[Peter Ridley under another name]

I suspect that long before industrialisation even some of the more intelligent forms of life recognised

strange stuff happening

when the earth cools (e.g. sun obscured) and warms (e.g. sun visible). That sort of “stuff” has been going on since the beginning. The claim that

the temperature globally is on the raise, the CO2 driving it

is pure speculation. There is no point in arguing about the drivers because we don’t know enough about them to do that. The best we can do at present is discuss the possibilities and try to identify what they might be and what is the significance of each.

I think that most of us recognise the sun as the major driver, supplying the bulk of the energy that heats up the world, but not in a consistent manner. To say

you have the suns variations as a possible driver

appears to me to be playing down the significance of those variations because scientists seem to recognise the sun’s variations are not a "possible” but at least as a probable driver. (e.g. see the link in my comment yesterday @ 19:44:18 http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-episodes-jastp-71-194.pdf).

There is an interesting 2008 paper “Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing” by Eichler et al. In which the abstract says

The strong correlation between reconstructed temperature and solar activity suggests solar forcing as a main driver for temperature variations during the period 1250–1850 in this region. The precisely dated record allowed for the identification of a 10–30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response, underlining the importance of indirect sun-climate mechanisms involving ocean-induced changes in atmospheric circulation. Solar contribution to temperature change became less important during industrial period 1850–2000 in the Altai region

(http://europa.agu.org/?uri=/journals/gl/gl0901/2008GL035930/2008GL035930.xml&view=article).

Switzerland’s largest research centre for natural and engineering sciences The Paul Scherrer Institut (primarily financed by the Swiss Confederation) has an article about this which paraphrases (distorts?) that last sentence of the paper’s abstract as

The strong rise in temperature in the Altai between 1850 and 2000 can not be explained by solar activity changes, but rather by the increased concentration of the greenhouse gas CO2 in the atmosphere

(http://www.psi.ch/media/temperature). It includes an interesting graph that suggests a good correlation between solar modulation (blue) and Altai temperature deviation when corrected for the lag.
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
There would appear to be no sound reason for doubting that the solar variation drives the temperature variation rather than the other way round but the real question that remains to be answered is concerning the last 160 years of temperature variation.

The Stanford Solar Center (funded by NASA) has an article “Global Warming” (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html) which in the section Solar Variability & Global Warming” includes a graph for the period 1855-2000
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
This shows the usual global mean temperature anomaly (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/) estimated from those dubious measurements that Anthony Watts et al. write about in their peer-reviewed paper “Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/the-long-awaited-surfacestations-paper/). Also shown is the usual estimate of global atmospheric CO2 change arrived at by merging the measurements of atmospheric CO2 content on top of an active volcano (Mauna Loa) with those dubious attempts to reconstruct past concentration from air trapped in ice (discussed by Dr. Zbiniew Jaworowski in his numerous papers, including “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time” http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf).

The graph suggests a correlation of estimated global mean temperature with both solar activity and estimated atmospheric CO2 content. Of course a correlation does not indicate a cause/effect relationship and much more research is required before we will know what causes global temperatures to change and even more research is required before we know what causes the different global climates to change in the way that they do.

To claim that “What we do see is that the temperature globally is on the raise, the CO2 driving it .. CO2 is one, the main one I know of ..” stretches the imagination somewhat. As CliffordK said QUOTE: Such a knee-jerk reaction to blame everything on "Global Warming" and "CO2" is a disservice to climatology science, and the argument in general UNQUOTE (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39689.msg358005#msg358005).


BTW, the very interesting paper “Solar Influences on Climate” by Gray et al. (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf) covers the subject in great detail.

PS:

Please can someone tell me how to remove the miniature diagrams that appear at the bottom of my post.

[yor_on]

So you won't answer any of the studies with anything else than your own opinions then Yelder. And then you lift up some magic graphs that you want to use to prove what? That it's all due to the sun? And CO2 becoming some imaginary driver, according to you? And so we're back to a debate where all opinions seems as possible right. Well, you can fill this with graphs and the sun is a driver too, nobody doubts that. But whether it has driven us to the climate we see today?

