Extreme weather incidents - i.e. disastrous flooding from extreme precipitation - has always existed ... and well before the introduction of human industrial/consumer CO2 emissions ... the name Noah rings a bell, yes?
Much research has been done on determining the connection between solar activity and weather/climate conditions.
Studies investigating the relationship between the sun and flooding continue to be pursued. The newest research examined solar forcing and the floods of central Europe using river discharge data and varved sediments.
The three researchers discovered that flood frequency in both records is significantly correlated to changes in two types of solar activity," namely, (1) "the solar Schwabe cycle" and (2) "multi-centennial oscillations." And they thus further conclude that (3) "the unexpected direct response of variations in River Ammer flood frequency to changes in solar activity might suggest that the solar top-down mechanism is of particular relevance for hydroclimate extremes.
This study determined that flooding frequency over 5,500 years was tied to solar activity across inter-annual and multi-centennial timescales.
Clearly, CO2 emissions and other human influences are not a prerequisite for extreme precipitation and the resulting flood disasters.
A recent lame paper by researchers desperately trying to tie Syrian violence with global warming and climate change was completely eviscerated by a wide range of experts...in summation, it was an exceedingly stupid paper...plus, history of climate antiquity provides plenty of evidence that cooler temperatures provoke more war, rebellions and organized violence than warmer periods.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
This chart depicts historical precipitation and temperature reconstruction from northern China.
Overlaid on the chart by 'C3' are significant Chinese events from the past, along with identification of major solar states (minimums and maximums).
The scientists who compiled the precipitation/temperature records and produced the reconstructions had summarized that solar influence was climatically significant for China due to the affect on annual monsoons.
Using Wikipedia, major war/violence/political events were identified and then added to the chart (color bars).
To the more than casual viewer, it would certainly appear that a cooler climate regime has a higher association with extreme organized violence than a warmer period.
The chart's green curve indicates that those periods with less precipitation (i.e. droughts) are more common when cooler temps prevail - more arid conditions, with less food production make people (and societies) rather restless.
The unequivocal and indisputable climate research clearly demonstrates that climate change is constant; and when combined with historical accounts and anecdotal evidence, warmer climates tend to favor prosperity and peace outcomes while cooler periods provide more of the opposite.
Note: 'C3' originally wrote about this research in 2011. There was a recent article at Ice Age Now (and a YouTube video) using another 'C3' chart with significant Chinese events being overlaid on the Greenland ice core temp reconstructions (that prompted our doing the same for the above northern China chart). Wikipedia info page sources: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
Using sediment cores from two lakes in the Qaidam Basin of the northern Tibetan Plateau, Chinese researchers reconstructed temperatures back some 2,000 years.
Their research was unequivocal: modern warming has been cooler than past warming periods. They also confirmed that the climate naturally made shifts between warm/cool regimes. Plus, the climate shifts appear to be associated with solar activity.
Note: Historical temperature charts and previous climate-history articles.
The UN's IPCC and its coterie of green-sharia "scientists" have long pursued a political agenda that requires all climate change and global warming to be a result of human CO2 emissions, and in addition, any solar impact on temperatures is absolutely minimal - yet, the empirical evidence does not support said political agenda, including the BEST maximum temperature dataset
Read here. The IPCC's catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) alarmists have long predicted that increasing CO2 levels will directly cause global warming to reach anywhere from 3 to 10 degrees Celsius higher in the near future. In essence the world's maximum temperatures are being exclusively driven to dangerous heights by CO2.
But is that actually happening?
The most recent empirical evidence clearly indicates that CO2 levels are not driving the average atmospheric, global and/or ocean temperatures dangerously higher. And now comes an analysis of the BEST temperature dataset, which confirms the weak driving force that CO2 appears to be.
This graph has monthly atmospheric CO2 levels superimposed onto plots of the BEST maximum temperatures for the U.S. and a solar activity proxy (i.e. Total Solar Irradiance). The blue maximum temperature plot is in sync (up and down) with the red solar activity curve. Obviously, the ever incessant rise of CO2 levels is not in sync with the up and down movements of temperature variation.
"Recent work by NCAR senior scientists Drs. Harry van Loon and Gerald Meehl has also emphasized a physical relationship between incoming solar radiation and temperature. These scientists argue indirectly that, in testing for this relationship, daytime maximum temperature is the most appropriate criterion to use to characterize the temperature. This measure is available for the US from the BEST data set...The reconfirmation now of a strong sun-temperature relation based specifically upon the daytime temperature maxima adds strong and independent scientific weight to the reality of the sun-temperature connection...This suggests strongly that changes in solar radiation drive temperature variations on at least a hemispheric scale...Close correlations like these simply do not exist for temperature and changing atmospheric CO2 concentration." [Article byBob Carter, Willie Soon & William Briggs.]
1. Solar activity is 'best' at explaining an increase in maximum global temperatures and the related variation of global temperatures.
2. CO2 levels explain little of the amplitude of maximum temperatures and are exceptionally lame at explaining monthly variation of global temperatures.
