JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Northern Greenland warmer 1000 years ago, warmer in the 1920s too

Thanks to the Hockeyschtick for pointing us at a new study of Greenland ice cores[1]. For the first time, 12 ice cores drilled in the northern section of Greenland have been “stacked” and published.  Curiously, these 12 ice cores were drilled from 1993 to 1995, so this is not new data– but it’s the first time that all 12 oxygen isotope records, which are a proxy for temperature, have been published together. The area represents about 10% of Greenland, and seems to behave differently to the southern part. The warm event in 1420 is described as a local effect. The researchers acknowledge that solar activity is important and solar activity correlates with temperatures. It must be growing more and more obvious to climate researchers that their models have to include the long term solar cycles.

The take-home messages for me are: 1/ Natural variability is big and unpredictable. 2/ When we get this kind of detail from all the continents and regions of the ocean we’ll definitely be in a position to start getting the big Global Climate Models to work. 3/ Until we figure out how the Sun causes climate change, the current models are useless.

… Click to see the original graph and caption.

 

The purple line here shows summer Arctic sea ice extent, which I thought was perfect and stable before we developed coal fired electricity plants.

Click to see the original graph and caption.

 

They don’t find a good correlation with volcanoes or the NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation).

“We find a pronounced warm period from 850 to 1100AD, which has its maximum between 900 and 1000 AD. This is about 100 years earlier than the described MCA in Mann et al. (2009)”

The researchers don’t mention it, but the peak around 950 AD  does match the timing in Ljundvist and Christiansen studies for the whole of the Northern Hemisphere.[2][3]

Here they admit the sun has got something to do with the climate — especially the long term shifts.

“In general, higher solar activity causes higher temperatures (as during the MCA) whereas cold periods (e.g. LIA) are dominated by lower solar activity (Ammann et al., 2007). Based on some of the NGT records (B16, B18, B21 and B29), Fischer et al. (1998c) explained most of the long-term variation in northern Greenland by changes in solar activity.”

Local weather owes a lot to the “ice dividing range”:

“…we argue that the main ice divide has a large influence on the spatial δ 18 O pattern representing temperatures. The main ice divide separates the Greenland ice sheet into eastern and western regions (Fig. 1). Cyclonic activity is most important for the precipitation over Greenland.Cyclones forming over Hudson Bay or Baffin Bay and winds from the west or south-west transport air masses to Greenland (Chen et al., 1997).”

The action in any single one ice core is mostly not about what the climate is doing and more to local forces.

“The results of single site ice-core studies are likely weakened by the finding that only 22 % of the local δ 18 O signal is related to climate. 12 % of the variability is attributed to ice sheet topography. The remaining 66 % are therefore due to other processes”

Abstract.

We present for the first time all 12 δ18O records obtained from ice cores drilled in the framework of the North Greenland Traverse (NGT) between 1993 and 1995 in northern Greenland between 74 to 80° N, 36 to 49° W and 2000 to 3200 m a.s.l. The cores cover an area of 680 km × 317 km, ~200 000 km2 or 10 % of the area of Greenland. Depending on core length (100–175 m) and accumulation rate (90–200 kg m−2 a−1) the records reflect an isotope-temperature history over the last 500–1100 years.

The δ18O signal in northern Greenland is influenced by temperature, accumulation and the topography of the North Greenland ice sheet between 72 and 80° N. About 12 % of the variability can be attributed to the position of the single drill sites in relation to the ice sheet topography.

Lowest δ18O mean values occur north of summit and east of the main divide. In general, ice cores drilled on the main ice divide show different results than those drilled east of the main ice divide that might be influenced by secondary regional moisture sources.

A stack of all 12 NGT records and the NGRIP record is presented with improved signal-to-noise ratio. This stack represents the mean δ18O signal for northern Greenland that is interpreted as proxy for temperature. Our northern Greenland δ18O stack indicates isotopically enriched periods compared to their average during medieval times, about 1420 ± 20 AD and from 1870 AD onwards. The period between 1420 AD and 1850 AD was isotopically depleted compared to the average for the entire millennium and represents the Little Ice Age. The 20th century has isotopic values higher than the 1000 years mean and is comparable to the medieval period but lower than about 1420 AD.

Sea ice has a local feedback effect

Around 1420 AD, an anti-correlation between sea-ice extent in the Arctic Ocean (Kinnard et al., 2011) and the δ18O values is observed (Fig. 10). The sea ice in the Arctic Ocean shows a recession in this time of warm temperatures in northern Greenland.
A shrunken sea ice extent would cause higher temperatures on a regional scale and would increase the amount of water vapour from local sources. Therefore, compared to distant sources, more isotopically-enriched moisture (Sime et al., 2013) may contribute to precipitation in northern Greenland, in particular east of main ice divide.However, we do not see any direct relationship between sea-ice extent and our NG-stack during the rest of time. The used sea ice record is an Arctic-wide one, which means that the climatic events of regional extent do not have to be always  reflected in the sea ice extent record…

Conclusions

With the full set of the NGT records, it was now for the first time possible to describe regional differences in the δ 18 O values in northern Greenland over the last 1000 years. Because of the ice sheet topography we see a clear east-to-west difference in northern Greenland δ 18 O distribution. The east-to-west gradient is larger than the north-to- south gradient. We find a more pronounced persistence of warm or cold events east of the main ice divide and assume more stable climate conditions there. The eastern part is more influenced by local effects like changes in the Arctic Ocean, which has tobe supported by the results of climate models. For the first, time a local warm event at 1420±20 AD was pointed out. We assume an atmosphere-sea ice feedback as one possible reason for this event.
The solar activity and internal Arctic climate dynamics are likely the main factors influencing the temperature in northern Greenland.

REFERENCES

[1^] S. Weißbach, A. Wegner, T. Opel, H. Oerter, B. M. Vinther, and S. Kipfstuhl  (2015) Spatial and temporal oxygen isotope variability in northern Greenland – implications for a new climate record over the past millennium ,  Clim. Past Discuss., 11, 2341-2388, 2015  doi:10.5194/cpd-11-2341-2015 The full text of the Weißbach paper is available through this cached copy.

[2^] Christiansen, B. and Ljungqvist F. C.  (2012). The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability. Climate of the Past, 8(2):765–786, 2012. [abstract] [PDF] [NASA copy] [Discussion on CA noted a lack of complete archives and code]

[3^] Ljungqvist, F. C., Krusic, P. J., Brattström, G., and Sundqvist, H. S (2012).: Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries, Clim. Past, 8, 227-249, doi:10.5194/cp-8-227-2012, 2012. [abstract] [PDF] or try this [PDF] [CO2science discussion]

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.8/10 (84 votes cast)
Northern Greenland warmer 1000 years ago, warmer in the 1920s too, 8.8 out of 10 based on 84 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/o2yyrep

130 comments to Northern Greenland warmer 1000 years ago, warmer in the 1920s too

  • #
    nfw

    It’s well known Greenland has been well, green. Although named perhaps more in irony to attract settlers, the fact is the place has had forests and the like. Go to the no-photo no-flash museum in Reykjavik, not much else to do there on a cold Sunday, and you will see soil cross-sections much bigger than cores showing how warm the place was. I would say we don’t even have to wait to figure out how the sun affects climate, the warmist alarmist models are useless and fraudulent anyway.

    260

  • #

    Hard to play hockey with that lot.

    80

    • #
      Senex

      Playing hockey against warmists would be fun. I see them skating around in circles in the middle of the rink with their heads down, oblivious to the opposing players. Too easy to skate rings around them, or line them up for a devastating bodycheck.

      Funny, I’ve never heard warmists warning that ice hockey will soon be a thing of the past!

      80

      • #
        William

        No Senex, the warmist hockey players would be the ones dressed and equipped for field hockey falling all over the ice that the models tell them isn’t there.

        20

    • #
      papertiger

      Yeah, that’s the Klingon bat’leth graph.

      A warriors graph!

      10

    • #
      Peter Miller

      If you were a real climate scientist, you would know that ‘a small sample, especially selected for you, out of a choice of many hundred sub-Arctic trees’ can provide a highly reliable indicator of something, albeit probably not temperature.

      If you graft that same something onto a chart of recent actual temperatures, you get a world famous shape which has duped a lot of very gullible people.

      Undoubtedly, the mighty Mann will dismissively scorn this study by stating “using only 12 ice cores from one area of northern Greenland is a clear case of cherry picking,” and he is surely a recognised expert on such things.

      40

  • #
    Manfred

    It’s hard to avoid a creeping sense that the generalising troglodytes who denied the sun could be a significant climate player have unwittingly entrapped themselves in an ideological casket framed with bristlecone pine on the one hand, and ice cores on the other.

    340

    • #
      Allen Ford

      Never fear, Manfred, just let Steffo loose on the data with his Light Rail Statistics Technique and all will be back to disaster!

