• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Record Heat Despite a Cold Sun

ALiberalModerate

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
32,438
Reaction score
22,670
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
[h=3]Record heat despite a cold sun[/h]Filed under:
— stefan @ 14 November 2016
Global temperature goes from heat record to heat record, yet the sun is at its dimmest for half a century.
For a while, 2010 was the hottest year on record globally. But then it got overtopped by 2014. And 2014 was beaten again by 2015. And now 2016 is so warm that it is certain to be once again a record year. Three record years in a row – that is unprecedented even in all those decades of global warming.
Strangely, one aspect of this gets barely mentioned: all those heat records occur despite a cold sun (Figs. 1 and 2). The last solar minimum (2008-2010) was the lowest since at least 1950, while the last solar maximum (2013-2015) can hardly be described as such. This is shown, among others, by the sunspot data (Fig. 1) as well as measurements of the solar luminosity from satellites (Fig. 2). Other indicators of solar activity indicate cooling as well (Lockwood and Fröhlich, Proc. Royal Society 2007).
Click to expand...

herdsoftwidget-2.png


Fig. 1 Time evolution of global temperature, CO2 concentration and solar activity. Temperature and CO2 are scaled relative to each other according to the physically expected CO2 effect on climate (i.e. the best estimate of transient climate sensitivity). The amplitude of the solar curve is scaled to correspond to the observed correlation of solar and temperature data. (Details areexplained here.) You can generate and adapt this graph to your taste here, where you can also copy a code with which the graph can be embedded as a widget on your own website (as on my home page). Thus it will be automatically updated each year with the latest data. Thanks to our reader Bernd Herd who programmed this.
Click to expand...

Read more here:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/record-heat-despite-a-cold-sun/#more-19702
 
No Y-axis label on TSI, boooo! Bad chart! Bad!
 
Deuce said:
No Y-axis label on TSI, boooo! Bad chart! Bad!
Click to expand...

Isn't that because you are comparing completely different data-sets to show correlation and the lack there of and thus if you attempted to normalize it, you would be misrepresenting the data.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Isn't that because you are comparing completely different data-sets to show correlation and the lack there of and thus if you attempted to normalize it, you would be misrepresenting the data.
Click to expand...

Putting a wattage scale for TSI wouldn't be misrepresenting data, no. Solar irradiance isn't measured in degrees or parts-per-million.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Ice is growing on one end of the earth and retreating on the other, but not quite as fast as it was. Perplexing.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of climate models have long predicted that Antarctica would increase in ice thickness in the coming decades due to greater precipitation from a warming climate. It's not at all perplexing to climate scientists.

For example, glaciers in the Cascades tend to be larger and thicker than glaciers in the Northern Rockies despite the fact that winter temperatures in the Northern Rockies are colder than they are in the Cascades. This is because the Cascades receive more winter precipitation due to more available moisture from the close proximity of a relatively warm Pacific Ocean.

If you have a large continental icecap surrounded by a gradually warming ocean, then that ice cap will get more precipitation and thus thicken in the near term.
 
Deuce said:
Putting a wattage scale for TSI wouldn't be misrepresenting data, no. Solar irradiance isn't measured in degrees or parts-per-million.
Click to expand...

Good point.

However, if you read the linked article, they did just that in the next graph:

TSI-Sept16-600x275.png
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The vast majority of climate models have long predicted that Antarctica would increase in ice thickness in the coming decades due to greater precipitation from a warming climate. It's not at all perplexing to climate scientists.

For example, glaciers in the Cascades tend to be larger and thicker than glaciers in the Northern Rockies despite the fact that winter temperatures in the Northern Rockies are colder than they are in the Cascades. This is because the Cascades receive more winter precipitation due to more available moisture from the close proximity of a relatively warm Pacific Ocean.

If you have a large continental icecap surrounded by a gradually warming ocean, then that ice cap will get more precipitation and thus thicken in the near term.
Click to expand...

I'm not a climatologist, so there's that. I've thought that oceans were warming for decades due to the changes in the oscillation patterns which carry warmer water to the north pole area which melts sea ice faster and helps to reduce the polar ice cap. But, that's just what I've thought, backed up by nothing more than uneducated personal observations.

