Articles on this Page
- 01/09/19--10:56: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/09/19--11:00: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/09/19--11:10: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/09/19--11:30: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/09/19--13:33: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/09/19--13:48: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/09/19--15:45: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/09/19--15:47: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/09/19--22:45: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/10/19--09:38: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/10/19--09:49: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/10/19--14:45: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/10/19--16:18: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/10/19--18:19: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/10/19--18:51: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/10/19--23:32: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/11/19--04:36: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/11/19--04:41: _ Comment on Rec...
- 01/11/19--05:10: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/11/19--06:35: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/10/19--23:32: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Paul Aubrin
- 01/11/19--04:36: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Javier
- 01/11/19--05:10: Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
- 01/11/19--06:35: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Javier
Yes, I found the Dobler work interesting too, but indeed a great deal of it partners / justifies an explanation for the BD, as the first two words of its title clearly indicate. Hence the alternate theory above is most certainly relevant to post. And indeed if there is another robust theory that explains the emerging questions without a main recourse to climate, we might down-weight somewhat our evaluation of a climate theory that is so entangled with BD explanation. No, the Scott / Duncan work is not about climate, and not free, although as far as I recall there's some snippets of it around (sorry I have no links), and the theory has (or had) a mention in the wiki page for the Black Death.
dpy: " it appears its gone up about 1 W/m2 since the little ice age. That’s significant." The measured TSI ( at 1 AU) im W/m² - which is the radiation going through 1 m² when one points this 1 m² to the sun- is not the netto impacting solar power on a revolving ball as it's the earth. One has to divide it by 4. Therefore I described a change of 0.25W/m² on the top of the atmosphere (TOA)
P.S. though you may never read it (indeed I frequently don't read works that are pay-walled either), imho the Scott / Duncan work is far more thorough and researched in its profiling / investigation of the BD than the equiv sections (where indeed they are equiv) in Dobler. I see Scott / Duncan have a free paper on their theory, but it's presumably nowhere near as detailed. https://pmj.bmj.com/content/81/955/315
Steve, thanks for your attention of this small article. I know you are a "data junkie" ( in it's best meaning relating to transparent scince). I linked all the used data and if you are moreover nterested in my sheet with all the calculations...let me know it.
Any patm difference due to glacial deformation (isostatic) would have been minimal - as I believe I point out. This was only included as the topic was discussed in the original paper by Marie.
The question is the effect of salt water: first killing trees when the roots are reached, then the wave action and sea marine life.
For the major forests of the temperate zones to develop the land first has to de-iced, then warmed, then colonized bit-by-bit, then mature over many hundreds of years. I suspect that this would take longer than losing all the tropical forests, but this Drowned Forest Effect needs further work.
The Red Sea data first caught my eye (Eelco Rohling et al) as the upper and lower msl limits are so clearly marked. As this area is free from tides, currents, monsoons and geoids it serves as a good reference. Other and more recent extrapolations are not much different, hence the interest in finding out if any link exists (not to the levels between the limits but to the limits themselves). There is a topographical link which suggests that evaporation between 30S&N (where most evaporation takes place - considered common knowledge & ref not given) and water vapour thus seems to be the driving force on both cooling and warming during the last 700 ka or so and therefore CO2 plays a lesser role.
"The definition of climate change given by Fu and Wang in a series of studies on abrupt climate change in the 1990s refers to the climate jumping from one stable state to another (Fu and Wang 1992). Wang (2001) pointed out that a much larger abrupt climate change happened around the 1970s, with temperature, air pressure, wind field, and rainfall climate factors all showing the same change (Wang 2001). Many researchers have demonstrated that the 1970s climate change over East Asia is an interdecadal change associated with the coupled ocean–atmosphere system (Zhou et al. 2009). Kachi and Nitta (1997) investigated sea surface temperature (SST) variability on a global scale and found interdecadal variability, particularly in the North Pacific; their study also shows an abrupt change of the atmosphere–ocean system in the Pacific Ocean in the mid-1970s, corresponding to that in global surface temperature. The concept of the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) has been proposed, with abrupt interdecadal change identified in the years 1890, 1925, 1947, and 1976 (Biondi et al. 2001). The SST of the Pacific Ocean is characterized by the PDO mode at various times, and it is one of the important components of interdecadal change in the SST field (Xiao and Li 2007)." https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAMC-D-17-0345.1
Perhaps more relevant than the unprovable volcanic cause of the little ice age. Whatever data we have is freely available - so knock yourselves out.
Abrupt changes in the Pacific state seem related to solar modulation of polar annular modes. Changes in locations of wind and storms influence temperature in lower latitudes, Pacific upwelling and AMOC. Pacific SST modulates cloud cover and the global energy budget. Pacific SST shifts at millennial scales.
Abrupt change is diagnostic of deterministic chaos in the dynamical complexity of atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere that little minds fail to grasp and seek to mock. But it is overwhelmingly likely that the joke is on them.
I really do not endorse anything that Sherrington says.
There is a link between climate and failed harvest to famine effecting both humans and rats (field and sewer).
off topic for today, but of interest at other times:
Mobbing in Academe
Steven Mosher: <i> From what I read I think your work was pretty solid, I’d want to go over it a few more times though.
Some people will turn everything into their quirky solar unicorns…
other wave their arms chaotically ( and wave them a lot)</i>
Frank Bosse: <i>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. This is also the case if we would include more years from the past, also due to the strong increasing uncertainties in the observed data, i.e. in the Southern Ocean.
However, in shorter time windows the internal variability described here can for sure introduce some bias regarding the sensitivity.
The (multi) decadal variability mentioned in (3) will lead to estimates of TCR based on trends over periods starting after 1950, particularly trends during the satellite period (post 1978), being biased upwards. </i>
All Javier and RIE did was attempt to stimulate Frank Bosse to address their hypotheses about the admitted omissions. I liked Frank's "for sure" part, though he seems actually uncertain.
"All Javier and RIE did was attempt to stimulate Frank Bosse to address their hypotheses about the admitted omissions. I liked Frank’s “for sure” part, though he seems actually uncertain."
ALL they NEED to do is the following.
1. Take franks work
2. DEFINE and QUANTIFY the Unicorn they think he misses
3. INCLUDE said unicorn in THEIR REVISION of His work
4. SHOW that the unicorn enhanced version is better
But they will never do the work.
They will NEVER EVER share data and code.
Javier is the master of cut and paste science as is RIE.
same old charts, same old cherry picked crap.
No advancement of undestanding
if they have something quantitative to add to Franks work, then ADD IT
otherwise miss me with the unicorn farts
<blockquote>No advancement of undestanding</blockquote>
Not for those that refuse to understand, or can't understand, that's for sure.
My comment showing that solar forcing affects the speed of rotation of the Earth during winters has only received silence. Most people simply reject what they can't understand. Scientists, at least the real ones, are supposed to embrace and relish on what they can't understand. But what would you know. You aren't a scientist despite all your lessons about how to conduct scientific research.
I ain't got any data or code that isn't publicly available at one click distance. You keep asking for what I haven't got.
The angular momentum of the planet does change with changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation - there are a number of studies. What is more interesting is the physical linkage between solar variability and ocean and atmospheric circulation and the effect on TOA energy flux.
I have provided multiple reference on these questions on these posts and suggest that regressing ENSO against temperature as discrete events is an incorrect procedure. There are a couple of other comments at the bottom. This is all mainstream science and what is a broadly held - by illustrious climate scientists - and more complete paradigm of Earth system behavior.
Mosh in this zombie thread on the other hand is in wingnut territory offering nothing but his rote denial, sophistry and disparagement.
Steven Mosher: <i>if they have something quantitative to add to Franks work, then ADD IT
otherwise miss me with the unicorn farts </i>
Do you agree with Frank that CO2 sensitivity is overestimated? For sure?
Philippe de Larminat, an expert in statistical identification techniques tried to apply these techniques to the climate identification problem. His results are surprising and worth a look.
He published them with much details in a book “Climate Change, identification and projections” (de Larminat, P., ISTE/Wiley, 2014), and excerpts in Annual Reviews in Control doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2016.09.018 (access is free).
According to Larminat's work, the solar fingerprint appears much more in climate data than is usually thought.
<blockquote>His results are surprising and worth a look.</blockquote>
That's a valuable reference, thank you. I had forgotten about de Laminart's results applying identification techniques from dynamical systems.
Some of his conclusions:
<i>"At this stage, the existence of a mechanism of solar activity with a powerful influence over the climate seems irrefutable
solar activity not only explains the previous large climatic episodes, but also makes a strong contribution to the warming over the last century.
More precisely, for a warming of around 0.8 degrees since the start of the 20th Century, a visual evaluation gives the following distribution (in 2014).
According to the IPCC “knowledge-based” models:
+0.2°C results from solar and volcanic activity;
+0.8°C from human activity;
–0.2°C from natural random fluctuations.
According to observations (identified models):
+0.4°C results from solar and volcanic activity;
+0.2°C from human activity;
+0.2°C from natural random fluctuations."</i>
<blockquote>The angular momentum of the planet does change with changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation</blockquote>
So we must conclude that the ocean and atmospheric circulations change with solar activity. You can't explain that with changes in radiative forcing due to TSI variability. You need a specific climate mechanism that amplifies the signal.
If solar activity recruits internal variability mechanisms into forced change its effect can easily be several times higher than the effect of radiation changes alone.
A couple of years ago just out of curiosity I decided to compile a list of papers that focused on the solar issue. I was surprised at the very large number of papers and it wasn’t made up of just the usual suspects. It seems that it was over 200 from just 2 years. And I’m sure I missed many. There is a lot of solar research going on. I hope that is not being questioned.
I am also aware of a lot of research on solar effects on climate. If anything, what it is surprising is that all this research has so little visibility and is largely kept outside official reports by IPCC.
For AR5, from the December 2012 leaked SPM draft to the final version the following was eliminated:
<i>"Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link."</i>
It is always an uphill battle for scientists to do research that contradicts the scientific dogma of the time. It means less money, less prestige, less career development. Most of them are unjustly condemned to irrelevancy despite valuable and difficult contributions.