New Research

[Devonian]

Do you mean the models which predicted rising global temperatures which even the IPCC say will not happen for the forseeable?

Or do you mean the other models they could have used which will come out with different results?

I mean something like this from this article.

[Cycles]

Would like to pass on this information about a new climate publication called

"Natural Climate Pulse"

Handbook to understanding what is actually going on with our climate (major update to the original eBook released in 2007)

<P>

• The Big Political "Hoax" about Carbon dioxide and temperature
• WHAT THE MEDIA IS NOT TELLING YOU!

<P>.. topics in this Handbook include scientific evidence showing ..

• Carbon Dioxide is actually a good gas
• Where Carbon Dioxide comes from, and the carbon cycle and temperature

• Manipulated Censorship of scientific research and media

• Earth was actually warmer 1,000 years ago

• There was actually less ice in the Arctic 6,000 years ago

• Carbon Dioxide levels are actually the same today as 1,000 years ago

• Cyclical 100 year fluctuations in Carbon Dioxide levels are normal

• What is actually causing the Arctic ice to melt

• What are the actual causes for Global warming

• Climate forecast

Very Dangerous Global Cooling Coming Soon Great volcanoes and a Year of No Summer More Dangerous than - global warming</P>

It can be found at http://www.globalwea...imatePulse.html

If we can designate one person on the forum to review it, I can send a pdf copy.

Regards

Cycles

[John Mason]

That's one hell of a Gish Gallop (albeit bullet-pointed), SC!

Cheers - John

[VillagePlank]

http://www.globalwea...imatePulse.html

Thanks for the link. I'd advise others not to visit, though ,

Edited January 25, 2012 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[Gray-Wolf]

So it's going to go Viral then Boar?

I think I'd have to agree that " a year without summer" would be more damaging , in the short term, to humanity than the years of global warming to come this decade? In fact any return to the Little Ice age would be devastating for us in the temperate regions? Luckily we are not about to let the rainforest's regenerate this time are we so the CO2 'mop' that produced/augmented that period is not present today?(LOL)

[Cycles]

Thanks for the link. I'd advise others not to visit, though ,

Boar:

Has anyone had problems with their antivirus? This is the first report I have had.

Cycle

[Gray-Wolf]

Boar:

Has anyone had problems with their antivirus? This is the first report I have had.

Cycle

[knocker]

New CU-Boulder-led study may answer questions about enigmatic Little Ice Age

A new University of Colorado Boulder-led study appears to answer contentious questions about the onset and cause of Earth's Little Ice Age, a period of cooling temperatures that began after the Middle Ages and lasted into the late 19th century.

According to the new study, the Little Ice Age began abruptly between A.D. 1275 and 1300, triggered by repeated, explosive volcanism and sustained by a self- perpetuating sea ice-ocean feedback system in the North Atlantic Ocean, according to CU-Boulder Professor Gifford Miller, who led the study. The primary evidence comes from radiocarbon dates from dead vegetation emerging from rapidly melting icecaps on Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, combined with ice and sediment core data from the poles and Iceland and from sea ice climate model simulations, said Miller.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/uoca-ncs013012.php

[knocker]

Perhaps a slight revision of the first sentence?

New study shows correlation between summer Arctic sea ice cover and winter weather in Central Europe

Potsdam/Bremerhaven, 26 January 2012. Even if the current weather situation may seem to speak against it, the probability of cold winters with much snow in Central Europe rises when the Arctic is covered by less sea ice in summer. Scientists of the Research Unit Potsdam of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association have decrypted a mechanism in which a shrinking summertime sea ice cover changes the air pressure zones in the Arctic atmosphere and impacts our European winter weather. These results of a global climate analysis were recently published in a study in the scientific journal Tellus A.

http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/jaiser_et_al/?cHash=559ecbc0c21a93e1a9471343efa32d0e

[knocker]

CU-Boulder study shows global glaciers, ice caps, shedding billions of tons of mass annually

Study also shows Greenland, Antarctica and global glaciers and ice caps lost roughly 8 times the volume of Lake Erie from 2003-2010

Earth's glaciers and ice caps outside of the regions of Greenland and Antarctica are shedding roughly 150 billion tons of ice annually, according to a new study led by the University of Colorado Boulder.