The IPCC predicted that sea levels would rise to dangerous levels from CO2-induced climate change - satellite data for Hawaii and a new peer reviewed study eviscerates the IPCC's catastrophic global warming hysteria
The image on the left is the main Hawaiian Island with a red circle denoting the coastal region near the community of Captain Cook, Hawaii. The chart on the right is a plot of satellite data of Captain Cook coastal sea surface heights, and monthly atmospheric CO2 levels, since 1992.
Clearly, per the satellite data, the hysterical IPCC prediction that human CO2 emissions would cause dangerous, accelerating sea level rise and swamp Pacific Ocean islands is totally discredited. Not only has human CO2 not unleashed catastrophic sea level rises (i.e. climate change), human emissions have not unleashed rapidly increasing, catastrophic global warming.
Regarding global sea levels, a new peer reviewed study found that both satellite and tide gauge empirical observations indicate that sea levels are driven by a natural 60-year oscillation. Essentially, sea levels will naturally rise and fall regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels.
"Over the last decade," in the words of Chambers et al. (2012), "numerous papers have commented on the appearance of decadal and longer period fluctuations in select tide gauge records... And in their own study of long tide gauge records in every ocean basin, Chambers et al. find that there is, indeed, "a significant oscillation with a period around 60-years in the majority of the tide gauges examined during the 20th century."...they rightly state that the 60-year oscillation does change "our interpretation of the trends when estimated over periods less than one-cycle of the oscillation." And, therefore, they conclude that "although several studies have suggested the recent change in trends of global sea level rise reflects an acceleration, this must be re-examined in light of a possible 60-year oscillation [italics and bold added]," in further support of which contention they note that "there have been previous periods where the rate was decelerating..." [Don P. Chambers, Mark A. Merrifield, R. Steven Nerem 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]
1. Per the empirical satellite data, human CO2 emissions are not causing an accelerating sea level rise that is swamping Pacific Ocean islands, and thus causing a vast migration of climate change refugees (another hysterical IPCC prediction spread by climate liars).
2. Per scientific research, there exists a natural 60-year oscillation of sea surface heights that better explains sea height change than the alarmist CAGW hypothesis.
Obama's green fundamentalists took control over the EPA and have since been on a jihad to destroy the coal industry and other fossil fuel sectors - but like so many religious fanatics, Obama's extremists ignore the actual science
Read here. As has been clearly demonstrated with empirical evidence, recent global warming (or lack of) is not the result of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.
So, if CO2 is not the principal driver of global temperature changes, then what is?
The adjacent chart is a plot of daytime high temperatures and solar radiation. The very visible close relationship between solar energy and the maximum temperatures is very obvious, and is irrefutable - it's the sun, stupid!
With most scientists now recognizing that the jihad against CO2 emissions was not really supportable by the empirical evidence, new scientific efforts are being conducted to determine what are the major factors influencing global warming/cooling. And, the solar influence now appears to be the major culprit.
In the realm of the political climate, both Romney and Ryan should be constantly bashing Obama and the Democrats over their destruction of the coal industry, and the anti-science green, fanatic jihad unleashed on the American economy. Driving the coal industry to bankruptcy and curtailing oil drilling across the U.S. was a completely needless hatchet attack on economic growth by Obama's EPA.
The failed climate models of the IPCC and NASA have revealed the terminal weakness of the AGW hypothesis - but new research and models are coming online that better explain global warming and climate change
(click on images to enlarge)
Read here and here. The impressive success of the harmonic astronomical climate model (left chart) is in the realm of spectacular when compared to the robust, abysmal performance of the IPCC's (middle chart) and NASA's (right chart) traditional CO2-based climate models. The failure of the CO2-centric models is due in large part to their inability to reproduce the known decadal and multi-decadal oscillations that are part and parcel to the world's climate.
The significant failure of the IPCC / NASA climate models, and the AGW hypothesis they are derived from, is captured in its entire absurdity here. Literally, the avid proponents of the failed CO2-driven AGW hypothesis first admit to there being essentially zero warming over the last 10 years, and then try to rationalize the disappearance of warming with a diversity of speculations other than the obvious - that the current IPCC and NASA climate theory is bankrupt.
Below are excerpts that reveal the collective, "consensus" befuddlement of Climategate scientists towards global warming (or lack thereof):
John Barnes, climate scientist: “If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it’s not increasing,” Barnes said. “There’s a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn’t we warm up?”..."We do have satellites that can measure the energy budget, but there’s still assumptions there. There’s assumptions about the oceans, because we don’t have a whole lot of measurements in the ocean.”.
Robert Kaufman, climate scientist: "...released a modeling study suggesting that the hiatus in warming could be due entirely to El Niño and increased sulfates from China’s coal burning."
Martin Wild, climate scientist: "During the 1980s and ’90s, the rapid decline of air pollution in the United States and Europe dominated the world’s aerosol trends. While those emissions have continued to decline in the West, returns, from a brightening standpoint, ...“It’s not an obvious overall trend anymore,”..."
Susan Solomon, climate scientist: "“What’s really been exciting to me about this last 10-year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,” ...Solomon had shown that between 2000 and 2009, the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere declined by about 10 percent. This decline, caused either by natural variability — perhaps related to El Niño — or as a [negative] feedback to climate change, likely countered 25 percent of the warming that would have been caused by rising greenhouse gases..."