Nope.

As the studies could show you, if you would read them, no more graphs please, answer the studies I gave you instead. And stop trying to play out solar scientists against other disciplines. It makes me wonder what you are Yelder?

[Peter Ridley under another name]

It’s such a shame that so many disciples of the CACC doctrine have to resort to distorting what others say because they can’t present a reason for rejecting what sceptics like me really say. As an example

you want to use to prove .. That it's all due to the sun? And CO2 becoming some imaginary driver, according to you?

is a complete misrepresentation of what I have said anywhere.

I challenged the unsubstantiated claim that

the temperature globally is on the raise, the CO2 driving it

with

scientists seem to recognise the sun’s variations are not a "possible” but at least as a probable driver

and provided evidence of this.

On 16th June @ 21:51:06 I pointed to two recent articles in NASA Science News (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/) about the sun and its impact upon earth. One of those concludes

To understand what causes low interplanetary magnetic fields and what causes coronal holes in general. This is all part of the solar cycle. And all part of what causes effects on Earth

(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solar-minima.html). The other says

But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation .. All three of these lines of research to point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while. “If we are right,” Hill concluded, “this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”

(http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/4032/drop-in-suns-activity-expected).

Yesterday @ 19:47:18 I said

I think that most of us recognise the sun as the major driver .. scientists seem to recognise the sun’s variations are not a "possible” but at least as a probable driver

and linked to further evidence.

Nothing there claims to

prove ..  That it is all due to the sun

simply that the sun is the major driver.

On 17th June @ 14:18:03 then again at 19:44:18 I said

Many sceptics recognise that atmospheric CO2 has a small forcing effect on global temperatures (less than 2C for a doubling if all other drivers were to remain constant). There are plenty scientists looking elsewhere for other drivers having much greater significance that CO2

Nothing there attempts to

prove .. CO2 becoming some imaginary driver

On the contrary, it recognises CO2 as being a real driver, albeit far less significant than others, such as H2O.

[yor_on]

Awh.

Now I see

Want to link me the stud(y)ies stating your thoughts, so I can read it?
Just link me to it, but try to avoid 'pay sites' please.
Pointing at solar variables is all good and proper, but I prefer something more substantial, like a study proving it.

[Peter Ridley under another name]

It was reassuring to see an acknowledgement here that

the sun is a driver too, nobody doubts that

however

But whether it has driven us to the climate we see today? Nope

requires scientific evidence to support it, otherwise it is pure speculation. I am puzzled about what is meant by

Want to link me the stud(y)ies stating your thoughts, so I can read it?

because once again it is not clear what is being asked for. I’ll make an assumption that the request for links to studies stating my thoughts is referring to my thoughts about solar impacts on the different global climates (http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/koppen.htm).

I expect that the comment

stop trying to play out solar scientists against other disciplines. It makes me wonder what you are Yelder?

will appear as nonsense to sceptics and others who recognise the significant uncertainties within most of the numerous disciplines involved in trying to improve our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of the global climates.  As I pointed out on 13th June @ 09:30:46 biologist Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide University acknowledged back in April 2009,

There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers. ..

(http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/).

Saying

Pointing at solar variables is all good and proper, but I prefer something more substantial, like a study proving it

and asking

Just link me to it, but try to avoid 'pay sites' please

is puzzling because I recall providing ten links to relevant pages only yesterday. It appears that no attempt has been made to read and understand them. I repeat

BTW, the very interesting paper “Solar Influences on Climate” by Gray et al. (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf) covers the subject in great detail

Here’s a sample from that free 53-page October 2010 study published by the

.. Stanford Solar Center .. provides teachers, students, and the interested public with the latest information about the Sun. .. Stanford scientists study the Sun via two space-based instruments, the Solar Dynamics Observatory and the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, as well as a ground-based telescope called the Wilcox Solar Observatory on the Stanford University campus ..

(http://solar-center.stanford.edu/).