I really don't want to get into an in-depth discussion on this, I just wanted to throw in that one end of the world's ice is shrinking while the other is growing.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I'm not a climatologist, so there's that. I've thought that oceans were warming for decades due to the changes in the oscillation patterns which carry warmer water to the north pole area which melts sea ice faster and helps to reduce the polar ice cap. But, that's just what I've thought, backed up by nothing more than uneducated personal observations.

I really don't want to get into an in-depth discussion on this, I just wanted to throw in that one end of the world's ice is shrinking while the other is growing.
Click to expand...

The arctic and antarctic have traditionally had disconnected weather/climate patterns for as long as we can model. When people flee the heat 10 degrees on both sides of the equator because they can no longer sustain themselves we need to worry. Until then, not so much.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
[/I]Read more here:Record heat despite a cold sun « RealClimate
Click to expand...

Already refuted by the authors.

Conclusions
· Pre-industrial and 20th century data suggests that solar activity changes are a credible driver for climate change and require greater attention.
· While it is too early to judge our climate prognosis from 2012, it is essentially still well on track when eliminating short-term El Nino and La Nina effects.
· Comparisons of prognoses dating from 1988 and 1990 with subsequently observed data indicate that CO2 climate sensitivities are likely at the lower end of the spectrum proposed by the IPCC. Scenarios favoring high climate sensitivities significantly overshoot warming when compared to the real temperature development.
· Both Pacific and Atlantic ocean cycles have now entered into the multi-decadal cooling mode. Furthermore, also solar activity is expected to enter a major minimum phase. For the upcoming two decades it is therefore expected that natural climate drivers will contribute cooling to the climate system which may not be fully compensated by anthropogenic warming related to greenhouse gases.
· The climate system has arrived at an important crossroad at which it will soon become clear if the attribution of anthropogenic vs. natural drivers to 20th century warming has been quantitatively correct. It is expected that the coming 5-10 years will bring clarity to this question. We call on all parties of the climate discussion to open-mindedly engage in this critical phase, weighing the arguments and data for and against each other fairly and transparently, regardless of personal backgrounds, affiliations, previous convictions and individual preferences.


Record heat despite a cold sun

By Sebastian Luening, Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt Introduction On 14th November 2016 Stefan Rahmstorf (“stefan”) of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) published on the climate blog Realclimate an article entitled „Record heat despite a cold sun”. In this article he discusses a temperature prognosis which we first published 2012 in the…

2 days ago November 28, 2016 in Solar.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Already refuted.

Conclusions
· Pre-industrial and 20th century data suggests that solar activity changes are a credible driver for climate change and require greater attention.
· While it is too early to judge our climate prognosis from 2012, it is essentially still well on track when eliminating short-term El Nino and La Nina effects.
· Comparisons of prognoses dating from 1988 and 1990 with subsequently observed data indicate that CO2 climate sensitivities are likely at the lower end of the spectrum proposed by the IPCC. Scenarios favoring high climate sensitivities significantly overshoot warming when compared to the real temperature development.
· Both Pacific and Atlantic ocean cycles have now entered into the multi-decadal cooling mode. Furthermore, also solar activity is expected to enter a major minimum phase. For the upcoming two decades it is therefore expected that natural climate drivers will contribute cooling to the climate system which may not be fully compensated by anthropogenic warming related to greenhouse gases.
· The climate system has arrived at an important crossroad at which it will soon become clear if the attribution of anthropogenic vs. natural drivers to 20th century warming has been quantitatively correct. It is expected that the coming 5-10 years will bring clarity to this question. We call on all parties of the climate discussion to open-mindedly engage in this critical phase, weighing the arguments and data for and against each other fairly and transparently, regardless of personal backgrounds, affiliations, previous convictions and individual preferences.


Record heat despite a cold sun

By Sebastian Luening, Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt Introduction On 14th November 2016 Stefan Rahmstorf (“stefan”) of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) published on the climate blog Realclimate an article entitled „Record heat despite a cold sun”. In this article he discusses a temperature prognosis which we first published 2012 in the…

2 days ago November 28, 2016 in Solar.
Click to expand...