Kenneth Trenberth, climate scientist: "Until 2003, scientists had a reasonable understanding where the sun’s trapped heat was going; it was reflected in rising sea levels and temperatures. Since then, however, heat in the upper ocean has barely increased and the rate of sea level rise slowed,...they put forward a climate model showing that decade-long pauses in temperature rise, and its attendant missing energy, could arise by the heat sinking into the deep, frigid ocean waters, more than 2,000 feet down."
James Hansen, climate scientist: "All the climate models, compared to the Argo data and a tracer study soon to be released by several NASA peers, exaggerate how efficiently the ocean mixes heat into its recesses....that climate models have been overestimating the amount of energy in the climate,...“Less efficient mixing, other things being equal, would mean that there is less warming ‘in the pipeline,’” ....it also implies that the negative aerosol forcing is probably larger than most models assumed."
Graeme Stephens, climate scientist: "It suggests there isn’t a missing energy. Trenberth disagrees with this analysis, and it’s likely to be a question of ongoing debate."
Judith Lean, climate scientist: "The answer to the hiatus, according to Judith Lean, is all in the stars. Or rather, one star...Climate models failed to reflect the sun’s cyclical influence on the climate and “that has led to a sense that the sun isn’t a player,” Lean said. “And that they have to absolutely prove that it’s not a player.” According to Lean, the combination of multiple La Niñas and the solar minimum, bottoming out for an unusually extended time in 2008 from its peak in 2001, are all that’s needed to cancel out the increased warming from rising greenhouse gases."
Ben Santer, climate scientist: “All of these things contribute to the relative muted warming,”..."The difficultly is figuring out the relative contribution of these things. You can’t do that without systematic modeling and experimentation. I would hope someone will do that.”...“Even if you have the hypothetical perfect model, if you leave out the wrong forcings, you will get the wrong answer.”
John Daniel, climate scientist: “We make a mistake, anytime the temperature goes up, you imply this is due to global warming,” he said. “If you make a big deal about every time it goes up, it seems like you should make a big deal about every time it goes down.”
Conclusion: The failed climate models (that "scientists" from the IPCC and NASA livelihoods are dependent on) are based on a discredited CO2 hypothesis that is unable to explain the global climate's fluctuations. Newer models based on natural causations, be they of cosmic and/or earthly origin, are better able to explain global climate change, including decadal and multi-decadal temperature variation.
New research published in 2011 & 2012 continues to build on a major 1999 study that found increased sun activity (solar flux, etc.) is a significant cause of modern global warming
While reviewing the bounty of solar and climate information found at the Global Warming Science site, we found the adjacent chart (this is the 'C3' revised version using annual HadCRUT global temperatures instead of monthly).
Clearly, there is a strong relationship between solar activity (magnetic solar flux) and global temperatures.
The relationship is not perfect but it represents a significant improvement over the incredibly lame human-CO2 and global warming / climate change relationship claimed by the IPCC's anti-CO2 Climategate scientists and alarmists.
"The solar wind, because it is an extended ionized gas of very high electrical conductivity, drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun, thereby filling the heliosphere with the weak interplanetary magnetic field. Magnetic reconnection - the merging of oppositely-directed magnetic fields such that they become connected to each other - between the interplanetary field and the Earth's magnetic field, allows energy from the solar wind to enter the near-Earth environment. The Sun's properties, such as its luminosity, are related to its magnetic field, though the connections are as yet not well understood. Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate change. Here we report that the measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic field leaving the sun has risen by a factor 1.4 since 1964." [M. Lockwood, R. Stamper, and M.N. Wild 1999: Nature]
"The authors examined measurements of near-earth interplanetary magnetic field to determine the total magnetic flux leaving the sun since 1868...authors were able to show that the total magnetic flux leaving the sun has risen by a factor of 1.41 over the period 1964-1996. Surrogate measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field previous to this time indicate that this parameter has increased by a factor of 2.3 since 1901...results of this study lead us to wonder just how much of the reported 0.6°C global temperature rise of the last century might be a result of the more than two-fold increase in the total magnetic solar flux over that period. We may now, at long last, be moving closer than ever in our effort to understand the importance of the sun in driving 20th century climate change."
Read here. The climate alarmism bozos/bimbos brigade (Al Gore, Kevin Trenberth, John Cook, Joe Romm, Heidi Cullen, Bill McKibben, Michael Mann, Bill Nye, Jeff Masters and etc.) has claimed that past severe winter conditions were the result of CO2-induced global warming. They did so without a sliver of scientific proof nor empirical evidence.
As the general public deduced, the brigade's claim that extreme winter conditions are being caused by "global warming" is a complete crock. And to the major chagrin of the likes of Kevin Trenberth, the climate modelers are now pointing their collective fingers at the real culprit - the sun. Losing the public and climate/solar science debate both - Ouch!
The team of Ineson et al. determined that a strong solar signal (positive or negative) will cause significant changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation. The NAO change produces affects on the winter circulation patterns resulting in a dearth or abundance of Northern Hemisphere severe winter storms. Using climate models, they established a firm relationship between solar maximum/minimum and the change in the NAO.
"A research team...primarily made up of scientists from the U.K.’s Hadley Centre Met Office have identified a fairly strong solar signal in Northern Hemisphere winter circulation patterns which are manifest over Europe and the eastern United States. According to their modeling studies, the difference in the amount of incoming solar radiation, in this case, primarily in the ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths, during the minima and maxima of the 11-yr solar cycle are large enough to produce a characteristic change in the winter circulation pattern of the atmosphere over North America...When the NAO is in its negative phase, more cold air can seep south from the Arctic and impact the lower latitudes of Europe and the eastern U.S., which helps spin up winter storm systems. For instance, during the “snowmageddon” winter of 2009/2010, the NAO was at a near record low value..."Given our modelling result, these cold winters were probably exacerbated by the recent prolonged and anomalously low solar minimum. On decadal timescales the increase in the NAO from the 1960s to 1990s…may also be partly explained by the upwards trend in solar activity evident in the open solar-flux record…."" [Sarah Ineson, Adam A. Scaife, Jeff R. Knight, James C. Manners, Nick J. Dunstone, Lesley J. Gray, Joanna D. Haigh 2011: Nature Geoscience]
Read here. The IPCC Climategate scientists have long had marching orders from their political masters to prove that human CO2 emissions are the principal cause of global warming. This politically correct agenda thus requires that IPCC scientists diminish or ignore other climate influencers, including solar.
Unfortunately for the IPCC, there still exist thousands of scientists who conduct objective climate research to determine the real causes of climate change, in spite of political agendas.
Recently, Chinese scientists reconstructed past temperatures and determined that swings in temperature averages are a result of multiple, natural oscillations that are driven by solar radiation variability. Their research does not implicate CO2 as a major contributing factor.
"In an attempt to gain that understanding, Qian and Lu began with the reconstructed global-mean temperature anomaly history of Mann et al. (2008), combined with HadCRUT3 data for 1000-2008, relative to 1961-1990...they used a wavelet transform procedure to identify four oscillations in the millennial temperature time series...Next, they similarly examined a reconstructed 400-year solar radiation series based on 10Be data...determined that "the ~21-year, ~115-year and ~200-year periodic oscillations in global-mean temperature are forced by and lag behind solar radiation variability," and they report that the "relative warm spells in the 1940s and the beginning of the 21st century resulted from overlapping of warm phases in the ~21-year and other oscillations," noting that "between 1994 and 2002 all four periodic oscillations reached their peaks and resulted in a uniquely warm decadal period during the last 1000 years,"...As for the future, they predict that "global-mean temperature will decline to a renewed cooling period in the 2030s, and then rise to a new high-temperature period in the 2060s."" [WeiHong Qian, Bo Lu 2010: Chinese Science Bulletin]
Read here. IPCC climate models have an atrocious record of predicting climate conditions. A principal reason is that they were funded to prove that human CO2 emissions cause global warming, which meant they had to be designed to do so. As a result, the models were programmed to be overly sensitive to increases in human CO2 emissions, and programmed to ignore or minimize sensitivity to other variables, including solar activity. New EU research now reveals that the IPCC reports and its associated climate models underestimate solar impact by some 6 times (see paragraph 5 of linked page).
Shapiro et al. conducted an analysis using Beryllium 10 isotope records, neutron monitor data, combined with sunspot records to reconstruct a Total Solar Irradiance record that indicates solar forcing best explains past climate changes, including the modern warming.
"The variable Sun is the most likely candidate for the natural forcing of past climate changes on time scales of 50 to 1000 years. Evidence for this understanding is that the terrestrial climate correlates positively with the solar activity. During the past 10 000 years, the Sun has experienced the substantial variations in activity and there have been numerous attempts to reconstruct solar irradiance. While there is general agreement on how solar forcing varied during the last several hundred years – all reconstructions are proportional to the solar activity – there is scientific controversy on the magnitude of solar forcing...We derive a total and spectral solar irradiance that was substantially lower during the Maunder minimum than the one observed today. The difference is remarkably larger than other estimations published in the recent literature. The magnitude of the solar UV variability, which indirectly affects the climate, is also found to exceed previous estimates." [A. I. Shapiro, W. Schmutz, E. Rozanov, M. Schoell, M. Haberreiter, A. V. Shapiro, and S. Nyeki 2011: Astronomy & Astrophysics]
Read here. Map source here. (click on images to enlarge)
Newton et al. analyzed sediment cores from the Makassar Strait between the Indian and Pacific Oceans and confirmed that the hottest sea-surface temperatures took place some 800+ years ago, during the Medieval Period. These scientists noted that Medieval Warming took place during a solar activity maximum.
"Based on Mg/Ca ratios of the planktonic foraminifer Globigerinoides ruber that they obtained from a sediment core that was extracted from the seabed at the southern end (~5.3°S, 117.8°E) of the Makassar Strait...as they describe it, that "the warmest sea surface temperatures of the past 2000 years occurred between 1000 and 800 years ago," which period, they say, "is broadly coincident with the Medieval Warm Period as reflected in Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly reconstructions."