      61

      • #
        Manfred

        Classic. I read that article. Wonders with numbers. Lies with damned stats.
        Now watch Obama — Attenborough engagement, possibly the first time in history that the pot and the kettle got together.

        Attenborough is HMS BBC’s wooden figurehead. When Obama set sail there was only one conceivable destination.

        60

        • #
          Peter C

          Obama — Attenborough engagement, possibly the first time in history that the pot and the kettle got together

          Love it!

          20

      • #
        William

        I read that and thought it was tongue in cheek, and then I thought more about his climate change work and came to the sad conclusion that it was a serious analysis – and that he has proved there is majority support for the light rail. Genius!

        10

  • #
    • #
      el gordo

      The Vikings noticed a large build up of icebergs in the North Atlantic as early as 1250 AD, so I give no credence to a LIA late start.

      00

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘They don’t find a good correlation with volcanoes or the NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation).’

    I’m stumped, it was my understanding the NAO was closely linked to the sun’s activity.

    10

  • #
    James Bradley

    Yeah, well there’s this scientific concept, it was in all the peer reviewed papers, ‘The Goldilocks Zone’.

    It seems our little world is at the inner edge of this habitable zone, not surprising the sun plays a great part in heating us.

    http://www.space.com/19522-alien-planet-habitable-zone-definition.html

    60

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      “The Goldilocks Zone” is a circular argument.

      We evolved on a planet that is exactly the right distance from its energy source for us to evolve to be ideally suited to living on a planet, that is exactly the right distance from its energy source.

      The fact that we are, “at the inner edge of this habitable zone”, is because nature is efficient, and only does the minimum necessary for evolution to occur with the available chemicals.

      90

      • #
        Manfred

        In the past 30 years, however, our knowledge of life in extreme environments has exploded. Scientists have found microbes in nuclear reactors, microbes that love acid, microbes that swim in boiling-hot water. Whole ecosystems have been discovered around deep sea vents where sunlight never reaches and the emerging vent-water is hot enough to melt lead.

        The Goldilocks Zone is bigger than we thought.

        My personal Goldilocks Zone 30 – 20∘LAT (N or S)

        40

        • #
          Peter C

          I live at 37S. It is a bit cold a present ( mid winter) but overall very pleasant. Even now the short days are still about 10 hours long.

          In some respects it is nice to have 4 defined seasons, even though where I live we often have 4 seasons in one day!

          00

          • #
            Oswald Thake

            I live between 53 and 54 North, and my countrymen are swooning in the 22C heat even as I write. It’s odd really, they’ll pop off to Florida – a popular holiday destination in Summer where they’ll turn off the Air Conditioning, (a novelty regarded with deep suspicion by the British) and open all the windows in the fond belief that it’s cooler outside, thene back boasting of enjoying temperatures in the mid-thirties.
            (Apropos of absolutely nothing at all, I believe the British Diplomatic Mission in Washington was paid a ‘hard living’ allowance, on the lines of those paid to diplomats in, say, Rangoon or Addis Abbaba, on account of the local climate. This went on into the nineteen seventies, manfully endured by the sufferers, until the Foreign Office was informed, to its vast surprise, of the existence of Air Conditioning.)

            20

    • #
      John Smith

      wonder if there are creatures on some rock in the heavens
      blogging in some impossible environment
      about their unique ‘Goldilocks zone’
      and some impossible Fermi wondering ‘where the hell is everyone?’

      20

      • #
        Manfred

        Who needs a celestial setting?
        On a nearby beach, a crab relaxing in the shade of a small rock by the lapping surf idly flicked open her lap top…

        10

  • #

    That warm and melty phase for Greenland in the early 1400s corresponds with some very rough English and Dutch weather, according to the CET. And I thought we’d just invented the polar vortex!

    80

  • #
    Rick Will

    If this plays out in the usual way the authors will be looking for work soon.

    100

    • #
      sophocles

      It depends on how much it’s noticed. If SkS feels forced to publish a “rebuttal” :-) then the probability increases.

      121

    • #

      It all depends which scare the academics see their funding coming from. There is now a distinct dislike of global warming as it only gets mentioned from zealot institutions (and I bet only institutions sigh when they read them).

      And there are increasing signs of an interest in “global cooling” or perhaps even “climate changes”.

      After all – the old meme of “the science is settled” when taken literally said we didn’t need to fund any further research. But saying “the science is unpredictable – but could cause a lot of problems” is a great way to get funding!

      240

  • #
    BilB

    The thing you’re choosing not to see, Jo is that Global temperatures were in steady decline at the beginning of the 1800′s, and this can be seen in your first graph. Human induced Global Warming has both arrested that decline and sent Global Average temperatures in the opposite direction, a clear indication of the strength of CO2′s impact on surface heat retention.

    144

    • #
      Tim Hammond

      And how exactly can you see that in the graph? You just “know” that the line would continue on that direction do you?

      180

    • #
      tom0mason

      BilB,

      You are obviously blessed with observational skills unknown to ordinary folk. Please tell how you can dig such a aspect (Human induced Global Warming) from the provided graphs when we lesser morals can only see quasi-periodic events peaking out of the centuries (around 900, 1400, and 1800) of chaotic variability.

      You have an uncommon gift BilB, IMO you should tour with it. :)

      321

    • #
      tom0mason

      BilB,

      You are obviously blessed with observational skills unknown to ordinary folk. Please tell how you can dig such a aspect (Human induced Global Warming) from the provided graphs when we lesser morals can only see quasi-periodic events peaking out of the centuries (at around 900, 1400, and 1800) of the chaotic variability.

      You have an uncommon gift BilB, IMO you should tour with it. :)

      50

      • #
        tom0mason

        Ho-humm, a double post …
        What a strange event a posted comment when I previewed it, then my intended comment posted.

        BilB help! With your remarkable observational skill can you perceive how and why it does that? Is it yet more Anthropological warming effects as its root cause? Or just a slip of the chaotic digit? :)

        151

      • #
        Another Ian

        Tomomason

        Maybe he might have a promising career in water divining?

        140

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      BilB.

      You are correct in what you say about global average temperature, but Greenland is just one region in the globe. I don’t think it is possible to extrapolate global average temperatures from the temperature record of part of Greenland.

      Greenland is fascinating. Look at the spike around the start of the LIA, it was really bucking the northern hemisphere trend there.

      414

    • #
      James Bradley

      Bilb/Harry,

      That steady decline would be the Little Ice Age – in all the lithographs at the time – only one way for temperatures to go from there.

      180

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        James Bradley,

        The “steady decline” except for the warm bits :-)

        19

        • #
          James Bradley

          Harry,

          The warm bits always follow Ice Ages, there’s been a few, that’s how we identify an Ice Age, otherwise we would identify it as oh, wait, you do – the warm bits in between are ‘hottest days evvvvaaaaa’ and Ice Ages are a ‘cold snap’.

          So, Harry Twinotter, if that is your real name, what makes this current ‘warm bit’ different from all the historical other ‘warm bits’ and why shouldn’t we expect another really big ‘cold snap’ to follow?

          191

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            James Bradley.

            My point was the period of time called the LIA was a mixed bag – it also contained warm years. It wasn’t actually an Ice Age of course.

            If anyone is hanging out for a real ice age, think thousands of years from now, maybe even tens of thousands.

            25

            • #
              James Bradley

              Harry,

              Point taken, but conversely we may be experiencing a rare warm bit before slipping into a regular cold bit, I mean to say, all the hullabaloo about global warming leads me to suspect now that it is a much rarer event than global cooling so the odds are against this warm period lasting too much longer and the inevitable cooling will arrive.

              Of course we will be less able to adjust to a cooling period as alternative energy production is geared towards industries that will not sustain energy generation during a cooling period and the push to ban crops that would withstand the cold will mean starvation for the large percentage of the population.

              Hey, just as well the UN have made out like bandits though with our money, I’m sure they have a solution, but I did hear they already strategically moved their people to a base on the moon, and plan to leave Kevin ’07 to rule us in their stead.

              Could be worse, they could have decided to leave Julia.

              121

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                James Bradley.

                I do not see any scientific evidence of global cooling.

                And I am sure someone’s political beliefs are not going to have any influence on what nature does.

                02

          • #
            Yonniestone

            Sorry James but ‘warm bits’ and ‘cold snaps’ are now ‘climate disruptions’ blamed on any carbon based life at the time that dared to breathe, fart, burn, eat, reproduce, trample, swim, emit noise, or even think without adhering to current legislation or relevant administration body.

            When time travel is perfected these authorities will go back to punish such atrocities committed unto Gaia, which will probably amount to a social media slur campaign that has 5 seconds of fame and consisting of accusations attacking the life-forms disregard for whatever their future offspring pertain to, “Oh those selfish Brontosaurus’s gorging themselves on endangered plants heating the planet with CO2 and CH4 without thought for future generations, obviously in the pay of Big Tar!”

            61

            • #
              James Bradley

              Yonnie,

              Oh yeah.

              I forgot about agencies corrupted by ‘Big Tar’.

              It’s the pits.

              40

  • #
    Dariusz

    Vikings were using deciduous trees to build their boats 1000 years ago and these trees do not grow in Norway today because it is too cold. Warmer weather was one of the main reasons why Vikings expanded as far south as Constantinople when they attempted to besiege the city. Why Greenland should remain cold at same time would suggests that Norway and Greenland areas were not in the same climatic zone.
    And yes we all know why Greenland is called GREENland, because it was green when was settled by the Vikings.

    181

    • #
      Gee Aye

      Dariusz. What is your motivation for writing this? You’ve ignored

      -Vikings are not just from Norway
      - Norway has plenty of deciduous trees today
      - pollen records show continuous deciduous trees present going back thousands of years
      - ethnographic and archaeological data shows the presence of these trees
      - Viking ship building is not well understood and you can’t deduce what thousands of ships were made from using the handful that have been studied
      - one important building material found in ships and preserved structures is pine

      319

      • #
        Dave

        Geeaye

        “one important building material found in ships and preserved structures is pine”

        Have you got the link to this please?

        10

        • #
          Peter C

          GeeAye often requests a link to confirmatory evidence, but rarely gives one for his own assertions. His standard response is “look it up yourself”!

          30

    • #
      Gee Aye

      The Greenland naming story is cute though. I should have realised that yours was a parody before bothering to post.

      221

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I read somewhere, that it was originally named Grunlund, because the first longship captain to find it, was called “Grun”.

        You can still hear it pronounced that way in Scotland and the North of England.

        In French, it is still referred to as Le Groenland, and not Terre Vert.

        60

    • #
      Dariusz

      Info comes directly from a long term Norwegian friend, no parody here. Also prof. Plimer suggested this including Greenland name from memory, however this not a new idea. A rapid expansion of trade from Norway and other Scandinavian countries (yes I know Vikings are not only about Norway) have coincided with warmth, and inversely a decline of the Vikings was not only related to the Christianity but also the post1200-1300 cooling period.

      The Personal tone of your post not worth of a response.

      150

      • #
        Gee Aye

        Your friend must not know his trees. But don’t trust me or him… Look it up

        216

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Yes, there are deciduous trees in Norway. The forests there have tripled since the 1930′s, due to warming perhaps? But the maples are a minority compared with conifers. They have been planted elsewhere, and love warmer sites. (You may know one of them as the Plane Tree).

          There were trees in Greenland when the first Viking settlers got there, but they cut most of them down for firewood etc. and had to go elsewhere for timber. (Markland?).

          All this suggests that Dariusz is correct; warmer weather in medieval times would have meant more deciduous trees in Norway for the boat builders. And it was mostly the Norwegian vikings who sailed to Iceland and Greenland. The Danes headed for the UK (Danelaw if you recall Alfred the Great) and Normandy. The Swedes went across the Baltic and through Russia. Yes, they did besiege Constantinople.

          190

          • #
            Dennis

            The Gotland Island (now part of Sweden) Goths territory was the Baltic Sea and the capital Visby became an important trading centre for many nationalities. The natural resources of Gotland could not sustain the growing population and a national ballot was held with losers agreeing to leave Gotland forever after being paid for their assets left behind.

            40

        • #
          Dariusz

          “Oak” tree variety that he suggested. They do not grow naturally in Norway anymore. in fact only the oldest most established trees survive only that are often 800 years old or older. The oak is one of the hardest and most durable trees and often were used for variety of reasons in including the Medieval English warships. Viking ships were no different.
          He is on holidays now….in Norway. Will ask him for a reference when comes back to Australia where he lives now.

          90

          • #
            diogenese2

            Dariusz, you raise the good point of what is “natural” in landscapes, particular European, which have been moulded by man since the end of the Younger Dryas. The deciduous woodland of Norway is ample on the banks of the fjords, which is , of course , sea level. The churchyard of the Hopperstad Stavekirke contains a very fine copper birch. Some original church timbers are dated about 900 years old by dendrochronology, which has its uses after all. They are definitely hardwood not pine. Tell your friend he has a beautiful homeland.

            60

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              If anybody is travelling in that part of the World, I would suggest they see either (or both) Nidaros Cathedral in Trondheim or St. Magnus Cathedral in Kirkwall (Orkney). They will readily see that those places were obviously commercially vibrant and well populated in medieval times.

              As they were 4200-5500 years ago as shown up by the recent excavations at the Ness of Brodgar in Orkney. So far they’ve excavated 10 temples out of an estimated 100. Neil Oliver did a show on them in Sacred Wonders of Britain. He was an archaeologist and was clearly impressed by these ruins. Obviously there were many more people on Orkney at that time, indicating that that part of the World was much warmer then than today.

              Well, that’s evidence of 2 warm cycles regardless of the level of some trace gas.

              50

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Yes, those folks in history were fantastic builders. You don’t get people building high quality ruins, these days.

                You are lucky if modern ruins outlast the next Council planning round. It’s the wood, you know. You just can’t get the wood.

                Spike Milligan

                110

      • #
        • #

          still grown and were growing there 2000, 1000 and 500 years ago – nothing known about viking boat building (btw people, mmyself included, Stop pretending that you know something about it) has anything to do with the graphs posted by Jo.

          05

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I didn’t notice the moderators objecting to the conversation. Perhaps I wasn’t paying proper attention.

            40

          • #
            Dave

            Geeaye

            I asked before for a link please?
            When you said

            “one important building material found in ships and preserved structures is pine”

            Then

            “nothing known about viking boat building”

            Need to know why the turn around Geeaye?

            Did you know conifers were mainly used for making the OARS?

            Have you been here Geeaye? http://vikingaheimar.is/

            10

            • #
              Gee Aye

              My comment about nothing known is with regards to whether times were warm or not since all species were present for building the boats. Of the half dozen preserved boats, all available woods were used and of the thousands not preserved little is known.

              11

              • #
                Dave

                I know that
                But you evaded the question of PINE
                Yet state no one knows about boat building

                This Sub thread was accelerated by you commenting on building materials either of Pines or Deciduous trees in Viking Long boats

                No link found about the PINE reference Geeaye?

                10

              • #
                Dave

                Geeaye

                Another statement

                “Of the half dozen preserved boats”

                Please send link of this please

                00

            • #
              Gee Aye

              Just to be clear… Is there anything about Viking boat building that has anything to do with the graphs above?

              00

              • #
                Dave

                NO!

                You are correct!
                But evading the question I asked about a link to PINE in Viking boats is?

                If you have a link – send it?

                If not – say so Geeaye!

                00

          • #
            Peter C

            Just to remind you Gee Aye,

            Dariusz made this coment”

            Vikings were using deciduous trees to build their boats 1000 years ago and these trees do not grow in Norway today because it is too cold

            I presume that he was suggestmg that Jo’s first graph understates the temperatures of 1200AD!

            00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Greenland is officially a territory of Denmark, and I was under the impression that the Vikings were Danes, and not Norwegians. Just sayin’ …

        30

        • #

          Just sayin’… look up at my comment.

          This whole long sub thread amounts to basically nothing. Dariusz first statement was plain wrong and somewhat confused (vikings only went on rampages because it got warm???) followed by a whole bunch of posts saying this and that – none supporting D.

          16

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          They were all sorts, but the Norwegians headed out to Shetland, and then west to the Faroes, Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland (Vinland).
          Eric Thorvaldsson was born in Norway but his father Thorvald was exiled to Iceland. When he grew up Eric got the nickname Eric the Red, from a series of deaths, and was exiled from Iceland. He went to Greenland where he settled. His son Leif discovered Vinland (Newfoundland) named because of (native) grapes growing there (identified by a crew member born in North Germany).

          The Danes tended to loot and pillage England and Ireland, but also besieged Paris, settled in Normandy. From there their descendants conquered Sicily.
          The Swedish vikings headed to the southern coast of the Baltic, then into Russia. From there to besiege Constantinople. Later the Varangian guard were viking mercenaries in service to the Byzantine Emperor, including Danes, Norwegians and even some from Iceland. Later still the Guard consisted of men from Britain. Harald Hardrada made 2 journeys to Constantinople before grabbing the throne of Norway and then taking on Harold of England (of Viking descent).
          Who said they didn’t travel much in the Middle Ages?

          40

          • #

            they sure traveled a lot! Your post underlines something I remember from my early studies and a quick google supports this (for me anyway), is that scholars are not happy about how the term “vikings” is used to lump together a whole lot of different peoples, cultures and dates into a single cliched err lump. Yes the people of that region shared some common attributes of culture, history etc but the term “viking” paints them a certain way that ignores the diversity. A way of thinking about it is that any random “viking”, viking village or region would not fit the description at all.