Understanding the influence of solar variability on the Earth’s climate requires knowledge of solar variability, solar-terrestrial interactions, and the mechanisms determining the response of the Earth’s climate system. We provide a summary of our current understanding in each of these three areas. Observations and mechanisms for the Sun’s variability are described, including solar irradiance variations on both decadal and centennial time scales and their relation to galactic cosmic rays. Corresponding observations of variations of the Earth’s climate on associated time scales are described, including variations in ozone, temperatures, winds, clouds, precipitation, and regional modes of variability such as the monsoons and the North Atlantic Oscillation. A discussion of the available solar and climate proxies is provided. Mechanisms proposed to explain these climate observations are described, including the effects of variations in solar irradiance and of charged particles. Finally, the contributions of solar variations to recent observations of global climate change are discussed.

.. A full understanding of the influence of solar variability on the Earth’s climate requires knowledge of .. the short- and long-term solar variability, .. solar-terrestrial interactions, and .. the mechanisms determining the response of the Earth’s climate system to these interactions .. There have been substantial increases in our knowledge of each of these areas in recent years and renewed interest because of the importance of understanding and characterizing natural variability and its contribution to the observed climate change .. Correct attribution of past changes is key to the prediction of future change.

.. Of greater importance to climate change issues are longer-term drifts in this radiative forcing. .. However, observations indicate, at least regionally, larger solar‐induced climate variations than would be expected from this simple calculation, suggesting that more complicated mechanisms are required to explain them. .. A great number of papers have reported correlations between solar variability and climate parameters. One relatively early association .. examined historical evidence of weather conditions in Europe back to the Middle Ages, including the severity of winters in London and Paris, and suggested that during times of few or no sunspots, e.g., during the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715), the Sun’s radiative output was reduced, leading to a colder climate. Although many of the early reported relationships between solar variability and climate have been questioned on statistical grounds, some correlations have been found to be more robust, and the addition of more years of data has confirmed their ignificance. ..

Mechanisms proposed to explain the climate response to very small solar variations can be grouped broadly into two categories. The first involves a response to variations in solar irradiance. .. The second mechanism category involves energetic particles, including solar energetic particle (SEP) events and GCRs. .. At stratospheric heights .. This region of the atmosphere has the potential to affect the troposphere immediately below it and hence the surface climate. Estimated stratospheric temperature changes associated with the 11 year SC show a signal of 2 K over the equatorial stratopause (50 km) with a secondary maximum in the lower stratosphere (20–25 km ... The direct effect of irradiance variations is amplified by an important feedback mechanism involving ozone production, which is an additional source of heating .. The origins of the lower stratospheric maximum and the observed signal that penetrates deep into the troposphere at midlatitudes are less well understood and require feedback/transfer mechanisms both within the stratosphere and between the stratosphere and underlying troposphere .. While the testing of solar influence on climate via changes in solar irradiance is relatively well advanced, the GCR cloud mechanisms have only just begun to be quantified. ..

In the context of assessing the contribution of solar forcing to climate change, an important question is whether there has been a long-term drift in solar irradiance that might have contributed to the observed surface warming in the latter half of the last century. Reconstructions of past TSI variations have been employed in model studies and allow us to examine how the climate might respond to such imposed forcings. The direct effects of 11 year SC irradiance variations are relatively small at the surface and are damped by the long response time of the ocean-atmosphere system. However, model estimates of the response to centennial time scale irradiance variations are larger since the accumulated effect of small signals over long time periods would not be damped to the same extent as decadal-scale responses. .. There are also large uncertainties in estimates of long‐term irradiance changes ..

the low level of scientific understanding of the solar influence is noted [IPCC, 2007]. The uncertainty is probably also underestimated because of the poorly resolved stratosphere in most of these models. Nevertheless, IPCC [2007] concludes that changes in the Sun have played a role in the observed warming of the Earth since 1750, but these changes are very small compared to the role played by increasing long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. .. The purpose of this review is to present up-to-date information on our knowledge of solar variability and its impact on climate and climate change, as an update to previous reviews ..