"...used to reconstruct surface-water temperature (SST), sea-surface salinity (SSS), and seawater density variability over the past 2000 yr. Maximum SST and SSS occurred at both sites between 850 and 700 yr ago, coinciding with the Medieval Solar Maximum and Medieval Warm Period (ca. 1000–700 yr ago). SST and SSS declined at both locations after 700 yr ago and reached minimum values during the Little Ice Age, between 300 and 100 yr ago." [Alicia Newton, Robert Thunell and Lowell Stott 2011: Geology]
Read here and here. (click on image to enlarge - Solar Activity Events image source here)
The deathanddestruction of the Little Ice Age (LIA) mercifully came to an end during the mid-1800's as the world began to warm. The LIA occurred during a time when solar activity was extremely low, as evidenced by the Maunder, Spörer and Dalton minimums. Since the absolute solar low point of the Maunder epsiode, solar activity has slowly increased over the last 400 years until it reached its maximum during the modern era.
As the solar activity (total solar irradiance) increased, so did global temperatures [the HADCRU global warming from 1850 to 2000 is .55C] and the warming commenced well before the tremndous increase of CO2 emissions after World War II. Now, a new peer-reveiwed study also identifies a 50% in solar UV striking earth over the last 400 years, which would cause a warming of the oceans. A combination of the increased TSI and UV may explain up to 0.44 degrees of the 0.55 degree HADCRU warming - 80%.
"A peer-reviewed paper [Krivova et al.] published in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds that reconstructions of total solar irradiance (TSI) show a significant increase since the Maunder minimum in the 1600's during the Little Ice Age and shows further increases over the 19th and 20th centuries.....Use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation indicates that a 1.25 W/m2 increase in solar activity could account for an approximate .44C global temperature increase.....A significant new finding is that portions of the more energetic ultraviolet region of the solar spectrum increased by almost 50% over the 400 years since the Maunder minimum.....This is highly significant because the UV portion of the solar spectrum is the most important for heating of the oceans due to the greatest penetration beyond the surface and highest energy levels. Solar UV is capable of penetrating the ocean to depths of several meters to cause ocean heating." [N. A. Krivova, L. E. A. Vieira, S. K. Solanki 2010: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 115, A12112, 11 PP., 2010 doi:10.1029/2010JA015431]
Read here. IPCC and national climate agency climate models have failed spectacularly at predicting the ENSO climate pattern changes that results in major regional weather conditions. A new peer-reviewed study helps expalin why the climate models fail consistently: the under estimation of both the Sun's impact and a powerful negative feedback ('ocean thermostat').
"A report in the December 3, 2010, issue of Science has reinforced what many scientists have suspected all along: variation in the Sun's output causes significant change in Earth's climate.....This new work indicates that even small variations in the Sun's output can have significant affect here on Earth. This is unsurprising, since the energy that drives Earth's climate comes from the Sun. Monsoon floods and decades long droughts are both part of the natural variation driven by our neighborhood star, but every climate fluctuation that causes human discomfort is blamed on anthropogenic global warming.....Their [Marchitto et al.] work is in agreement with the theoretical “ocean dynamical thermostat” response of ENSO to radiative forcing. Here is their description of the work: The influence of solar variability on Earth’s climate over centennial to millennial time scales is the subject of considerable debate. The change in total solar irradiance over recent 11-year sunspot cycles amounts to <0.1%, but greater changes at ultraviolet wavelengths may have substantial impacts on stratospheric ozone concentrations, thereby altering both stratospheric and tropospheric circulation patterns.....This model prediction is supported by paleoclimatic proxy reconstructions over the past millennium. In contrast, fully coupled general circulation models (GCMs) [IPCC climate models] lack a robust thermostat response because of an opposing tendency for the atmospheric circulation itself to strengthen under reduced radiative forcing." [Thomas M. Marchitto, Raimund Muscheler, Joseph D. Ortiz, Jose D. Carriquiry, Alexander van Geen 2010; Science 3 December 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6009 pp. 1378-1381]
Read here. French scientists, J.-L. Le Mouël et al., determine that solar activity has major impact on temperatures across the world. Both major global warming and global cooling periods can be attributed to associated solar activity.
"We find that the resulting curves correlate remarkably well at the longer periods, within and between regions. The secular trend of all of these curves is similar (an S-shaped pattern), with a rise from 1900 to 1950, a decrease from 1950 to 1975, and a subsequent (small) increase. This trend is the same as that found for a number of solar indices, such as sunspot number or magnetic field components in any observatory. We conclude that significant solar forcing is present in temperature disturbances in the areas we analyzed and conjecture that this should be a global feature." [Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Vincent Courtillot, Elena Blanter, Mikhail Shnirman 2008; C.R. Geoscience, 340: 421-430]
Read here and here. IPCC climate models and those of major countries are designed to fail with significant predictability. Why?
Besides all climate models being purposefully designed to focus on human CO2 emissions as the cause of global warming, none of the climate models are able to simulate cloud impact and cloud coverage correctly (or even with a modicum of accuracy). Clouds are beyond even the most powerful computers and virtual simulations, which means the climate models will always produce incorrect results moving forward. As a prominent scientist from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research recently stated:
"The scientific community is uncertain about how the effects of clouds will change in the future."
Despite this significant model shortcoming affecting all climate models, more empirical evidence is being accumulated by both satellites and climate experts that indicate clouds have a much greater impact on temperatures than CO2 levels in the atmosphere than previously understood. As the graph below indicates, global temperatures appear to be driven by sunlight reaching the earth's surface, as regulated by cloud coverage, not by CO2 increases.