The research effort is the first comprehensive satellite study of the contribution of the world's melting glaciers and ice caps to global sea level rise and indicates they are adding roughly 0.4 millimeters annually, said CU-Boulder physics Professor John Wahr, who helped lead the study. The measurements are important because the melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, along with Greenland and Antarctica, pose the greatest threat to sea level increases in the future, Wahr said.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-02/uoca-css020612.php

[loafer]

As a reminder, my post from the 27th December on the Antarctic Ice Thread explaining how a similar calculation there was less than scary...

"To put the 10.4 gigatons of ice loss from the Antarctic ice sheet per year into context;

10.4 billion tons of ice is equivalent to 9.43 cubic km.

It is estimated that the ice sheet is 25.4 million cubic km.

The loss is therefore .000037161% of the ice sheet per annum since 2006.

Funny how a gigaton doesn't seem quite so scary suddenly...

Full calculation is here;

10.4 gigatons 1,000,000,000.00 tons 10,400,000,000.00 ton loss per annum since 2006 2,000.00 lbs in a ton 20,800,000,000,000.00 lbs loss per annum since 2006 62.40 lbs in a cubic foot of ice 333,333,333,333.33 cubic feet of ice loss per annum since 2006 0.0283168466 cubic metres per cubic foot 9438948866.66667 cubic metres loss per annum since 2006 0.000000001 cubic km to m conversion 9.4389488667 cubic km loss per annum since 2006 25400000 total ice sheet 0.000037161% percentage of ice sheet lost per annum since 2006"

[knocker]

I'm afraid I can't remember whether this paper has already been posted. If so apologies.

Global Warming Not Slowing down.

Global temperature evolution 1979–2010

Abstract

We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their

common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS,

NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on

satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global

warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr��1. When the data are adjusted to remove the

estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El NiËœno/southern

oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even

more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to

El NiËœno/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The

adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable

errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the

two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.

http://iopscience.io..._6_4_044022.pdf

Edited February 13, 2012 by weather ship

[loafer]

"When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors..."

Shouldn't this be in the fiction section, then?

[Devonian]

"When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors..."

Shouldn't this be in the fiction section, then?

No more, I'd argue, than adjusting barometric readings to allow for the impact of altitude. We could draw synoptic charts with the raw data but they'd look pretty odd. Sometimes data needs manipulation to reveal what is going on.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Devonian

[loafer]

Surely the difference is that the adjustment of barometric readings for altitude is a matter of actual mathematical fact, not something which is "estimated"?

[Devonian]

Surely the difference is that the adjustment of barometric readings for altitude is a matter of actual mathematical fact, not something which is "estimated"?

I just object to people's sound scientific, yes, estimates being so dismissed as 'fiction'. That is plain wrong. Higher up in this thread you put your estimate for ice loss, no one dismissed your efforts as fiction.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Devonian

[jethro]

Here's a new paper from: Jan-Erik Solheim∗Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037, Tromsø, Norway

Kjell Stordahl Telenor Norway, Fornebu, Norway

Ole HumlumDepartment of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway

Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), Svalbard

In it they try to decipher the Solar impact upon climate and speculate where we are heading in the future. It's quite a big and detailed paper; for those who lose the will to live before they get half way through, here is the conclusion:

Conclusions

Signiï¬cant linear relations are found between the average air temperature in a solar cycle and the length of the previous solar cycle (PSCL) for 12 out of 13 meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic. For 9 of these stations no autocorrelation on the 5% signiï¬cance level was found in the residuals. For 4 stations the autocorrelation test was undetermined, but the signiï¬cance of the PSCL relations allowed for 95% conï¬dence level in forecasting for 3 of these stations. Signiï¬cant relations are also found for temperatures averaged for Norway, 60 European stations temperature anomaly, and for the HadCRUT3N temperature anomaly. Temperatures for Norway and the average of 60 European stations showed indifferent or no autocorrelations in the residuals. The HadCRUT3N series showed signiï¬cant autocorrelations in the residuals. For the average temperatures of Norway and the 60 European stations, the solar contribution to the temperature variations in the period investigated is of the order 40%. An even higher contribution (63-72%) is found for stations at Faroe Islands, Iceland and Svalbard. This is higher than the 7% attributed to the Sun for the global temperature rise in AR4 (IPCC, 2007). About 50% of the HadCRUT3N temperature variations since 1850 may be attributed solar activity. However, this conclusion is more uncertain because of the strong autocorrelations found in the residuals.

