More Evidence Against The "hockey Stick"

[VillagePlank]

VP - your 'leaky integrator' does look really intriguing. I have all the time in the world for approaches using real data, and I will be interested to see if it ultimately, erm, holds water . Science moves forwards by the finding of alternate theories that fit the evidence. Maybe yours will, maybe not, but it's a rational approach and that is good to see!

Still stuck at the 'due-diligence' (for want of a better expression) stage, unfortunately, and it looks like it will be decomposed into at least two or three seperate documents, with the first two (ish) laying out the foundations for the rational of why a leaky integrater might be applicable. Lots of reading an learning, and, ahem, reading, and learning ... etc etc.

EDIT: and my laptop crashed, so spent the weekend rebuilding it with, ahem, Windows 7. Good once it's installed, but installing it, for me, was a bit tricky (if you're interested, you need to completely wipe out the partition information using something like Darik's Nuke and Boot - or similar, and then you don't get, ahem, so many problems)

Edited October 6, 2009 by VillagePlank

[La Bise]

I wanted to add something that has not come across in my posts or maybe it has but it was not made clear enough: I do support sceptical inquiry of what "science" as a whole has to say. It is scepticism and people coming from a seemingly impossible angle that have contributed to some of the great revelations of our civilisations (look no further than a humbe patent clerk in Bern in the 1920s say...), questionning the consensus is a duty that someone has to undertake and thank God for those people who do that, without fanfare, without zillions hits websites, without nebulous backers and without implying their fellow researchers are at best incompetent fools, at worse deliberately misleading mankind on a subject relevant to all of us.

I do have one simple rule, if someone comes up with hard data and a theory to model that data into something convincing even if it proves to be wrong, he/she is worth listening. The very second someone implies that anyone in agreement with the current scientific consensus on AGW is a stooge or a fool, we cease to be dealing with sceptical inquiry and we are entering the realm of conspiracy theories, a fascinating subject but one best left to sociologists rather than hard science proponents.

[jethro]

Another piece of the puzzle....cosmic rays rather than temperature and precipitation?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8311000/8311373.stm

The intensity of cosmic rays also correlates better with the changes in tree growth than any other climatological factor, such as varying levels of temperature or precipitation over the years.

"The correlation between growth and cosmic rays was moderately high, but the correlation with the climatological variables was barely visible," Ms Dengel told the BBC.

As it's been presumed that warmer temperatures and higher precipitation lead to greater growth, and it's been presumed that higher temperatures were the result of a more active Sun, where does this leave the proxy temperature charts? This new research would make all that back to front, wouldn't it?

When the researchers looked at their data, they found that tree growth was highest during periods of low sunspot activity, when most cosmic rays reached Earth.

[VillagePlank]

When the researchers looked at their data, they found that tree growth was highest during periods of low sunspot activity, when most cosmic rays reached Earth.

Bugger! The cat's out of the bag re:why the LI uses sunspot data and not TSI. Best re-double my efforts to write up the damn thing, I guess,

[pottyprof]

When the researchers looked at their data, they found that tree growth was highest during periods of low sunspot activity, when most cosmic rays reached Earth.

Surely it wasn't the sun wot did it?? Well there's a new idea....

[Methuselah]

But, I've always thought that the bulk of the evidence for the Maunder min=Little-Ice Age theory comes from proxy data and anecdote...

I'm confused!!! :D

[jethro]

Join the club Pete, that's why I asked the question, wouldn't it make everything else back to front?

Or are we both being incredibly thick?

[MR EXTREMES]

well pete back to front suits me global warming means global cooling really

[Methuselah]

You know what? Maybe, we're both incredibly thick... But, I just can't see how a cold, and dry, summer can promote plant growth?

CO₂, warmth and moisture all promote vigorous growth. What am I missing, Jethro?

[VillagePlank]

But, I've always thought that the bulk of the evidence for the Maunder min=Little-Ice Age theory comes from proxy data and anecdote...

Try The Maunder Minimum, Eddy J, 18 June 1976, Volume 192, Number 4245, Science.

Edited October 20, 2009 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

You know what? Maybe, we're both incredibly thick... But, I just can't see how a cold, and dry, summer can promote plant growth?

CO₂, warmth and moisture all promote vigorous growth. What am I missing, Jethro?

I don't think they're saying cold and dry weather promotes growth, we all know it doesn't. What they're saying is regardless of weather, moisture and temperature; what shows up as having the most measurable impact are cosmic rays.

"the correlation with the climatological variables was barely visible"

In other words, all those other proxy records which have measured growth rings and presumed that precipitation and temperature govern growth rates, must be called into question. If Cosmic Rays promote growth over and above all other things (which this study is suggesting) then all those past periods which have been shown to be warm, couldn't be, as there are more CR's when the Sun is quiet. I'm confused.....but I bet Svensmark's a happy bunny.