Climate experts are now concluding that research must focus on clouds, with many scientists considering the possibility that a 1% or less change in cloud coverage could explain most of the past changes in global temperatures. (click on image to enlarge)
Note: The scaled red NCDC monthly global temperature anomaly curve and the monthly cumulative CO2 increase are superimposed on the satellite reflected sunlight chart. The original satellite chart was flipped vertically so that the maximum sunlight striking the surface measurement would be at the top.
Read here. Climate. Cycles. Change. Put the three together and voilà, you get 'C3'. We've always been influenced by the idea that natural climate change is constantly happening, which causes oscillating temperature cycles from cold to warm back to cold, and etc.
Now, there is more confirming evidence as an analysis was done on thermometer temperatures going back to 1880 on widely separated geographical regions. What did the analysis find? It would seem a natural sine wave - a cycle that switches from cold-to-warm-back-to-cold-etc. exists. Isn't nature just amazing?
"Taking these ten locations from across the globe andsuperimposing the anomaly data produced a sine wave-like pattern with distinct cooling from the early 1940s to mid-1970s followed by warming to present; for many of the locations the older data was warmer, or at least as warm as present. Now I had seen this before with many individual stations, but it really impressed me to see the pattern matching from such far-flung locations.....So is this “sine wave” the true climate signal? It would seem so, although we can’t expect it always to be so regular. Choosing stations that are more closely geographically located does give a more homogeneous shape to the wave.....For us the take-home message of this study was simply how widespread and consistent the wave pattern is, and this, ultimately is very convincing of the veracity of the arguments against CO2 as a primary cause of current warming. From the physics I don’t doubt it has a role in warming, but its role needs to be disentangled from the large magnitude natural climate swings that are clearly present all over the world..."
While Moscow warms like "never before" (not), the extreme northern Arctic regions have had an unprecedented, extended cold summer.
(click on image to enlarge)
This Arctic temperature graph says it all, and if this cooling trend continues through the month of August, indeed we may witness a truly exceptional event - the COLDEST EVAAAR! Well....at least since 1958.
Read here. What is causing this major Arctic cooling? Will it continue? Answers: Solar. Yes, extended cooling is often the result of a decreased solar furnace. If so, the solar indicators point to some very miserable Northern Hemisphere weather in the very near future. Does this mean the entire global climate will be cooling? That seems like a stretch, but as they say, read the whole thing.
Read here. As the scientists are now informing us, there are sources and factors totally out of the control of humans that are causing our climate to change, the same as they have done in the past.
Scientists are discovering that the level of solar activity determines how many cosmic rays strike our atmosphere, which then determines the extent of cloud coverage. Less clouds allow more sunlight to reach the surface, and more clouds reflect increased sunlight back to space. (click on image to enlarge)
"A paper published online today in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres lends credence to the cosmoclimatology theory of Svensmark et al, finding that increases in galactic cosmic ray counts (GCRs) have a statistically significant correlation to increased cloud formation.....The theory of cosmoclimatology explains why small changes in total solar irradiance (TSI) during solar cycles may be amplified due to secondary effects on galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation: Even though solar irradiance only changes about .1% during a solar cycle, the secondary effects of changes in the solar magnetic field on GCRs can be up to 25% or more.....As proven empirically by the study published today, increases in GCRs seed more clouds which reflect more sunlight back into space ("albedo") and result in cooling of the earth. The study published today finds that a 15% increase in GCRs resulted in up to a 9% change in the "cloud index" which corresponds to an increase in cloud opacity."
Read here. Scientists from Germany and Russia conducted extensive research and reconstructed past temperatures from tree rings. Using tree samples of Scots pine in the Khibiny Low Mountains of the Kola Peninsula in Arctic Russia, they found the following:
"The reconstructed summer temperature on Kola in the months of July and August has varied between 10.4°C (1709) and [peaking at] 14.7°C (1957), with a mean of 12.2°C. Afterwards, after a cooling phase, an ongoing warming can be observed from 1990 onwards.....The temperature fluctuated between 10.4°C and a peak of 14.7°C in 1957 , and then cooled until 1990. The scientists say it correlated very well with solar activity until 1990.....What stands out in the data from the Kola Peninsula is that the highest temperatures were found in the period around 1935 and 1955, and that by 1990 the curve had fallen to the 1870 level, which corresponds to the start of the Industrial Age.....The reconstructed summer temperatures of the last four centuries from Lapland and the Kola and Taimyr Peninsulas are similar in that all three data series display a temperature peak in the middle of the twentieth century, followed by a cooling of one or two degrees......What is conspicuous about the new data is that the reconstructed minimum temperatures coincide exactly with times of low solar activity. The researchers therefore assume that in the past, solar activity was a significant factor contributing to summer temperature fluctuations in the Arctic."
The above scientific evidence reveals little, if any, correlation between growth of human CO2 emissions and Arctic temperatures. The scientists conclude that there was a past relationship between solar activity and temperatures.