If you read the initial article in the OP, they address every point made in that rebuttal. Basically, the rebuttal is predicated on the absurd notion that there is a 50 year lag in climate from solar forcing. While there is most certainly a lag in climate response, particularly ocean warming / cooling, from solar forcing, its nowhere near on the time scale that they are claiming at wattsupwiththat.

From the OP article:

Misunderstood thermal inertia

The excuse of the skeptics here is usually that global warming is a time-delayed reaction to an increase in solar activity before 1950. The basic idea is not entirely wrong: the climate system has a certain inertia. If the solar luminosity were to be increased in a sudden step, the temperature would not rise immediately, as it would take a while to heat up the oceans. This inertia effect can be quantified with the help of model simulations. Caldeira and Myhrvold (ERL 2013) have shown that 60% of the temperature reaction occurs within the first 20 years.

However, around 80% of global warming since the 19th century has only taken place after 1970. It is therefore unthinkable that the slight and gradual increase in solar activity before 1950 could have contributed significantly to the strong warming since the 1970s. Further evidence for this is the comparison of temperatures of land and sea. Everyone knows: when the sun rises in the morning, it takes only a few hours (certainly not decades) to heat the air strongly. Over 90% of the thermal inertia resides in the ocean, while the air over land quickly heats up. If the global warming since 1970 were a delayed response to a previous increase in solar luminosity, then we would now observe above all a catch-up warming of the oceans. The opposite is the case: the continents heat up more quickly and the ocean temperatures are lagging behind.
Click to expand...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/record-heat-despite-a-cold-sun/
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
If you read the initial article in the OP, they address every point made in that rebuttal. Basically, the rebuttal is predicated on the absurd notion that there is a 50 year lag in climate from solar forcing. While there is most certainly a lag in climate response, particularly ocean warming / cooling, from solar forcing, its nowhere near on the time scale that they are claiming at wattsupwiththat.

From the OP article:



Record heat despite a cold sun « RealClimate
Click to expand...

Well, no.

. . . In his starting figure, Stefan Rahmstorf shows the time evolution of global temperature, CO2 concentration and solar activity from 1950 onwards. Unfortunately, the first part of the 20th century is not shown which would have offered interesting insights into possible climate driving mechanisms. In Figure 1 we have extended the graph to 1900 and illustrate solar activity based on a total solar irradiance (TSI) reconstruction by Steinhilber et al. (2009) based on cosmogenic radionuclide 10Be measured in ice cores. The rapid warming of the first half of the 20th century coincides well with a steady increase in solar activity. Attribution of this warming therefore is not trivial as also CO2 increased contemporaneously.

In the 1960s and 70s temperatures dropped, corresponding with a fall in solar activity while CO2 continued to climb upwards. Recent research suggests that the negative phase of 60 year ocean cycles may have been the main reason for this colder interval (Gervais, 2016; Meehl et al., 2016; Tung and Zhou, 2013). Solar activity picked up again in the 1980s/90s reaching some of the highest values, making the second half of the 20th century one of the most active solar periods of the past 10,000 years (Solanki et al., 2004).

Solar activity began to gradually decline in subsequent 11-year solar cycles in the 2000s and 2010s, as marked by the downward trend in the TSI curve by Steinhilber et al. (2009) (Fig. 1). Notably, the reduced solar activity roughly coincides with the so-called warming hiatus or slowdown that commenced around 1998. Again, ocean cycles may have played a major role in initially boosting and eventually terminating the phase of rapid warming that took place 1977-1998 (Meehl et al., 2016).

Due to the inertia of the climate system, time lags of a few decades with regards to external triggers have to be expected. The drop in solar activity during the early 21st century may therefore be only fully implemented in global temperatures in the coming years to decades, if solar activity plays a more important role than currently assumed by the IPCC. Stefan Rahmstorf’s solar representation misses the important ramp up to the exceptionally high solar plateau in the second half of the 20th century. Looking at the interval 1898 to 1997, solar activity (sensu Steinhilber et al. 2009) shows an even better (R=0.78) correlation with temperature than CO2 (R=0.75). . . .
 
Beaudreaux said:
I'm not a climatologist, so there's that. I've thought that oceans were warming for decades due to the changes in the oscillation patterns which carry warmer water to the north pole area which melts sea ice faster and helps to reduce the polar ice cap. But, that's just what I've thought, backed up by nothing more than uneducated personal observations.