I wonder if anyone plans to cross-check this new study against the C14 and Beryllium 10 records?

[VillagePlank]

... and if that really floats your boat, try J.C Lerman, W.G. Nook, J.C. Vogel, Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, Almqvist & Wilksell, Stockholm, 1970, 49, p 275 ...

The presence of absorbing oceans in the equilibrium process acts as an added sink, or leak, and since the problem is analogous to that of determining changes in the rate of water flow into a bucket by noting its level, a leaky bucket makes a slighly more responsive system

[jethro]

You know how to turn a girlie on VP....

[VillagePlank]

You know how to turn a girlie on VP....

Maybe that's why I have five little monsters currently running around trashing my house ...

[jethro]

They leave home eventually.

What are your thoughts on this new study VP? Are Pete and I being incredibly thick?

[VillagePlank]

The coincidence of Maunder's "prolonged solar minimum" with the coldest excursion of the "Little Ice Age" has been noted by many who have looked at the possible relations between the sun and terrestrial climate (73). A lasting tree-ring anomaly which spans the same period has been cited as evidence of a concurrent drought in the American Southwest (68, 74). There is also a nearly 1 : 1 agreement in sense and time between major excursions in world temperature(as best they are known) and the earlier excursions of the envelope of solar behavior in the record of 14C, particularly when a "'C lag time is allowed for: the Sporer Minimum of the 16th century is coincident with the other severe temperature dip of the Little Ice Age, and the Grand Maximum coincides with the "medieval Climatic Optimum" of the 11th through 13th centuries (75, 76). These

Source: The Maunder Minimum, Eddy J, 18 June 1976, Volume 192, Number 4245, Science, p1199

References:

68: E. N. Parker, in Solar Terrestrial Relations, D.

Venkatesan, Ed. (University of Calgary, Calgary,

1973), p. 6; Sci. Am. 233, 42 (September

1975).

73. For example, see G. Manley, Ann. N. Y. Acad.

Sci. 95, 162 (1961); Suess (52); Bray (56);

Adv. Ecol. Res. 7, 177 (1971); S. H. Schneider

and C. Maas, Science 190, 741 (1975).

74. A. E. Douglass, Climatic Cycles and Tree

Growth (Publication 289, Carnegie Institution

of Washington, Washington, D. C.), vol. 1, p.

102 (1919); vol. 2, pp. 125-126 (1928). Douglass

found that from 1660 to 1720 the curve of Southwest

tree growth "flattens out in a striking manner,"

and, before knowing of Maunder's work,

he described the end of the 17th century as a

time of unusually retarded growth in Arizona

pines and California sequoias.

75. A good review of past climate history is given in

(76), from which the climate incidents cited here

were derived. The Little Ice Age lasted roughly

from 1430 to 1850; it was marked by two severe

extremes of cold, roughly 1450 to 1500 and 1600

to 1700, if we take H. H. Lamb's index of Paris-

London Winter Severity as a global indicator.

76. W. L. Gates and Y. Mintz, Eds., Understanding

Climate Change (National Academy of Sciences,

Washington, D.C., 1975), appendix A.

Edited October 20, 2009 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

Oh dear, I see many more hours reading ahead of me...

[VillagePlank]

What are your thoughts on this new study VP? Are Pete and I being incredibly thick?

The link between sunspot count (solar activity) ¹⁴C, and our climate has been known about for years. Modern climatology seems to prefer using radiative balances and not overall sun activity - of which the only long term indicator that we have of that is sunspots.

Solanki et al, 2005, performed a statistical study that apparently shows that post 1970 the sun cannot explain the temperature (but, somehow, it can before that - and it's not explained, clearly (well not in my view, anyway) why that is the case, either)

So, the sciene certainly isn't settled, and is definately controversial - but carbon being deposited inside trees as a proxy for sunspot count has certainly been posited about for years, and this new study seems to show the experimental evidence that demonstrates such a hypothesis.

Is this a blow for fervent AGW'ers? Well, I don't think there's too many out there, these days, and most have a moderate view of between 0-3C, so I don't think it will upset them that the historical proxies that have been used to demonstrate the CO2 hypothesis are largely made up of data that correlates strongly with sunspots.

A simple premise:

if Log10(CO2)=Temp, then

if TreeRing=Temp, then

if Sunspots=TreeRing ....

It doesn't take much to reason it out, in my view ...

Oh dear, I see many more hours reading ahead of me...

Yeah - I had to pay for all of them ....

*****

EDIT:

To simplify (I just re-read my post!)

Proxies currently assume that the tree-ring data is correlated to temperature, and that any other variables that move with temperature must therefore be causal - ie the AGW hypothesis.