            03

          • #
            James Bradley

            Graeme3,

            From memory of my high school history ‘viking’ was a generic Norse term used to describe those who left their home lands to texplore and return with profits.

            From memory also, the origin of the name ‘Greenland’ was more a property development advertising campaign run by Erik the Red when he tried to recoup his losses from a disastrous investment in the place. He enticed a large number of fellow countrymen to settle and farm. The venture eventually went belly up, but his second son, Leif Eriksson, gained some fame as probably the first European to reach North America.

            20

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              JB;

              Greenland was green, in summer anyway. The settlement lasted for at least 250 years, although getting into tough times at the end. The economy was based on farming with cows for milk, hence undoubted grass in reasonable amounts, and hay for those brought indoors for winter.

              We know from excavations that the permafrost was fairly deep, as the inhabitants were able to dig graves. In the graves roots of trees are still there, even though they were probably more bush sized than tall. It would seem that they burnt most of the trees.

              10

  • #
    Just-A-Guy

    You wrote:

    1/ Natural variability is big and unpredictable.

    Pyers Corbin has been accurately predicting long range weather patterns for years. Not to mention his making plenty of money betting, yes, litereally betting, against the consensus and winning regularly.

    More importantly, we already have enough information on the natural solar cycles to give us a very good picture of what that natural variation will be.

    You wrote:

    2/ When we get this kind of detail from all the continents and regions of the ocean we’ll definitely be in a position to start getting the big Global Climate Models to work.

    We will never get this kind of detail because the funding required to do so is unavailable and not forthcoming. The people/organizations holding the purse strings don’t want this amouint of detail. It would completely derail all of their plans.

    More importantly. Even if all this detail was available, the current models would still not work because these models include non-existing ‘co2 forcing’. Murray Salby’s work has already shown that the amount of humanity’s affect on the climate due to co2 production is less than the statistical ‘noise’ in the data. Unless and until someone successfully falsifies Dr. Salby’s work, there is no scientifically verified influence on the atmosphere from man-made co2.

    Good luck with that.

    You wrote:

    3/ Until we figure out how the Sun causes climate change, the current models are useless.

    Climate Change ™ ® is a term contrived by the WMO, UNFCCC, IPCC. As defined by them, it’s non-existant. So,trying and/or expecting anyone to figure out how the sun causes a non-existant phenomenon is just silly.

    More importantly. The sun is obviously the main driver of climate change ™ ® natural climate variability. All of the scientific evidence to date shows this to be true.

    To show how true and simple this is to comprehend, think about this.

    Climate Change ™ ® adherents claim that there is a positive radiative feedback involving co2. Well, . . . the amount of radiative feedback can only be equal to or less than the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth.

    This is the definition of a feedback, and there’s no way around it. Luke-warmers want to dance around this fact ignoring the implications. If co2 is feeding back radiative energy, it can only feed back an equal or lower amount of radiated heat. The source of that radiated heat is the sun. You can’t get out more than what you put in!

    This would be true, and bad enough for the luke-warmer’s position, If the feedback was directly affecting the surface of the earth. But the ghe being peddled to the masses is even less plausible than that. (If such a thing as less than zero can even be entertained). The ghe being peddled is said to first warm up the water vapor and only then re-heat the surface.

    How does one molecule of co2 heat-up 2,500 other molecules of h2o fast enough to overcome the radiative cooling-off of those 2,500 molecules? More than half of the heat being radiated from the atmosphere is radiating into space. This is a physically un-deniable fact. So the phenomenon/hypothesis proposed by the warmists is Physically Impossible.

    Luke warmers have a much bigger responsibility to the rest of the public than anyone else. Their continued support for partial man-made climate change based on a patently false ghe gives the warmists more support than it does the scientific position.

    Abe

    233

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Unless and until someone successfully falsifies Dr. Salby’s work

      Already done. His attempt to prove that the rise in CO2 is mainly natural can be shown as unfounded.
      http://joannenova.com.au/2014/10/missing-heat-not-in-deep-oceans-but-found-in-missing-data-in-upper-ocean/#comment-1583762
      The error in his equations is the second line of the slide that is first seen at time 11:12 in the video you linked to.

      Your other objections are mostly fallacies, try this page on SoD and see if they are addressed.

      Showing the temperature effect of CO2 is more than zero is fairly easy, just compare OLR between 1970 and 2003 and then note the small divot on the left around 720/cm (CO2) must be compensated by a small amount of warming in the rest of the spectrum. Not difficult to find if you actually seek the facts.
      What is difficult is quantifying that effect at the surface, i.e. whether it is small or very small w.r.t. to surface temperature. Science really not settled there.

      34

      • #
        Peter C

        What it is.
        In nearly every calendar year for which both atmospheric CO2 and industrial carbon emissions data are available, the annual increase in total atmospheric carbon content was only around half the industrial emissions contribution. An inquiring mind would ask where the other half of the emitted mass went. The belief that human activity is the main driver of recent CO2 increase based on the mass balance principal is an empirically falsifiable belief. That belief could only be false if the annual rise in CO2 was greater or equal to the industrial emissions. The measurements show it’s not, it’s the other way around.

        You have me a little confused here Andrew.

        1. Ok, the CO2 increase in one year is just half of the human emmissions. Let’s say that all the CO2 increase is due to human emissions and that the other half went into the biosphere or the oceans.

        2. What if the CO2 increase was equal to the human emissions? Then human emissions could cause all the increase and none went into the oceans.

        3. What if the annual increase is more than the human emissions? Then human emissions could be responsible for some or most of the increase, and there is also another source.

        I don’t see how condition 2. or 3. could prove that the statement “human activity is responsible for most of the increase in atmospheric CO2″ is false. It is only false if the increase in CO2 is more than double the human emissions. Then human emissions could not contribute even half the increase.

        Your quote is from an old comment that you linked to.

        I agree that Murry Salby has not proved that human emissions cannot be the principal source of increase in atmospheric CO2. It just seems to me to be unlikely.

        33

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Your conditions 2 and 3 combined together are the negation of the condition for industry being the only cause of CO2 rise, which is that the atmospheric increase is less than the human contribution.
          Not( A < H ) == ( (A==H) Or (A > H) )

          A sign convention should be followed where a repository reduction is a negative mass change.
          As Nature is the only other candidate cause of A, the conservation of mass requirement is that H+A+N == 0.
          For testing if the reduction of the Nature repository is greater than the Human reduction:
          If N<H Then (0-H-A)<H ; -A<2H; so A>-2H is the falsification condition, just as you said.

          You appear to be correct about the discrepancy. The wording of that phrase “is the main driver of recent CO2 increase” doesn’t describe the test correctly, but the math and the end result is still correct. It establishes that N>0 so nature is acting as a net sink, so human activity is the only net source.
          Trivially H<N because H<0 and N>0.

          So the confusion was actually mine; I was getting ahead myself as that para was written with foreknowledge of the end result. The result also establishes that human activity is the main contributor, but the test that was applied was testing if it was the only contributor, which it is.

          00

          • #
            Peter C

            Thank you.

            I think I understand all of that. And I would readily agree, except that Natural turnover is supposed to be very much greater than the Human contribution, but so poorly understood or measured.

            Anyway food for thought!

            00

      • #
        TdeF

        You can prove that less than 2% of CO2 is from fossil fuel with C14. However Selby is onto another fascinating idea that while CO2 does not correlate with temperature, it correlates very well with the integral of temperature. This to me is a measure of the total heat input into the oceans. Add Henry’s law and you have it all, not only proof that the CO2 rise is entirely natural but proof of its origin and even the mechanism.

        103

        • #
          TdeF

          The variation of CO2 underneath the growth of CO2 in Salby’s graph also tells a significant story.

          Mauna Loa CO2

          These wobbles are not due to man made CO2, but show you how greatly CO2 changes even from summer to winter.

          The variation over 6 months from summer to winter of say 387-383 or 4ppm is about 1%. This immediately gives a quick measure of sensitivety of CO2 levels to temperature independent of any man made CO2.

          The sea water temperature changes from 25C to 27C winter to summer, so 1% for +2C. Consider then that the temperature did not go down and the CO2 continued to outgas until equilibrium was reached under Henry’s law where CO2 is proportional to temperature.

          The amount of CO2 reserve in the total ocean is 50x that in the air, so the effect would continue until the whole system was in balance. When would this stop?
          2C/300C = 1/150 but you have to x50 as the deep oceans outgas and you get a CO2 increase of 1/3 or a 33% increase per degree C.

          The IPCC gets around this by arguing that the currents do not mix so the CO2 is trapped at depth. However I doubt they have any actual physics behind this. Gas rises regardless of currents and liquid CO2 can become gaseous CO2.

