20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

a reply to: D8Tee

Total strawman. You were asked about the difference between climate and weather. Not a strawman comparison of models. Do you actually understand the differences in how these two concepts are explored and studied by Atmospheric and Earth scientists? I like though how you try to make it look like we can accurately track localized weather patterns but refuse to acknowledge that Climate patterns are just as trackable.

Via Dendrochronology and Ice core samples, we can reconstruct what gasses were present in the atmosphere during a given year as well as track changes in those gasses over 10's of thousands of years. Add in Dendrochronology and we can corroborate the timelines as well as determine how wet or dry a particular year is. And again, this goes back thousands of years. We can go even farther back with certain types of fossils, like Amber, which also traps atmospheric gasses.

To imply that there is no way to study or create accurate long term models is to purposely ignore mountains of data and reality.

a reply to: peter vlar

And we can model the earths climate hundreds of years back and get rid of that pesky global medieval warm period with around a dozen data proxy data points!

We don't need mountains of data! We'll just build a model that suits our purposes!

Models are great!

I wonder how all the cold spots got into that model when there's not even any proxy data for thousands of miles near to them.

a reply to: peter vlar

I like though how you try to make it look like we can accurately track localized weather patterns but refuse to acknowledge that Climate patterns are just as trackable.

For you to suggest that the long term climate patterns are just as trackable as a three day forecast is just ridiculous.

Ask anyone who sails offshore if they would be wiling to accept the long range forecasts. They will tell you of course they wouldn't. Three days or five days is about all they will accept, after that, it's a craps shoot.

These are guys that would end up at the bottom of the ocean if they accepted your assertion that long term patterns are just as trackable.

a reply to: D8Tee


Actually you are wrong.

Deep in the frozen vault of the National Ice Core Laboratory in Lakewood, Colorado, pieces of ice up to nearly a half a million years old are helping researchers unravel the mysteries of climate change. The ice samples were collected in Antarctica and Greenland. They are part of one of the world’s largest collections of ice cores in a program funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Antarctica and Greenland have layers of snow and ice preserved in thick glaciers over hundreds of thousands of years. Through studies of the ice cores extracted by drilling thousands of meters into these glaciers, scientists can create mathematical models of Earth’s climate history. They’ve discovered extreme climate swings in Earth’s past, some of which occurred very rapidly, in less than a decade.

Ice core samples provide information on atmospheric composition, temperature and other climate data in a very long and continuous record, making them one of the most important tools for climate researchers.

“It’s very important in climate change research to know just what time is represented by a particular thickness in an ice core,” said former ice core lab director and USGS climate scientist Todd Hinkley. “It doesn’t really do you much good to say, ‘Well, we went in pretty deep, so this must be old’. You’ve got to be precise about it, and the ice cores do allow this. This is their strength as a scientific research tool.”

summitcountyvoice.com...

Ice sheets have one particularly special property. They allow us to go back in time and to sample accumulation, air temperature and air chemistry from another time[1]. Ice core records allow us to generate continuous reconstructions of past climate, going back at least 800,000 years[2]. By looking at past concentrations of greenhouse gasses in layers in ice cores, scientists can calculate how modern amounts of carbon dioxide and methane compare to those of the past, and, essentially, compare past concentrations of greenhouse gasses to temperature.

www.antarcticglaciers.org...

a reply to: Kashai

What am I wrong about?

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: peter vlar

And we can model the earths climate hundreds of years back and get rid of that pesky global medieval warm period with around a dozen data proxy data points!

We don't need mountains of data! We'll just build a model that suits our purposes!

Models are great!

I wonder how all the cold spots got into that model when there's not even any proxy data for thousands of miles near to them.

The word is there is explanation for the medieval time warming, and our temperatures now are exceeding that without similar causes.

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.

Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the globe. The National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions in 2006 found it plausible that current temperatures are hotter than during the Medieval Warm Period. Further evidence obtained since 2006 suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times (Figure 1). This was also confirmed by a major paper from 78 scientists representing 60 scientific institutions around the world in 2013.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

medieval warm period

a reply to: D8Tee


We can accurately determine earths climate in the past and derive conclusions based on current conditions.

a reply to: Xenogears


The more data you have the more accurate the result wherein the less data the less accurate the result.

a reply to: Xenogears


The more data you have the more accurate the result wherein the less data the less accurate the result.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Xenogears


The more data you have the more accurate the result wherein the less data the less accurate the result.

That is correct, and you can see from the images I have posted, Michael Manns paper that attempts to do away with a global Medieval Warming period has not much data.

a reply to: Xenogears

This was also confirmed by a major paper from 78 scientists representing 60 scientific institutions around the world in 2013.

From your source i see no cause for alarm. Do you notice we are in a 2000 year period of cooling?

Have we saved ourselves from an ice age, or is this just natural variation?

The team compared their best estimate reconstructed temperature for 1971–2000 with all other consecutive 30-year periods within each regional reconstruction.

In Asia and Australasia, reconstructed temperature was higher during 1971–2000 than any other 30-year period.
The Arctic was also warmest during the twentieth century, although warmer during 1941–1970 than 1971–2000 according to their reconstruction.
In South America, the 1971–2000 reconstructed temperature was similar to the record maximum in 1251–1280.
In North America, data were not available for the warm decades since 1980; therefore, the reconstruction underestimates the actual temperature during the 1971–2000 interval.
In Europe, slightly higher reconstructed temperatures were registered in 741–770, and the interval from 21–80 was substantially warmer than 1971–2000.
Antarctica was probably warmer than 1971–2000 for a time period as recent as 1671–1700, and the entire period from 141–1250 was warmer than 1971–2000.
Overall, the team concluded that current temperatures are probably warmer than any other 30-year period in the last 1,400 years. Europe appears to have been hotter during the 'Roman Warm Period', but the Arctic is hotter now.