Now we 'know' that they also correlate with sunspots - which makes it much more difficult to assert previously accepted causal factors; ie that we can't just differentiate between a cause and an effect, we must now partially differentiate between many more factors.

EDIT 2:

We must, now, of course, wait for the study to be looked at, over time, to make sure it is actually valid. We don't actually know that it is, yet.

Edited October 20, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

... and if that really floats your boat, try J.C Lerman, W.G. Nook, J.C. Vogel, Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, Almqvist & Wilksell, Stockholm, 1970, 49, p 275 ...

Blimey! That's interesting (and more than a little bit exciting!)

So as far back as at least 1970 they were saying, effectively, that the leaky integrator is an in-built part of the climate system.

Crikey!

I wonder what Iceberg has to say about that!

CB

[VillagePlank]

Sorry, I'm tired - been in front of the computer since 4am. The correct reference is Lerman, J. C., Mook, W. G., and Vogel, J. C., in Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology (Proc. Twelfth Nobel Symp.) (edit. by Olsson, I. U.), 275 (Almqvist, Stockholm; Wiley, New York, 1970).

I haven't actually got a copy, which can be purchase from here. If anyone, ahem, has a copy, a photocopier, *ahem* ....

Edited October 20, 2009 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

EDIT:

To simplify (I just re-read my post!)

Proxies currently assume that the tree-ring data is correlated to temperature, and that any other variables that move with temperature must therefore be causal - ie the AGW hypothesis.

Now we 'know' that they also correlate with sunspots - which makes it much more difficult to assert previously accepted causal factors; ie that we can't just differentiate between a cause and an effect, we must now partially differentiate between many more factors.

EDIT 2:

We must, now, of course, wait for the study to be looked at, over time, to make sure it is actually valid. We don't actually know that it is, yet.

Absolutely we must wait for it to be looked at by others.

My understanding (which could be shonky) is that proxies have to date shown the greatest influence on growth is precipitation. The inference has been that warmer temperatures cause greater precipitation and thus the two go hand in hand.

This study would indicate that Cosmic Rays have the greatest effect. That being so, the previous proxies may have been mis-interpreted indicating that the increase in precipitation has been due to Cosmic Rays, vindicating Svensmark and his theory about lower Solar output, creating greater cloudiness. Quite where that leaves past temperature reconstructions will be interesting.

It's also interesting to note that this study was done on Spruce, the proxy data uses Bristle Cone Pines, more similarities between the two species requirements than say an Oak and Pine.

[Methuselah]

Thanks VP...Now, my brain is really hurting!

[Devonian]

Absolutely we must wait for it to be looked at by others.

My understanding (which could be shonky) is that proxies have to date shown the greatest influence on growth is precipitation. The inference has been that warmer temperatures cause greater precipitation and thus the two go hand in hand.

Humm, don't they, these dedro people, look for trees where the main influence is thought to be temperature - so that what mainly stresses the tree is temperature? So, not places where trees lack light, or water but where changes in temperature dominate how it grows?

This study would indicate that Cosmic Rays have the greatest effect. That being so, the previous proxies may have been mis-interpreted indicating that the increase in precipitation has been due to Cosmic Rays, vindicating Svensmark and his theory about lower Solar output, creating greater cloudiness. Quite where that leaves past temperature reconstructions will be interesting.

It's also interesting to note that this study was done on Spruce, the proxy data uses Bristle Cone Pines, more similarities between the two species requirements than say an Oak and Pine.

Of course, as others have said, it's ONE study.

I'm quite sure, no I'm absolutely sure, that there isn't a AGW sceptic on the planet who'd accept ONE study claiming to have shown AGW will be 6C, or 4C or whatever...

Edited October 20, 2009 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

Humm, don't they, these dedro people, look for trees where the main influence is thought to be temperature - so that what mainly stresses the tree is temperature? So, not places where trees lack light, or water but where changes in temperature dominate how it grows?

Of course, as others have said, it's ONE study.

I'm quite sure, no I'm absolutely sure, that there isn't a AGW sceptic on the planet who'd accept ONE study claiming to have shown AGW will be 6C, or 4C or whatever...

Oh, Dev, Dev, Dev, Dev, Dev... Who said anything about accepting the study? Jethro just said in the post to which you replied "Absolutely we must wait for it to be looked at by others."

You do so like to jump on things as soon as possible, don't you? Perhaps, if this is the only study into this phenomenon, there will be more studies to follow.

CB

EDIT - Removed unnecessary comment

Edited October 20, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'm quite sure, no I'm absolutely sure, that there isn't a AGW sceptic on the planet who'd accept ONE study claiming to have shown AGW will be 6C, or 4C or whatever...

Depends on how broadly you define "sceptic"- many mainstream climate scientists would consider me to be a sceptic, in which case I would be an exception to your hypothesis. I don't think a warming of 4 to 6C is particularly likely, but nor would I rule it out.