          In fact another blogger here noted that in his exploration for hydrocarbons, the plumes from the ocean bottom were often just CO2. So it is clear from the size of the small wobbles from summer to winter, CO2 is released by even slight ocean warming. This matches Prof Selby’s conclusion of the integral of temperature. So far the physics is very simple. It also takes the IPCC to claim that the half life of CO2 in the air is 80 years, which is silly. No one wants to talk about C14, because it would be game over.

          103

          • #
            TdeF

            These calculations simply show the way CO2 is released from the huge oceans with even slight surface warming, as you would expect. CO2 is in equilibrium with 98% dissolved. There is more atmosphere in the sea than above it. This however only answers the secondary question, if not from man, from where?

            These simple explanations are separate from the absolute proof that CO2 in the air does NOT come from fossil fuels. All CO2 vanishes with a half life of 14 years, exchanged for relatively new CO2 from the oceans. Man made CO2 driven Global Warming is busted simply because the man made bit is missing. Apart from the fact that more CO2 is a good thing, more heat is a good thing, there never has been a problem. It always was a communist political theory which turned into one of the world’s most profitable scams.

            84

            • #
              TdeF

              As an aside, CO2 has a third state, liquid.

              We are very familiar with the invisible gas CO2, everyone and every plant and insect is made from it and water.

              We are familiar the solid state, dry ice at -78C. It is often used in packing for instant cold.

              However under pressure as in the oceans and at water temperatures, CO2 is a liquid. The CO2 concentration in the vast oceans is around 5ml/litre or 0.5%, 10x that of CO2 in the air and the air and water are about the same, 4km thick but the atmosphere is very thin at 4km up so the real ratio is around 50x. All the CO2 is in the oceans. If it was all released, the CO2 would be 2%!

              So with even tiny warming the oceans can dramatically increase CO2. We should not be so concerned at a tiny increase of 0.01%, which the alarmists have exaggerated into a global disaster, with no evidence at all. They did the same with Australia, arguing that we have the highest per capita generation of CO2 in the world, which is not only false, but irrelevant. 50% comes from China which has guaranteed to do nothing about anything, a win for Obama apparently.

              83

          • #
            Peter C

            That is a very interesting idea TdeF!

            The annual variation in CO2 at Mauna Loa is usually attributed to CO2 draw down by plant growth in the Northern hemisphere growing season.

            What you seem to be saying is that the CO2 variation could be due to out gassing from the Southern Oceans in summer and dissolving during winter!

            20

            • #
              TdeF

              Precisely. After all if there was 50x as much CO2 in the water in equilibrium and you heated the water, you would expect aerial CO2 to go up substantially. When it cooled you would expect CO2 to go down. No one says anything.

              It is almost as if warmists do not want to admit that the water is full of CO2(and other gases)? Amazingly, fish need to breathe underwater or they would drown. They breathe out CO2. So do krill, prawns. Plankton also take in CO2 and output O2, as much or more than all our forests, up to 50% of all O2. You would think this giant ecosystem did not exist or was irrelevant. It is all about man and man’s ego.

              My previous calculations show easily that the 50% CO2 increase in tiny CO2 is completely explicable by a 1C surface temperature rise. It is a stubborn insistence that the CO2 increase is almost entirely man made which is wrong and even illogical.

              81

              • #
                Just-A-Guy

                TdeF,

                You wrote:

                Amazingly, fish need to breathe underwater or they would drown.

                Awesome line! Can I steal it? Please?

                Abe

                20

            • #
              TdeF

              Henry’s law is in fine balance at the ocean surface with the equilibrium concentrations. By my calculations, CO2 is always outgassing in the warmer waters and being dragged in at the poles.

              Even more significantly, as the CO2 rich arctic waters get cold and sink, they take the CO2 very deep. Given its solubility at pressure, there is much more CO2 than any other gas. This is an elevator mechanism, cycling CO2 from the air to the deep ocean and back to the tropics. There is enough here for a endless research but the simplistic idea that man can raise the world’s CO2 unilaterally and permanently is not science. That is just ignorance of the entire business of equilibrium which dominates our planet. People need to travel more to see just how immense is the planet and the total domination of water on climate. In comparison CO2 could well be irrelevant.

              51

            • #
              TdeF

              Peter C. A thought.

              If the CO2 variation was plant growth as you suggest is the usual explanation, when plants grow, CO2 should go down. So in the Northern Hemisphere there should be a minimum at the start of summer and maximum CO2 at the start of winter.

              In fact the graph shows the reverse. Peak CO2 is in May and minimum CO2 in September after the fall. So maximum CO2 at the start of summer and minimum at the start of winter. This matches the temperature, not the growing season.

              Also the shape of the curve is wrong. It should be near constant CO2 through winter and a step function for the spring/summer/fall season. What is shown is no step function and an osciallation about mean CO2 which is steadily rising. This is the cumulative effect of incremental heating, as implied by Murry Selby.

              20

  • #

    Very interesting. Pretty horrified that the caption refers to a paper by Mann not once but twice. That doesn’t do anything to enhance the paper – even if I can’t see anything obviously wrong with it.

    There is a distinct 5 cycles from 1100-1400 which suggests that the 60+ year cycle (or perhaps resonance – so no strict timing) which many have identified has a sound basis.

    After a lot of angst, I finally decided I could not just ignore this cycle and therefore concluded that cooling was more likely than warming in the IMMINENT FUTURE (till 2020/30).

    This would be in addition to any decrease in solar activity.

    80

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic),

      The cooling already started in and around 2005. Given the well known 60 year cycle, that cooling will continue for thirty years from that time onward. Meaning for another fifteen to twenty years. So your conclusion is backed up by the observations.

      Cheers,
      Abe

      82

  • #
    ROM

    As this blog post is primarily centred on the North Atlantic perhaps another very recent piece of research might have a much greater bearing on the regional North Atlantic climate and perhaps the globe than has been previously recognised.

    Doug Hoffman of the usually very good The Resilient Earth blog runs through a recent paper on the variability and formerly unknown characteristics of the North Atlantic’s current flows and the previously unsuspected and considerable variability of every aspect of its ocean currents.

    It turns out that the NA’s ocean currents are both less known than thought or claimed by past oceanographers and climate modellers and are much greater in variability than previously realised and therefore have considerably different and varying influences on the regional climates of the land masses surrounding the North Atlantic including Greenland, influences that were not previously recognised nor included in climate models.

    And I suspect this paper might contribute towards completely negating NCDC’s Tom Karl’s recent and highly suspect “adjustments”[ ??? ] to the North Atlantic SST’s.

    ———————————-
    The Resilient Earth blog article;

    Atlantic Ocean’s Circulation Yields Inevitable Surprises

    [quoted ]
    A review article published in the journal Science, titled “Observing the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation yields a decade of inevitable surprises,” by oceanographers M. A. Srokosz and H. L. Bryden, reviews some surprising new findings from the past decade of observation. The importance of recent findings is revealed in the report’s abstract:

    The importance of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) heat transport for climate is well acknowledged.
    Climate models predict that the AMOC will slow down under global warming, with substantial impacts, but measurements of ocean circulation have been inadequate to evaluate these predictions.
    Observations over the past decade have changed that situation, providing a detailed picture of variations in the AMOC.

    These observations reveal a surprising degree of AMOC variability in terms of the interannual range, the amplitude and phase of the seasonal cycle, the interannual changes in strength affecting the ocean heat content, and the decline of the AMOC over the decade, both of the latter two exceeding the variations seen in climate models.
    *****************
    ( edit; Sigh! still another climate model fail!
    IS there anything of benefit at all to be had from climate models and modellers, those creators of fear, of gross misinformation, of deliberate dereliction of duty to their pay masters, the tax payers, the blatantly open corrupters of governmental policy, the initiators of an ideology that drives the hard left wannabe destroyers of energy supplies and the stalking horse for wannabe dictators of the rabid left and much more.

    Can ANYTHING good at all in this whole climate warming catastrophe debacle be claimed to have originated and emerged from climate models and climate modellers ? )

    ****************
    [ quoted ]
    Scientists discovered that the flow of water in the Atlantic was much more complex than the old conveyor belt model when they started deploying an observing system across the Atlantic at 26.5°N in 2004. Last year that system marked a decade of measurements, the highlights of which are the subject of the M. A. Srokosz and H. L. Bryden report. The 26.5°N AMOC observations have produced a number of surprises on time scales of less than a year to several years. Here are the four major observation made by the author’s (note that the standard unit for measuring ocean circulation is the Sverdrup (Sv), a million cubic meters per second):

    1 / The range of AMOC variability found in the first year, 4 to 35 Sv, was larger than the 15 to 23 Sv found previously from five ship-based observations over 50 years. A similarly large range to that at 26.5°N has subsequently been observed at 34.5°S.