"of the 52 individual records that extend to AD 500, more sites (and a higher proportion) seem warmest during the twentieth century than during any other century. The fraction of individual records that indicates the highest temperatures during 1971–2000 decreases with increasing record length, consistent with an overall cooling trend over the past two millennia

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Xenogears


The more data you have the more accurate the result wherein the less data the less accurate the result.

That is correct, and you can see from the images I have posted, Michael Manns paper that attempts to do away with a global Medieval Warming period has not much data.

BTW, word is the oceans are absorbing the equivalent of two hiroshima atomic bombs per second in energy, iirc. One of the reasons we've not seen even more drastic increases in temperature is the ocean's taken in the heat. Most of the heating has been absorbed by the oceans, that is, but it won't be staying there for long, and one would hypothesize that the oceans could saturate in heat absorption capacity.

Unlike the medieval time period which had solar and volcanic causes, and could vary and cool short after, the CO2 will stay there for quite a while.

Regards cooling, as you say the earth's natural cooling, along with ocean absorbing most of the heat, might be part of the reason things haven't heated up even more.

But with the permafrost melting, the oceans acidifying and heating up, and resource constraints on the horizon(which may limit geoengineering efforts, barring breakthroughs), things are about to get interesting. The arctic will be ice free in summer sometime in the near future, dark blue ocean further absorbing heat as opposed to white ice.

a reply to: Kashai

one issue with ice core samples is that u can have a period of warming and a mass melting of the glaciers deleting hundreds or thousands of years of layers on those glaciers. this can be be countered slightly by comparing cores from around the world that didnt succumb to the melting but it gets real iffy if u dont have that data. so while ice cores are great they also are not perfect by any means

a reply to: TheScale


Agreed.


Scientist working on this kind of research specifically benefit from the extent technologically people from around the world with similar of opposing interests?

Can communicate.

originally posted by: TheScale
a reply to: Kashai

one issue with ice core samples is that u can have a period of warming and a mass melting of the glaciers deleting hundreds or thousands of years of layers on those glaciers. this can be be countered slightly by comparing cores from around the world that didnt succumb to the melting but it gets real iffy if u dont have that data. so while ice cores are great they also are not perfect by any means

Lots of issues with the ice cores. The Dome C ice core has a resolution of 560 years, making a great smoothing mechanism for any variations in C02 on a shorter scale.

Greenlands ice cores show higher C02 contents, of course this is dismissed due to melting ice layers...

Seems it was warm enough to melt layers at certain periods in history there...

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: peter vlar

I like though how you try to make it look like we can accurately track localized weather patterns but refuse to acknowledge that Climate patterns are just as trackable.

For you to suggest that the long term climate patterns are just as trackable as a three day forecast is just ridiculous.

Not at all true. To stand by this statement, one must indulge in willful ignorance and only l

ook at cherry picked data and not the whole picture.

Ask anyone who sails offshore if they would be wiling to accept the long range forecasts. They will tell you of course they wouldn't. Three days or five days is about all they will accept, after that, it's a craps shoot.

These are guys that would end up at the bottom of the ocean if they accepted your assertion that long term patterns are just as trackable.

All that is shown by the above ian that you don't actually grasp the difference between weather and climate if you think a climate cycle is measured in such short time frames. They are based on averages over long periods of time. These averages can be derived by comparing ice core data with Dendrochronology and are
Measured in decades on the low end and millennia on the high end.

For
The
Record, I actually sail all the time with my father in law on his 46' Hinckley so I don't need to ask sailors much of anything when I spend time with them often. But then again, as a former Department Chair at George Mason, he can navigate a peer reviewed paper and doesn't rely on fringe fluff n' buff to get his data and understands the difference between overwhelming data( 10's of thousands of papers last year alone) vs. a mere 20 dissenting opinions. Not much weight in the 20 papers that when I read them, almost none actually supported the premise of the OP.

a reply to: TheScale

This is why when determining dates etc... no single source of data isn't used. Ice cores from Greenland are compared to those from Antarctica and Siberia as we'll a single checked against Dendrochronology. We're never going g to get something super specific like "November of 980 CE UNTIL march of 994 CE saw an average increase in temperature and rainfall blah blah blah...) it's always averages over a long period of time. It's why the short term climate cycles are periods of 30 years and no 30 days and long scale cycles are measured over millennia.

a reply to: peter vlar
a. Tree experiences a very cold summer, with no growth. (a temperature signal?)
b. Tree experiences a very hot but too dry summer, with no growth. (a temperature signal?)
c. Tree experiences a cool but nicely moist summer, with good growth. (a temperature signal?)
d. Tree experiences a very hot and wet summer with good growing conditions but a rampant pest infestation, with no growth. (a temperature signal?)

Just what are they measuring, when looking at tree rings? Temperature? Moisture? Infestations? Micro-climates? Forest canopy competition?

Hide the decline.....

An interesting quote which I've not verified

It is important to remember that there is a 10 to 30 year lag between the emission of carbon and when we can see the consequences manifest. Sixty-three percent of all human-generated carbon emissions have been produced in the last 25 years.-climate change beyond tipping point

a reply to: D8Tee

Trends

Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year.

cdiac.ornl.gov...