Further observations and research are required to improve our understanding of solar forcing mechanisms and their impacts on the Earth’s climate.

I hope that these snippets are enough to encourage those who, rather than try to improve their understanding of this very complex subject, simply repeat CACC dogma, submit their own beliefs and opinions to study the available material in an open-minded way. Careful study of this document by Gray et al. should help to improve the reader’s appreciation of the complexity of the processes and drivers of the different global climates, but it relates to only one of many different scientific disciplines, each of which has a lot more research to do before we can do little more than speculate about how Nature controls weather and climate.

BTW, I ask again, please can someone tell me how I can remove those mini-images that appeared at the bottom of my comment on 18th June @ 19:47:18.

[yor_on]

You can't

Anyway, feel free to link me to your real source(s).
That way we can see what you're building your conjecture on. There must be some you use?

[Peter Ridley under another name]

Maybe it is time to take a close look at the level of scientific expertise in that highly complicated scientific subject of the processes and drivers of the different global climates has been demonstrated by authors of the articles linked to by a resident disciple of the CACC doctrine.

04/06/2011 02:07:01: “Ocean Reflux” (http://horseflyriver.ca/salmonfestival/teacher-info/info3/Ocean%20Reflux.doc) is by Kathleen McAuliffe,

Education: .. Trinity College Dublin, in Ireland, obtaining a M.A. in natural science after graduating with first-class honors. Her final year thesis on electro-encephalography (EEG) recordings of the human brain was presented at the Eastern Psychology Association Conference in 1977

(http://www.kmcauliffe.com/bio/) – hhmm!!

07/06/2011 15:24:30: The link to the graph “annual frequency of north Atlantic tropical storms” came from CACC disciple John Cook’s Skeptical Science blog in an article by Graham P Wayne (http://gpwayne.wordpress.com/about/). As far as I can ascertain neither “computer geek” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change-denial-skeptical-science) John nor novelist (http://gpwayne.wordpress.com/about/) Graham are unbiased sources of information. The graph was copied from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change who’s founder and President is Eileen Claussen

Education: B.A. from George Washington University in English Literature (although she started out in Political Science). Her M.A. came from the University of Virginia

(http://papedia.wikispaces.com/Eileen+Claussen) - another hhmm!
As far as I can ascertain the Pew Centre is concerned with impacts of climate change, not causes.

Perhaps links to more reliable and less biased sources of information on the precesses and drivers of the different global climates would be more convincing. There is a saying “Birds of a feather stick together” which seems to fit the bill here.

I’ve only touched on the first two links so far but will look at the others. I don’t expect any significant difference as I see that the next one is to Michael Mann’s “Hockey team” back-room lot Realclimate.

[BenV]

Yelder, please refrain from your attack on specific scientists and instead justify your arguments with science.

[Peter Ridley under another name]

Hi BenV, I’m afraid that you have lost me with your claim that I am attacking specific scientists, unless you are referring to the people at Realclimate. Which specific scientists are you talking about?

[BenV]

Maybe it is time to take a close look at the level of scientific expertise... ...demonstrated by authors of the articles linked to by a resident disciple of the CACC doctrine.

As far as I can ascertain neither “computer geek” John nor novelist (http://gpwayne.wordpress.com/about/) Graham are unbiased sources of information.

Education: B.A. from George Washington University in English Literature (although she started out in Political Science). Her M.A. came from the University of Virginia

- another hhmm!

Now kindly cease attacking individuals - if you wish to debate science, do so with more science.

[Peter Ridley under another name]

BenV, ta for the clarification. I now understand that you’re not talking about scientists, just anyone. But I hope that objection that you have to personal attacks is not selective but applies to anyone who is doing it against anyone else.

[yor_on]

Yelder, way to go But you still haven't presented any studies? And there are quite a few out there. I'm sure you have some to choose between. Present it to us, with a explanation to how you see it, and its importance for your arguments.

As Billy Swan once said.
"It will help"