The signiï¬cant linear relations indicate a connection between solar activity and temperature variations for the locations and areas investigated. A regression forecast model based on the relation between PSCL and the average air tempereaure is used to forecast the temperature in the newly started solar cycle 24. This forecast model beneï¬ts, as opposed to the majority of other regression models with explanatory variables, to use an explanatory variable - the solar cycle length - nearly without uncrtainty. Usually the explanatory variables have to be forecasted, which of cause induce signiï¬cant additional forecasting uncertainties.

Our forecast indicates an annual averaage temperature drop of 0.9â—¦C in

the Northern Hemisphere during solar cycle 24. For the measuring stations south of 75N, the temperature decline is of the order 1.0-1.8â—¦C and may already have already started. For Svalbard a temperature decline of 3.5â—¦Cis forecasted in solar cycle 24 for the yearly average temperature. An even higher temperature drop is forecasted in the winter months (Solheim et al.,2012).

Artic ampliï¬cation due to feedbacks because of changes in snow and ice cover has increased the temperature north of 70N a factor 3 more than below 60N (Moritz et al., 2002). An Artic cooling may relate to a global cooling in the same way, resulting in a smaller global cooling, about 0.3-0.5â—¦C in SC24.

Our study has concentrated on an effect with lag once solar cycle in order to make a model for prediction. Since solar forcing on climate is present on many timescales, we do not claim that our result gives a complete picture ofthe Sun’s forcing on our planet’s climate.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.1954v1.pdf

[loafer]

I just object to people's sound scientific, yes, estimates being so dismissed as 'fiction'. That is plain wrong. Higher up in this thread you put your estimate for ice loss, no one dismissed your efforts as fiction.

That is because we know how much ice there is and we know how much the ice weighs, so it is a comparatively simple mathematical calculation.

By contrast, trying to adjust for the relative variables contributing (or not) to possible future outcomes is like trying to drive a car with a blindfold on. It might just work, but it's chuffing unlikely.

[BornFromTheVoid]

That is because we know how much ice there is and we know how much the ice weighs, so it is a comparatively simple mathematical calculation.

By contrast, trying to adjust for the relative variables contributing (or not) to possible future outcomes is like trying to drive a car with a blindfold on. It might just work, but it's chuffing unlikely.

So is the paper Jethro posted above simply a work of fiction also?

[loafer]

No, because it is a calculation of correlations between two datasets.

Certainly the datasets could be right or wrong, but the paper itself doesn't opine on that.

By comparison, estimated adjustments of a subset of variables in a complex climate system and drawing meaningful conclusions on their impact on the future is fictional. Lack of validation of historical models and a complete turnaround on short-medium term forecasts clearly demonstrates that. Or have the models suddenly, miraculously, become accurate? Did I miss that?

[BornFromTheVoid]

No, because it is a calculation of correlations between two datasets.

Certainly the datasets could be right or wrong, but the paper itself doesn't opine on that.

By comparison, estimated adjustments of a subset of variables in a complex climate system and drawing meaningful conclusions on their impact on the future is fictional. Lack of validation of historical models and a complete turnaround on short-medium term forecasts clearly demonstrates that. Or have the models suddenly, miraculously, become accurate? Did I miss that?

But in a complex world such as this, correlations can appear which are not always accurate. Also, the lagged relationship between solar activity and temperature at a number of stations would require similar methods to generating a correlation between the Earths temperature and oscillations in ENSO. With the relationship established, it doesn't take a genius to remove ENSO impact from recent global temps.

The forecast made by Solheim et al requires dealing with number of complex issues, just as any long term forecast does. Just because it's done from the perspective of solar activity, doesn't negate the problems that forecast from a GHG emission perspective has.

[Devonian]

That is because we know how much ice there is and we know how much the ice weighs, so it is a comparatively simple mathematical calculation.

We have good estimates of how much ice there is.