    2 / The amplitude of the seasonal cycle, with a minimum in the spring and a maximum in the autumn, was much larger (~6.7 Sv) than anticipated, and the driving mechanism of wind stress in the eastern Atlantic was unexpected as well. The conventional wisdom was that seasonality in the AMOC would be dominated by wind-driven northward Ekman transport, but this was found to be small.

    3 / The 30% decline in the AMOC during 2009–2010 was totally unexpected and exceeded the range of interannual variability found in climate models used for the IPCC assessments. This event was also captured by Argo and altimetry observations of the upper limb of the AMOC at 41°N. This dip was accompanied by significant changes in the heat content of the ocean, with potential impacts on weather that are the subject of active research.

    4 / Finally, over the period of the 26.5°N observations, the AMOC has been declining at a rate of about 0.5 Sv per year, 10 times as fast as predicted by climate models.

    AMOC flow reduction during 2009–2010 had a considerable impact on the heat transport into the North Atlantic. The heat transported north by the AMOC at 26.5°N in previous years was ~1.3 PW, but this transport was reduced by 0.4 PW. This resulted in cooler waters in the north Atlantic and warmer waters to the south. Observations showed that there was an abrupt and sustained cooling of the subtropical North Atlantic in the upper 2000 m between 2010 and 2012. Because the AMOC carries ~90% of the ocean heat transport at this latitude, the cooling seems primarily due to the reduction of the AMOC. This cooling has affected weather in the eastern US and the formation and paths of Atlantic hurricanes.

    [ more ]
    ————-

    A wise old Owl lived in an Oak.
    The more he heard, the less he spoke.
    The less he spoke, the more he heard.
    Alarmists scientists should be like that old Bird.

    90

    • #
      Andrew

      Better to remain silent and thought a fool, than speak & have it confirmed.

      Another recommendation for the alarmists

      Vukcevic has done work on the NAO AMO relationship, however it breaks down occasionally.
      http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-NAO-relationship.pdf

      The NAO is seen to lead the AMO by a few years

      The solar NAO link is less obvious
      AMO appears to be influence by solar activity notably SCD Solar cycle deceleration. (Paul Vaughan)

      50

    • #
      Peter C

      I presume Meridional circulation means North/South flow.

      It is an interesting question why Greenland is almost fully covered with an ice cap, whereas other land at similar latitudes in Canada and Russia is not. I presume that ocean currents must somehow isolate Greenland.

      10

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova discusses Greenland being much warmer in the past than it is now [...]

    00

  • #

    I was concerned that the figure with the sea ice extent had no error bars. I checked – the original (Kinnard et al. 2011) had error bars.

    So these authors choose to omit them. Trying to evaluate whether there is any correlation with sea ice back 1450 years without an estimate of error?

    And even Kinnard’s estimates are likely far too high to really compare with 1979-2015 estimates.

    It reminded me of the issue of sea ice extent in 1964. With limited information, the Hadley Centre’s estimate for the minimum extent had been 8.28 mkm2.

    Then NSIDC found old satellite footage and made a new estimate that was comparable to 1979 methods.

    The new estimate? 6.9 mkm2 – 1.38 mkm2 LESS than the Hadley estimate based on incomplete data and not far off the average extent for 1979-2000, which is 6.04 ± 0.55 mkm2.

    I’d warrant that estimates back 1450 years are often higher by an even greater amount.

    It says something to me about the authors of this N. Greenland paper that they would leave sea ice error bars out.

    Details on the 1964 sea ice estimate issue here if you’re interested:
    http://polarbearscience.com/2013/06/16/nsidc-says-the-sea-ice-minimum-in-1964-was-not-different-from-1979-1981-or-2001/

    180

    • #
      tom0mason

      Excellent observation Susan, it does indeed say much about the science when error bars are omitted.
      Also I wonder how much more information from Nimbus I is yet to be ‘found’.

      50

    • #
      Richard the Great

      The concepts of traceability and uncertainty are fundamental to the science of metrology. One cannot have one without the other.

      10

  • #
    Ruairi

    What Eric the Viking had seen,
    To the west,then settled,was green,
    But as centuries past,
    This group couldn’t last,
    Due to ice-fields where green fields had been.

    150

    • #
      Ruairi

      Erratum: ‘past’ should read ‘passed’

      10

      • #
        Andrew McRae

         
        Ruairi must painstakingly decide
        how his syllables artfully divide.
        So a mere spelling mistake
        must make him irate
        and take himself sternly aside.

        31

  • #
    Kim

    The maths on solar activity are very simple. A 1′K increase in temperature corresponds to a 0.33% increase in output from the sun. Easily within the realm of possibility.

    11

  • #
    Dennis

    Eric The Viking was keen
    To move well away from the scene
    But Helga his wife made a fuss
    And told Eric to please toughen up

    20

  • #

    [...] Northern Greenland warmer 1000 years ago, warmer in the 1920s too Thanks to the Hockeyschtick for pointing us at a new study of Greenland ice cores. For the first time, 12 ice cores drilled in the northern section of Greenland have been “stacked” and published. Curiously, these 12 ice cores were drilled from 1993 to 1995, so this is not new data– but it’s the first time that all 12 oxygen isotope records, which are a proxy for temperature, have been published together. The area represents about 10% of Greenland, and seems to behave differently to the southern part. The warm event in 1420 is described as a local effect. The researchers acknowledge that solar activity is important and solar activity correlates with temperatures. It must be growing more and more obvious to climate researchers that their models have to include the long term solar cycles. [...]

    00

  • #
    pat

    forget “unprecedented” climate, it’s now “unprecedented” alliances, who will hold back the temperature & cut our “greenhouse pollution to ***zero or below”. geniuses:

    29 June: SMH: Mark Kenny/Lisa Cox: Unprecedented alliance of peak bodies pressures PM over climate change
    The group wants to set the path for policies that reduce financial risk, encourage investment in low and zero-carbon technologies, and help avoid an increase in global temperature of greater than 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels…
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/unprecedented-alliance-of-peak-bodies-pressures-pm-over-climate-change-20150628-ghzqfi.html

    29 June: ABC: Peter Ryan: Australian Climate Roundtable: Business, union, environmental, investor and welfare groups form unusual coalition on climate policy
    An unprecedented alliance of business, union, environmental, investor and welfare groups has been formed to forge what it sees as urgent common ground on climate policy.
    The highly unusual coalition — to be branded the Australian Climate Roundtable — comes as developed nations gear up for the Paris Climate Conference in December…
    The high-profile members cover some influential employer and industry lobby groups, such as the Australian Industry (Ai) Group, the Business Council of Australia (BCA), the Australian Aluminium Council, the Energy Supply Association and the Investor Group on Climate Change.
    They will be joined by groups at the opposite end of the political and economic spectrum — the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), WWF Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and the Climate Institute…
    In a warning to the Federal Government, the group said “delayed, unpredictable and piecemeal action will increase the costs and challenges of achieving the goals and maximising the opportunities”.
    “We also know that policies won’t work if they don’t last and stay on ***investors’ radars,” the statement said…
    The united agreement from often distant parties on climate policy goals is significant, according to BCA chief executive Jennifer Westacott…
    ACF chief executive Kelly O’Shanassy described it as “an unlikely alliance, but we’ve come together because the challenge of tackling global warming is bigger than any of our differences”.
    “Among the things we have in common is a shared goal for Australia to cut its net greenhouse pollution to ***zero or below,” she said.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-29/australian-climate-roundtable-business-unions-policy-alliance/6579106

    20

    • #
      manalive

      Unprecedented alliance of peak bodies pressures PM over climate change …

      What they’re after is a form of neo-corporatism ‘neo-corporatism favoured economic tripartism which involved strong labour unions, employers’ unions, and governments that cooperated as “social partners” to negotiate and manage a national economy’ (Wiki).
      Let’s hope for the sake of small business, consumers and individuals Abbott tells them to go jump.

      20

  • #
    Earl

    Whew!
    There are a lot of big numbers, theories, and formulae whizzing around in this post, far more than this old horticulture teacher can cope with.
    However, I do understand that there is not a single experiment that has been or can be undertaken that supports the AGW theory.
    It is just that, a theory.
    However, all over the world, every day an experiment occurs that completely disproves the AGW theory, it is simply the enrichment of CO2 in controlled growing environments, to improve the productivity of plants. ( Notice I said controlled growing environment, and not GREEN HOUSE. )
    Levels of CO2 are taken from the ambient levels to 1300 to 1400 PPM, and according to AGW, that is a doubling of the doubling, and should result in temperature increases of between 4 and 6 degrees C.
    Guess what happens.
    Not a lot, if a particularly sensitive thermometer is used, the increase in CO2 can accompanied by an increase in temperate of about 0.2 degrees c.
    THe average mercury thermometer will not show it, and the people working in that environment will not notice it.
    This is the main reason I have never believed the bed wetters.
    I have no doubt that there will be a number of “Yeah But….” that will be generated by this, however, if the AGW does not work in an limited environment such a growing house, how will it work in the chaos of the world environment.

