and down all the time. How can we control one small part of an unstable climate system and hope it remains stable? The answer is that we cannot.

No scientist worth their salt is claiming that the climate is completely stable, although it has been stable in recent geological history... the MWP is nothing compared to some of the big variations of the distant past. The problem, as was explained before is that we are possibly destabilizing it further by drastically altering the levels of one forcing on the system.

[Kevin Druff]

Also, you've asserted this several times now:

The Treeline in the Alps was 6000ft higher than it is currently

The approximate average treeline in the Swiss alps is currently 6,900 feet. You're trying to tell me that in the MWP trees grew, essentially, to the top of the mountains.

Sorry, but I call bull****.

[skierinvermont]

Also, you've asserted this several times now:

The approximate average treeline in the Swiss alps is currently 6,900 feet. You're trying to tell me that in the MWP trees grew, essentially, to the top of the mountains.

Sorry, but I call bull****.

LOL.. I can just imagine it a pointy tree on top of the Matterhorn.

Thank you for the evening's entertainment yet again Bethesda. These repeated blatant errors on you part are very revealing both of you and your 'sources.'

[BethesdaWX]

How is this relevant to what WeatherRusty just said?

How is it not? The formulas being hypothesized underestimate solar... If similar solar can create the MWP, they can do the same now. Thats the point, its physically impossible for our solar theory to be correct based on what happened in the MWP & RWP, where temps rose upwards of 1-2C above avg

[BethesdaWX]

LOL.. I can just imagine it a pointy tree on top of the Matterhorn.

Thank you for the evening's entertainment yet again Bethesda. These repeated blatant errors on you part are very revealing both of you and your 'sources.'

Haha

Maybe you should take some Geography classes, and read about the Tree remains we've found up over 11,000ft