By contrast, trying to adjust for the relative variables contributing (or not) to possible future outcomes is like trying to drive a car with a blindfold on. It might just work, but it's chuffing unlikely.

If i had a pound for every time someone on the internet knows better than the authors of a climate science paper...

[VillagePlank]

Here's a new paper from: Jan-Erik Solheim∗Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037, Tromsø, Norway

Kjell Stordahl Telenor Norway, Fornebu, Norway

Ole HumlumDepartment of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway

Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), Svalbard

In it they try to decipher the Solar impact upon climate and speculate where we are heading in the future. It's quite a big and detailed paper; for those who lose the will to live before they get half way through, here is the conclusion:

Conclusions

Signiï¬cant linear relations are found between the average air temperature in a solar cycle and the length of the previous solar cycle (PSCL) for 12 out of 13 meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic. For 9 of these stations no autocorrelation on the 5% signiï¬cance level was found in the residuals. For 4 stations the autocorrelation test was undetermined, but the signiï¬cance of the PSCL relations allowed for 95% conï¬dence level in forecasting for 3 of these stations. Signiï¬cant relations are also found for temperatures averaged for Norway, 60 European stations temperature anomaly, and for the HadCRUT3N temperature anomaly. Temperatures for Norway and the average of 60 European stations showed indifferent or no autocorrelations in the residuals. The HadCRUT3N series showed signiï¬cant autocorrelations in the residuals. For the average temperatures of Norway and the 60 European stations, the solar contribution to the temperature variations in the period investigated is of the order 40%. An even higher contribution (63-72%) is found for stations at Faroe Islands, Iceland and Svalbard. This is higher than the 7% attributed to the Sun for the global temperature rise in AR4 (IPCC, 2007). About 50% of the HadCRUT3N temperature variations since 1850 may be attributed solar activity. However, this conclusion is more uncertain because of the strong autocorrelations found in the residuals.

The signiï¬cant linear relations indicate a connection between solar activity and temperature variations for the locations and areas investigated. A regression forecast model based on the relation between PSCL and the average air tempereaure is used to forecast the temperature in the newly started solar cycle 24. This forecast model beneï¬ts, as opposed to the majority of other regression models with explanatory variables, to use an explanatory variable - the solar cycle length - nearly without uncrtainty. Usually the explanatory variables have to be forecasted, which of cause induce signiï¬cant additional forecasting uncertainties.

Our forecast indicates an annual averaage temperature drop of 0.9â—¦C in

the Northern Hemisphere during solar cycle 24. For the measuring stations south of 75N, the temperature decline is of the order 1.0-1.8â—¦C and may already have already started. For Svalbard a temperature decline of 3.5â—¦Cis forecasted in solar cycle 24 for the yearly average temperature. An even higher temperature drop is forecasted in the winter months (Solheim et al.,2012).

Artic ampliï¬cation due to feedbacks because of changes in snow and ice cover has increased the temperature north of 70N a factor 3 more than below 60N (Moritz et al., 2002). An Artic cooling may relate to a global cooling in the same way, resulting in a smaller global cooling, about 0.3-0.5â—¦C in SC24.

Our study has concentrated on an effect with lag once solar cycle in order to make a model for prediction. Since solar forcing on climate is present on many timescales, we do not claim that our result gives a complete picture ofthe Sun’s forcing on our planet’s climate.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.1954v1.pdf

Alas, the following is also in that paper

"Usually the degrees of freedom applied in the regression analysis are equal

to the number of observations minus the number of parameters used in the

modeling. However, since we have investigated the correlation as function

of time lag after the middle time of a solar cycle, and found that maximum

correlation exist about one sunspot cycle later, the number of degrees of

freedom is reduced by one."

I'd love it to be the sun, but reducing DoF (even by one) helps to get one to a 95% confidence interval quite nicely. Certainly a suck through one's teeth and raise my eyebrow moment. They could well be justified, but, on the face of it, I'm rather suspicious of the work.

Still, it is repeatable, so I might give it a go.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[jethro]

I'll take your word for it B; I'm in the category of losing the will to live by half way through.

Here's another one, the latest from Abdussamatov on an expected deep, prolonged Solar minimum:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf

[loafer]

If i had a pound for every time someone on the internet knows better than the authors of a climate science paper...

...you'd be a millionaire.