    141

    • #
      tom0mason

      Earl,
      Sounds like you have performed or are restating a validation of Professor Wood’s famous experiment that completely demolishes the greenhouse theory (show that an increased CO2 atmosphere does not ‘hold the heat’.)
      The earth’s atmosphere is no greenhouse, it is a far, far more complex system than the warmists’ brains can comprehend or acknowledge.
      It would be interesting to repeat the experiment with CO2 levels at 280ppm (or below) just to record the effect it has on plant growth.

      80

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … if the AGW does not work in a limited environment such a growing house …

      But the vapourous luvvies will insist that growing houses get hotter, because of the CO2 that is present.

      When you show them the thermometer, they will say that, despite what it says, you can feel it getting hotter, to the point where it is uncomfortable.

      When you then explain that, “feeling hotter” is a physiological response, in the body, to hightened CO2 in the air they are breathing, they will get very agitated and claim that they are being poisoned.

      When you then explain that submariners live with high levels of CO2 all of the time, and on purpose, they flatly refuse to believe you, because to them, CO2 is a poison, and fact is beyond dispute.

      51

      • #
        ROM

        “Carbon” Rereke! Carbon!

        [ :-) ]

        “CO2″ aka “Carbon dioxide” is a far too complicated term for the whole gamut of alarmist warmistas and the entire media collective to master for use in everyday language.
        As “Carbon” is a nice simple six letter word that the alarmists have finally managed to master, “Carbon” it is.

        That same nefarious “Carbon” of the rabid alarmists be they greens, politicians, the usual intellectual retardees of the media plus the” collective of the climate armageddon science”, to each and all, “Carbon” is that deadly killer that must be eliminated from the planet.
        ———————————
        And this is “Carbon”;

        Atomic Number (number of protons in the nucleus): 6
        Atomic Symbol (on the Periodic Table of Elements): C
        Atomic Weight (average mass of the atom): 12.0107
        Density: 2.2670 grams per cubic centimeter
        Phase at Room Temperature: Solid
        Melting Point: 6,422 degrees Fahrenheit (3,550 degrees C)
        Boiling Point: 6,872 F (3,800 C) (sublimation)
        Number of isotopes: 15 total; two stable isotopes, which are atoms of the same element with a different number of neutrons.
        Most common isotopes: carbon-12 (6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons) and carbon-13 (6 protons, 7 neutrons and 6 electrons)

        Carbon: From stars to life

        As the sixth-most abundant element in the universe, carbon forms in the belly of stars in a reaction called the triple-alpha process, according to the Swinburne Center for Astrophysics and Supercomputing.

        In older stars that have burned most of their hydrogen, leftover helium accumulates. Each helium nucleus has two protons and two neutrons. Under very hot temperatures — greater than 100,000,000 Kelvin (179,999,540.6 F) — the helium nuclei begin to fuse, first as pairs into unstable 4-proton beryllium nuclei, and eventually, as enough beryllium nuclei blink into existence, into a beryllium plus a helium. The end result: Atoms with six protons and six neutrons — carbon.
        &
        Nearly 10 million carbon compounds have been discovered, and scientists estimate that carbon is the keystone for 95 percent of known compounds, according to the website Chemistry Explained. Carbon’s incredible ability to bond with many other elements is a major reason that it is crucial to almost all life.
        &
        Carbon makes up 0.032 percent of the Earth’s lithosphere (crust and outer mantle) by weight, according to the Encyclopedia of Earth. A rough estimate of the weight of the lithosphere by La Salle University geologist David Smith is 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (or 3*10^23) pounds, making the approximate weight of carbon in the lithosphere 10,560,000,000,000,000,000,000 (or 1.056*10^22) pounds.

        ————————

        41

        • #
          Peter C

          “CO2″ aka “Carbon dioxide” is a far too complicated term for the whole gamut of alarmist warmistas and the entire media collective to master for use in everyday language.
          As “Carbon” is a nice simple six letter word that the alarmists have finally managed to master, “Carbon” it is.

          Indeed “Carbon it is”. Just last week I discussed the problem of “Global Warming” with a State Vice President of the Autralian Medical Association. It was his view that CO2 emissions and carbon soot were ” all part of the same thing”.

          Despite his scientific training he does not distinguish between CO2 and carbon soot!

          He is an activist and seeks to use the AMA to lend weight to his campaign.

          21

        • #
  • #
    Don Gaddes

    “……Magnetic Fields a Link?

    Is climate/weather change: linked to the Sun by the Earth/Sun magnetic fields?

    Cyclic variation in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field is well documented. It takes about 1600 years to make a complete circuit of the Earth.

    This movement of Earth’s remargent magnetic field is retrograde to the Earth’s rotation. Simply put, it is constantly drifting in a westerly direction.

    For the 100 years or so since the relevant records began, to about 1950, Earth’s magnetic field had weakened by about five percent (see A. Holmes, also Elsasser,) but from then until now it has slowly gained in strength.

    It is generally agreed to by scientists, that the results of exhaustive studies show a clear correlation, between a strengthening magnetic field and a cooling climate, and a warming climate with a weakening magnetic field.

    Began to Cool Down

    Certainly recent records bear witness to the claim. The climate warmed up, from the beginning of the century to the 1940’s, and then began to cool down on average.

    It is significant too, that since the 1940’s the world’s volcanoes have become increasingly more active, especially the explosive type (see Ref. Nos. 8 and 8a.)

    Let us now take a closer look at the relationship of Earth’s Magnetic Field to our changing climate/weather records.

    In the previous chapter I discussed possible Earth-bound causes of global climate/weather change, namely, cooling via volcanic eruptions, in conjunction with wind-blown dust, man-generated dust, albedo etc; and warming, caused by the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ of excess CO2 in the Atmosphere.

    However, there is a growing consensus of opinion for the idea of a “flickering” Sun, to explain some of the troughs and crests which are a prominent feature of the curve of the Earth’s climatic record; as witness, the many papers on the subject – no less than about a thousand have been published in the past century!

    In Depth Studies

    Many notable scientists have carried out in-depth studies into the possibility of a solar link with Earth’s changing climate/weather over time. In their search for ways and means, they’ve come up with some very elegant methods, such as chemical analysis and radiometric dating.

    Prior to the above advances the methods applied were restricted to the study of the solar activity index, constructed from historical observations of auroras and naked-eye sunspots.

    Students of Dendochronology (the science of the study of tree-rings) were well aware that the trees held a record of the past seasons (manifested by ring-width,) but it was not until the discovery of the 14C isotope in the wood of the tree’s rings, that real progress began.

    Not Constant

    From the initial discovery of 14C (radio-carbon) in the ring-wood, it was the logical next step to make the further discovery, that the 14C component of the tree-rings under study, did not remain constant throughout a cross-section of the tree.

    It is common knowledge that the basic element in the make-up of all life, as we know it, is carbon and this includes trees. There are five known carbon isotopes; the isotopes 10C and 11C are artificially radio-active, as also is 14C, but unlike 14C the isotopes of 10C and 11C have short half-lives.

    The two remaining isotopes of Carbon, 12C and 13C are both stable, with 12C being the much more abundant of the two. It was first discovered in 1939 by Weir and Gulbransen, that there are changes in the 12C/13C ratios of terrestrial materials.

    They found that 13C is concentrated in limestones, but plants display a distinct preference for the light isotope, 12C.

    It has been discovered that 14C is constantly being formed in Nature. This process is believed to come about as a result of the bombardment of the Earth’s atmospheric carbon, by galactic cosmic rays that are able to penetrate the solar system to the Earth.

    Deflects Cosmic Rays into Space

    However, high solar activity reduces the galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth, by virtue of the fact that high solar activity means a strong solar magnetic field, which is known to act as a shield against the cosmic rays and so deflects them away from Earth, into outer space.

    Thus, during periods of high solar activity, reducing the amount of 14C in Earth’s atmosphere (there is a 1,000-2000 year and 2,000-2,700 year oscillation noted in the 14C flux in Earth’s atmosphere (see Ref. No. 6.)

    From the above information it is but a short step to make the correlation between the ratio of the 12C/14C in the ring-wood of the trees under study, with the climate/weather records.

    So it follows, that the concentration of the 14C in the ring-wood is inverse to the strength of the solar activity index. In simple language, a high 14C reading denotes low solar activity and vice versa; studies have shown the above conclusion to be unambiguous.

    Records Derived from Ice Cores

    A similar principle to that above has been utilized in the studies of ice cores taken from the Greenland Ice Cap, excepting that the critical element used as a marker was oxygen and that, unlike 14C, Oxygen 180/160 are already stable components of the atmosphere, along with a third isotope (170) and are not subject to the same cosmic ray bombardment as carbon. Isotope 170 is so low in abundance as to be disregarded for the purpose of this exercise.