I really don't want to get into an in-depth discussion on this, I just wanted to throw in that one end of the world's ice is shrinking while the other is growing.
Click to expand...

Beaudreaux said:
I'm not a climatologist, so there's that. I've thought that oceans were warming for decades due to the changes in the oscillation patterns which carry warmer water to the north pole area which melts sea ice faster and helps to reduce the polar ice cap. But, that's just what I've thought, backed up by nothing more than uneducated personal observations.

I really don't want to get into an in-depth discussion on this, I just wanted to throw in that one end of the world's ice is shrinking while the other is growing.
Click to expand...

Its a cute phrase, but its not perplexing at all to people who actually study this.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160704145401.htm

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf
 
Threegoofs said:
Its a cute phrase, but its not perplexing at all to people who actually study this.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160704145401.htm

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf
Click to expand...

Cute phrase? I have a feeling you didn't mean that as a compliment. Imagine that.

You know, did you even read where I said I was "not a climatologist?" That's another way for me to say that I actually don't study this. Nor do I really have the time to do so. Hence my other statement about "I really don't want to get into an in-depth discussion on this ..."
 
Beaudreaux said:
Cute phrase? I have a feeling you didn't mean that as a compliment. Imagine that.

You know, did you even read where I said I was "not a climatologist?" That's another way for me to say that I actually don't study this. Nor do I really have the time to do so. Hence my other statement about "I really don't want to get into an in-depth discussion on this ..."
Click to expand...

I know you don't study this. Not sure why you are insisting you don't want to discuss this in depth when you seemed to have missed the surface by a lot already.

I just thought I'd give you a superficial overview of what you are missing here.

That's why I provided helpful reading material in case you might want to learn something about it. You're welcome.
 
Threegoofs said:
I know you don't study this. Not sure why you are insisting you don't want to discuss this in depth when you seemed to have missed the surface by a lot already.

I just thought I'd give you a superficial overview of what you are missing here.

That's why I provided helpful reading material in case you might want to learn something about it. You're welcome.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I just don't have the time other than to respond that I don't have the time. Sorry, but thank you anyway.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Thank you, I just don't have the time other than to respond that I don't have the time. Sorry, but thank you anyway.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe you'll eventually realize the experts who HAVE invested the time in knowing about these things should be listened to.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, maybe you'll eventually realize the experts who HAVE invested the time in knowing about these things should be listened to.
Click to expand...

Seriously? I was trying real hard to be nice to you. When the heck did I say anything close to what you're accusing me of above??? When?

Holy crap.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Seriously? I was trying real hard to be nice to you. When the heck did I say anything close to what you're accusing me of above??? When?

Holy crap.
Click to expand...

There was no accusation.

I'll also point out that the time you've spent responding to me could have been more productively spent skimming those references I provided.

Just trying to help you navigate a complex world. It's my calling.
 
joG said:
I would feel much safer, if the data set were long term and had more variables.
Click to expand...

Damn straight.

The solar/ocean/atmosphere coupling takes several decades for partial equalization. Then there is the ever changing atmospheric transparency also.

Here is a possible example, based only on the solar changes:

TSI%20Equalization%2060%20pct%20at%2081%20to%20120%20years_zpsdmysznnd.png
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Isn't that because you are comparing completely different data-sets to show correlation and the lack there of and thus if you attempted to normalize it, you would be misrepresenting the data.
Click to expand...

Temperatures can also be correlated inversely with the number of pirates on earth.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I really don't want to get into an in-depth discussion on this, I just wanted to throw in that one end of the world's ice is shrinking while the other is growing.
Click to expand...

Its a valid point. If CO2 was the cause of ice melt, then why the polar differences?

For me, it is obvious, it is the differences in aerosols. Aerosols decrease the albedo of ice, thus, absorb more radiant energy. There are also so many more aerosols being produced in the north, vs the south.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Its a valid point. If CO2 was the cause of ice melt, then why the polar differences?

For me, it is obvious, it is the differences in aerosols. Aerosols decrease the albedo of ice, thus, absorb more radiant energy. There are also so many more aerosols being produced in the north, vs the south.
Click to expand...

Seems like a question for experts.

i.e. not random guys who took a few physics classes 30 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom