Articles on this Page
- 01/08/19--13:39: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/08/19--13:50: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/08/19--14:31: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/08/19--14:37: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/08/19--15:01: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/08/19--15:30: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/08/19--16:09: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/08/19--19:27: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/08/19--21:56: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/08/19--21:59: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/08/19--23:10: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/08/19--23:35: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/09/19--00:34: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/09/19--04:08: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/09/19--06:14: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/09/19--07:10: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/09/19--08:31: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/09/19--09:04: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/09/19--09:34: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/09/19--10:41: _ Comment on Rec...
You can call them unicorn influences, but that doesn't make them any less real. Literally hundreds of paleoclimatologists swear by their evidence that solar variability has a very important effect on climate. This is ignored because we have had over two hundred years when most of the time solar activity has been above average, so we have little experience with low solar activity and none with modern instrumentation.
Ignoring such important unicorn means that any conclusion we obtain is wrong. There is no other way around it. You can't calculate climate sensitivity without properly accounting for every important forcing.
The sad thing is that all the time and effort that has gone into making those models and over 35 years of research into climate sensitivity has been wasted. All because we refuse to research the role of solar variability on climate change because we refuse to go beyond the meme: "It is only 0.1% of TSI."
Clearly nature doesn't care.
Well yes Javier, there have been large climate changes that cannot be attributed to greenhouse gases and current thinking is that changing PATTERNS of solar insolation is responsible along with strong feedbacks. I seem to recall that changes in the far north can amount to as much as 75 W/m2 locally. That's a very large change. However, these patterns change slowly over time. To have much effect over the last century you would need some other mechanism such as an effect on clouds.
You can lead a unicorn to a black swan or dragon-king - but you can't make him believe.
It is the signature of low level cloud variability - much of that associated with cloud changes anti-correlated with SST in the eastern Pacific. See citations herein.
So we have simultaneous ocean and atmosphere warming and cooling in response to ENSO - not just a transfer of energy between oceans and atmosphere. This makes the linear regression of MEI against temperature of Folland et al, Tamino and Frank a complete nonsense.
What is needed instead is a procedure that uses cumulative MEI as a proxy for changes in ocean energy content - which correlates with surface temperature with much of the 'noise' built in.
This makes for a very substantial difference between mean model results (LOL) and observation in the Kravtsov et al 2018 study.
"The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale."
And to imagine that these multi-decadal changes operating through the Global Stadium Wave (GSW) are periodic beyond the 20th century is magical thinking.
So not to put too fine a point on things - what do I think of this post?
Okay, Javier...we have measurements of TSI (sorce) over the last 12 years and we can estimate the changes over the time frame from 1750 on:
and those changes DO NOT exeed a solar forcing delta of about 0.25W/m² on the TOA.
And this negligible changing is reason enough to hijack every comment section of natural variability and other forcings? I do not agree!
However Frank, it appears its gone up about 1 W/m2 since the little ice age. That's significant.
Then Frank, if it is so small, how do you explain that it changes the speed of rotation of the Earth?
Le Mouël, J. L., Blanter, E., Shnirman, M., & Courtillot, V. (2010). Solar forcing of the semi‐annual variation of length‐of‐day. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(15).
I checked it myself, and it is true.
The obvious explanation is that it affects wind patterns in the atmosphere so much as to change the Atmosphere Angular Momentum. And the zonal/meridional wind balance controls how much heat is moved through the latitudinal temperature gradient, particularly in winter.
How many W/m² equivalents is that change? Well, if I were to change the speed of rotation of the Earth, as Superman did in a movie, I bet I would need quite a lot of energy. Yet the Sun appears to do it when it is less active (notice the scale).
The unknown unknowns that can kill your pet theory are huge, but you are not happy that someone tries to show you where some of them are.
"teven, I’m just a little disappointed and a few other persons too I think. My mainpost was about the forced part/ internal variability (IV) of the GMST 1950…2016 and I tried to find this IV only from observations with some success IMO. A few disputants questioned the C&W record which is not a sacrilege in my wiew. "
From what I read I think your work was pretty solid, I'd want to go over it a few more times though.
The issue is the venue. Cranks will always find a way to Hijack a discussion onto the one streetcorner of science where they have their own branded misunderstanding.
I use to tplay this game where I could take any conversation and turn it into climategate.
Some people will turn everything into their quirky solar unicorns...
other wave their arms chaotically ( and wave them a lot)
you get the idea.
Keep up the good work
For a mosh who fails to understand sensitive dependence in models - the complex dynamical geophysics of atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere are beyond his game playing skill set.
frankclimate: <i> I tried to point out what is known, not what could be estimated. Sorry for this. </i>
My objection was to the use of the pejorative word "unicorns" for what are defensible hypotheses about variables omitted from your analysis (effectively treating them as zero, when they are not in fact "known" to be zero). That is what you should apologize for.
Alan Cannell: <i> The question is not so much why these cycles occur, but why do they stop at these depths?</i>
Thank you for your essay.
This may interest you : https://abruptearthchanges.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/01-02-2018-updated-black-death-and-abrupt-earth-changes.pdf
Matthew: What you mean is some kind of overconfidence? I once again analyzed the mainpost with a look at this issue. And I allwowed those unknown unkowns explicitely: "A postulate is included: There are no other contributions than described in the introduction section, perhaps longer lasting, so that we can’t identify them." (from the conclusions)
So I would for sure appologise if there would be something.
Yep, we can agree. My views resemble yours over much of what you have just written here.
IMO, there is far too much time spent dreaming about how to manipulate figures (figures that in some combinations do have rainbow unicorn form) when for many decades now the basic data contributing to these figures is unsound. Unsound, untested and unfashionable to discuss.
Last month, I fiddled away with some thoughts about Urban Heat Island. My conclusions are not compatible with those of Frank Bosse. If my conclusions are correct, his cannot be, and vice versa. Most of my conclusions can be tested by those with funds to do some experiments that are simple to envisage and execute and should have been done by now.. I am not sure if this applies to Frank.
(Note - my study was almost entirely about land based temperatures. His work deals a lot with oceans, but there are some reconciliations over land that need be fixed by further measurement.) Geoff
This is very interesting, thx
The deoth if the ocean at the beginning of the Ice Age and at the height of the ice ice build up is relatively the same for each ice age is because the bottom of the ocean is relaatively constant over the mellenia. The surface area of the earth covered by water and land is therefore the same. The radiant heat reflectred by the ocean is relatively the same.
frankclimate: <i>So I would for sure appologise if there would be something. </i>
I think you missed my point, so I'll drop it.
Thank you again for your essay.
Notwithstanding emerging difficulties with the bubonic explanation of the Black Death and hence a generally more holistic approach in recent years, the following is a much simpler alternative that also seems to me less challenging to the imagination than Dobler's very wide ranging / dramatic scenarios.
The great advantage of the dobler link is that it is very interesting, can be read in its entirety for free, unlike the book you link to which needs to be bought. Is it about climate?
Needs sifting through, but provides plenty of links to the date-climate-food link over a wide geographical area. The plague is a resulting after-effect.