    During the precipitation process the heavy isotope H2 180 condenses preferentially (because its vapor pressure is slightly lower than that of H2 160,) which causes decreasing 180 in the vapor and subsequent precipitation at high latitudes as the cooling proceeds.

    Consequently, at a given location, snow and ice deposited in summers, or in warm climatic periods, have a higher180 component than that which is deposited in winters, or cold climatic periods. Thus, higher 180 readings signify warmer times and lower 180 counts indicate the cooler periods.

    Sea-floor Sediments

    Scientists are able to make an estimate of the paleotemperature of sea-water, by chemical analysis of the isotopic composition of fossil shells, such as those of foraminifera and other marine animals, which build their shells from calcium carbonate (CaCO3) which they extract from the sea-water.

    As stated above, the lighter isotope of oxygen (160) is more concentrated in polar ice and snow (see Ref. No. 14,) than in sea-water, because of the different rates of evaporation and precipitation. So variations in the ratio of 180/160 in fossil shells are deemed to represent a record of sea-water temperatures of past ages.

    The Results Correlate Well

    The results of studies, carried out over a wide area, on drill-cores taken from sea-floor sediments, correlate remarkably well with those of tree-rings, ice-cores, radiometric dating of the glacial record, archeological and historical records and finally, my gravitational-astronomical and geometrical ratio principle-derived climate/weather cycles.

    We have already seen the value of isotopic analysis in tracing the variations n Earth’s climate/weather patterns over time. The method also affords us an equally accurate histograph of the solar magnetic field, and by so doing, gives us a record of the Sun’s activity over an equally long period of time.

    This seems to establish beyond reasonable doubt, that variation in the Sun’s out-put is a fact of life, and evidence that those variations, in the past, have brought direct influence to bear on the behavior of our climate/weather is conclusive.

    In accepting the evidence of the isotopic record, I automatically accept, that sooner or later the recorded pattern will repeat itself with cyclic precision (allowing, of course, for some ‘modification’ by man’s activities.)

    The question that concerns me (and all mankind) is, what part of the timetable of the above inferred train of cycles best fits the present?

    I wholeheartedly agree with Professor R. Bryson, that if we are indeed facing an imminent climate/weather change (and the weight of evidence seems to indicate very strongly that such is highly likely,) then we ought to be earnestly and diligently marshalling our options now……” Extract from ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (Alex S. Gaddes, 1990.)pp 55-60.

    34

  • #
  • #
    A C

    I’m perplexed by this top graph.
    IF there isnt a 60 year periodicity in that graph I’ll eat my hat (dont fret – I have a supply of edible hats and a range of recipes). I thought the AMO was 60 years? There are five clear peaks between 900 and 1200, five between 1200 and 1500, and another five between 1500 and 1800
    And then there is a 500-odd year cycle with 200 – 250 years of dominantly pink followed by 200 – 250 years of dominantly blue sitting underneath the 60 year oscillation.

    Its interesting that the lowest sea ice extent coresponds with the Little Ice Age even lower than the Medieval warm period and that 1900 is a peak warm period but very high ice extent.
    Wonder what thats all about?

    61

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    O/T but I heard in ABC radio just before 7pm news

    A grand new consortium preening for Paris IMO

    20

  • #
    Ian Wilson

    The 60 year quasi-periodicity in the top graph is matched by the 60 year periodicity seen in the Earth’s trade winds stretching back the 1400:

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2010/03/60-year-periodicity-in-earths-trade.html

    40

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Ahem,
    One of many similar explanation, this from year 2011:-
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/01/rebuttal-to-the-skeptical-science-crux-of-a-core/

    1. Geoff Sherrington says:
    March 1, 2011 at 12:51 pm
    Sorry to differ, Dr Hall, but the correlation in the rescaled graphs of the 3 ice cores you show is quite poor. There is no way I’d invest money in a scheme that relied on these, as in a prospectus.
    For a start, you would need to put error bars on them. Then you’d need to show audit evidence, say 1 in 10 samples replicated. Then you’d need to explain the various known influences on the data, including the proposition that the Greenland pattern is partly dependent on the direction of prevailing winds at the time. Then you’d need to explain how a qualitative mechanism like fractionation of isotopes on evaporation and condensation, at distances from the core holes that are uncertain, with uncertain mixing processes, becomes a quantitative relationship with temperature. (It becomes quantitative only when the researcher uses circular logic).
    Just as dendrothermometry has shown failure, I expect that oxygen isotopes in ice cores will also fail. There is altogether too much wishful thinking. I too, wish that we could find a truly reliable proxy that would end the volumes of speculation that now exist. We are not there yet.
    Geoff.

    30

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Geoff,

      Your cynicism of 18O from ice cores has jolted my memory of some similar snark I read a few weeks ago about how the cosmic-climate connection could be completely unfounded if the covariance between 10Be (or 14C) and 18O is not due to changes in 10Be creation.
      You seem to be saying that δ18O can vary due to different prevailing wind directions either passing over water or land and so either picking up O18 or not, regardless of the temperature of the remaining water.
      Translating to the 10Be case, it is possible for the 10Be and the 18O to end up in the same stalagtite because they took the same path in the same drop of water from the clouds to get there, but if the wind takes those atoms on a different path then less of both types get deposited in the speleothem. In that case, the covariance of the isotopes does not have a unique interpretation.

      However in the 18O case it travels with its lighter cousin and it is the ratio between them that indicates the temperature. Local wind direction will determine which area’s water temperature is being sampled by the isotope fractionation, and yes that’s pretty well impossible to determine after a week let alone 14000 years. I would guess the result is still indicative under some assumption of maximum residence time of water. For proxies of global average sea surface temperature it can’t be beat because all the 18O is guaranteed to come from the area being measured.

      Of some concern is that 10Be does not play by the same rules, because it is being produced from scratch all the time in cosmic ray collisions, unlike 18O which is just shuffled around. 10Be could also dwell in the oceans and, like 18O, more of it will be evaporated under warmer conditions. So does that mean that it has actually been climate causing the δ10Be to increase in samples, rather than CRF causing climate to change?

      It’s an intriguing thought, but I would say the CERN-confirmed Svensmark effect and the match-up between spiral arm passages and Earth’s temperature on 100My time scales has got to more than random co-incidence. That’s why more recent papers like Tsonis & Co smell like a political hit piece than a firm finding. I mean really, they studied only the 20th century and not the whole 160 year record that is available… and they don’t seem to have subtracted the 64-year AMO cycle prior to attribution… Why do people want to make the sun go away, Geoff? It’s not going away!

      30

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    “I also hate people who finish my sentences , but ..”

    I really like reading Jo’s blog on climate change, and perhaps for the reason that there is great information and lots of science (90% of the time, see week on articles about chocolate), I always come away with more questions about the workings of the Climate.
    This is in sharp contrast to sites like SkepticalScience where you are assured that the facts are irrefutable and there is complete understanding of the climate change processes. (the science is settled 110%)

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/ljungqvist-broke-the-hockey-stick.htm

    now what is interesting is this ….

    Jo uses a reference to the Ljundvist and Christiansen studies of the Northern Hemisphere to explain the historical significance of temperatures during the medieval period (and thus the credibility of the Hockey stick) ..
    SkepticalScience also references Ljundvist to explain temperatures during the same period (and thus the credibility of the Hockey stick)…

    But, there is a difference in both their approaches, and a there is pattern of deception..

    The quote from SkepticalScience:-

    “Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-
    tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm
    decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the
    Medieval Warm Period”

    The complete quote from Ljundvist et al (2010):-

    “Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-
    tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm
    decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the
    Medieval Warm Period, if we look at the instrumental
    temperature data spliced to the proxy reconstruction.
    However, this sharp rise in temperature compared to the
    magnitude of warmth in previous warm periods should be
    cautiously interpreted since it is not visible in the proxy
    reconstruction itself.”

    SkepticalScience is trying to convince everyone that even the Ljundvist paper supports the Hockey Stick.

    However, quotes like this from SkepticalScience are often either “part” or “out of context”…. and this is just one example (the tip of the iceberg, so to speak)..
    Very typical of the SkepticalScience website ! :(

    In trying to get to the truth (of how the Climate actually functions), it is most annoying and very frustrating to have to deal with this type of sophistry ….

    61

  • #
    BilB

    Here some of the latest news on the solar minimum.

    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/06/daily-briefing-fall-in-solar-activity-will-not-halt-global-warming/

    …and what it means for Greenland.

    00

    • #
      el gordo

      That’s interesting, I was certain the 18 year hiatus came about because of a quiet sun.

      When do you expect temperatures will pick up again?

      00

  • #

    [...] Northern Greenland warmer 1000 years ago, warmer in the 1920s too [link] [...]

    00