During the 1990's, the scientists find that warming resumes in the Arctic. And what was solar activity like during the 90's and later? Well solar activity increased, as documented in this Watts Up With Thatarticle. (click on image to enlarge)
Read here. Researchers using lake sediment cores determine that severe weather for the northeastern United States has followed a cyclical pattern with a 3,000 year gap between each peak. The latest severe weather period began some 600 years ago with onset of the Little Ice Age. The major forces driving this natural cycle are thought to be solar changes, along with changes in the Atlantic Oscillation (AO).
Atmospheric CO2 levels are not even considered to be an influence on this natural cycle of storminess.
"The authors' data indicate that "the frequency of storm-related floods in the northeastern United States has varied in regular cycles during the past 13,000 years (13 kyr), with a characteristic period of about 3 kyr." There were four major storminess peaks during this period; they occurred approximately 2.6, 5.8, 9.1 and 11.9 kyr ago, with the most recent upswing in storminess beginning "at about 600 yr BP [Before Present], coincident with the beginning of the Little Ice Age.".....authors say that the pattern they observed "is consistent with long-term changes in the average sign of the Arctic Oscillation [AO], suggesting that modulation of this dominant atmospheric mode may account for a significant fraction of Holocene climate variability in North America and Europe.".....authors also report that "during the past ~600 yr, New England storminess appears to have been increasing naturally," and they suggest that "changes in the AO, perhaps modulated by solar forcing, may explain a significant portion of Holocene climate variability in the North Atlantic region." They further state that their explanation is appealing "because it makes a specific prediction that New England storminess should be at its greatest when Europe is cold (characteristic of the low-phase AO)," such as during Little Ice Age conditions"
Read here. Basic common sense suggests solar influences are driving all climate change instead of a minuscule trace gas such as CO2. In a National Science Foundation (NSF) funded peer-reviewed study of Chinese lake sediment cores, researchers find climate change cycles strongly associated with solar output oscillations.
"The authors find “The carbonate percentage and ostracode abundance show a consistent pattern with ~200 year moisture oscillations during the last 1000 years.” The variations appear to be related to periodicities of solar output – Zhao et al. conclude “Higher solar output corresponds to a stronger monsoon, which intensifies the uplift of air mass on the high Tibetan Plateau and strengthens the subsidence of air mass over the QB. The reverse is true during the period of lower solar output. Thus, high solar activity is correlated with dry climate in QB and increased precipitation in monsoonal areas.”.....As was the case in the first article, the 200 year quasi “cycle” is again linked to a similar cycle in solar activity. Zhao et al. speculate that “The ~200-yr time spacing between wet and dry climate periods indicated by the A/C ratio variations suggests a possible solar forcing of effective moisture changes in the region.” The authors also note that the basin was especially dry “around AD 1600 during the first few centuries of the Little Ice Age”. So much for any argument that the Little Ice Age was somehow confined to Europe....."
Read here. Map source here. Scientists studied the extended warm period (interglacial) prior to the last major ice age. That prior warm period happened some 125 thousand years ago. Using a sediment core from a German lake, the scientists analyzed the quantity of pollen grains found in the core. Approximately every 1,500 years during the ancient interglacial, the climate changed from a warming phase to a cooling phase. The current interglacial, since the end of the last ice age about 15 thousand years ago, shares this same, every 1,500 year oscillation of warming-to-cooling climate changes.
The scientists involved in the study suggest this natural 1,500 year oscillation, found in both the ancient interglacial and the one we live in, is likely due to solar forces.
"The results of the authors' analysis revealed the presence of 11 major cold events having an average recurrence time of approximately 1450 years over the course of the last interglacial, which periodicity is essentially identical to the millennial-scale oscillation of climate throughout the current interglacial (Bond et al., 1997, 2001; deMenocal et al., 2000; McDermott et al., 2001; Gupta et al., 2003; Hu et al., 2003).....This study adds to the growing body of evidence that earth's climate oscillates in a well-defined manner on a timescale of approximately 1500 years. This knowledge is very important, for it suggests that something other than the historic buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may be responsible for 20th-century warming..... Indeed, there is absolutely no evidence for any concomitant oscillation in the air's CO2 content accompanying the 1500-year oscillation of climate that was responsible for the warmings that produced the prior Medieval Warm Period and the still earlier Roman Warm Period,"
Per science-challenged warming alarmists and their propaganda, humans are constantly increasing their CO2 emissions, which causes the CO2 in the atmosphere to grow at a "accelerating" rate thus producing "accelerating" temperatures. Putting aside the definite maladjusted surface temperature scandal that indicates temperatures are significantly overstated, the propaganda hype about CO2 sounds half-way convincing, until one actually looks at the data. Unfortunately for the alarmists, the CO2 ppm evidence doesn't support the hype. So, what's going on?
Although humans indeed are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the real force that is driving both CO2 growth rates and temperature changes is mostly natural phenomenon, including ENSO. Both El Niño and La Niña are powerful climatic conditions that create ocean and atmospheric conditions that swamp the small impact of humans adding CO2 to the biosphere.
The graph on the left provides a hint of what is happening. The red dots represent the years when El Niño ended and the blue dots years when La Niña ended.It's clear from the visual relationship that these Pacific Ocean oscillations are pushing temperatures around, as well as the CO2 growth rates. It makes sense sinceEl Niño will warm the ocean allowing more CO2 to escape to the atmosphere; and, when cooled by La Niñathe ocean releases less CO2. Throw in some long-term solar influence and then combine the ENSO with its powerful counterparts in the AtlanticOcean basin, and it explains most of the climatic variability (weather and temperature changes) that is experienced without any human CO2 involvement.
(Note on the graph how the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991 produced a cooling event that caused the currentEl Niño at the time to pale in comparison.)
Read here. As with most major climatic changes, solar influences are the major driver, not trace gases, such as CO2. Using Sr/Ca ratios and δ13C data obtained from stalagmite of Buckeye Creek Cave in West Virginia, USA, researchers reviewed 7,000 years of N. American hydro-climate. Researchers discovered that drought conditions followed the solar irradiance cycles of 200 and 500 years, approximately, in addition to even longer solar oscillations.
"The five researchers conclude by stating that their findings "corroborate works indicating that millennial-scale solar-forcing is responsible for droughts and ecosystem changes in central and eastern North America and that their high-resolution time series "provide much stronger evidence in favor of solar-forcing of North American drought by yielding unambiguous spectral analysis results."
Read here. Global warming alarmist scientists have claimed (predicted) that atmospheric levels of CO2 drive climatic changes, including changes in rainfall/snowfall. The newest research clearly shows that major natural forces, such as solar cycles, are what determines the varying cycles of precipitation levels.
"Once again we have another real-world example of cyclical solar activity controlling the cyclical nature of precipitation variations, wherein, in the words of the researchers who conducted the study, "higher solar output corresponds to a stronger monsoon, which intensifies the uplift of air mass on the high Tibetan Plateau and strengthens the subsidence of air mass over the Qaidam Basin," while "the reverse is true during the period of lower solar output," so that "high solar activity is correlated with dry climate in the Qaidam Basin and increased precipitation in monsoonal areas.""
Read here. IPCC Climategate scientists have conveniently dismissed the influence of the Sun on the climate, by simply rejecting any solar science being included in the IPCC reports. Outside of the IPCC though, peer-reviewed research is determining that solar, not CO2, is the primary climate driver.
"The researchers' final conclusion was
that "quasi-100-year fluctuations of solar activity may be the primary
driving force of temperature during the past 6000 years in China." And
since their data indicate that peak Medieval Warm Period temperatures
were higher than those of the recent past, it is not unreasonable to
assume that the planet's recent warmth may have been solar-induced as
Read here and here. As every objective and open-minded scientist knows, the science is never, ever settled. Global cooling could very well be the future environment for earth, yet IPCC climate scientists, politicians and the mainstream media chose to put their faith in virtual, global warming climate models that have been proven failures time and again.
Read here. From the "science is never, ever settled department," new peer-reviewed research does in depth study on glaciers' retreat and find it's due to enhanced solar radiation.
"Snow and ice melt was stronger in the 1940s than in recent years, in spite of significantly higher air temperatures in the present decade. An inner Alpine radiation record shows that in the 1940s global shortwave radiation over the summer months was 8% above the long-term average and significantly higher than today, favoring rapid glacier mass loss."
Read here and here. Although the IPCC climate scientists have purposefully ignored the major solar impact on climate in order to make human CO2 emissions a global tax revenue stream, more scientific evidence pours in that the Sun drives earth's climate, not puny CO2 emissions. This research affirms what the majority of AGW skeptics have claimed.
Read here. Another study establishing the global extent of both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age that Climategate scientists insist occurred only in the European region. In addition, the study found that MWP temperatures were warmer than those claimed to be "unprecedented" in the 20th century. The research also indicates a strong solar-climate relationship.
Kitagawa and Matsumoto also report
finding significant temperature periodicities of 187, 89, 70, 55 and 44
years. Noting that the 187-year cycle closely corresponds to the
well-known Suess cycle of solar activity and that the 89-year cycle
compares well with the Gleissberg solar cycle, they conclude that their
findings provide further support for a sun-climate relationship.
Read here. Well, it's not only the sun. When solar activity increases (decreases), the cosmic ray energy impact on Earth's climate decreases (increases). The Greenland ice cores are revealing the evidence of changing cosmic ray intensity from the varying levels of Beryllium isotopes being identified. Based on this evidence, there appears to be a strong relationship between the ups/downs of cosmic energy versus the downs/ups of Earth's climate.
The IPCC dismisses solar/cosmic influences because their marching orders are to solely blame anthropogenic reasons, namely human CO2. This is how we got a corrupted science, Climategate, and the Copenhagen boondoggle. But now, even major science organizations are expanding their climate change reasons beyond the simple CO2 hypothesis. Recently the National Center of Atmospheric Research (NCAR) changed their tune and is now producing research that points to a large solar impact.
Read here. What Climategate has revealed is the incredible loyalty of many scientists to a UN-IPCC political agenda to prove that human CO2 causes all global warming. Not only has this political agenda ended up corrupting a major portion of the climate science community, it has also caused major natural causes of warming and climate change to be totally ignored by the IPCC. Fortunately for the world's citizens, other scientists are pursuing the necessary, and honest, scientific inquiries that may explain why climate change occurs - and, solar activity, combined with cosmic energy is becoming the leading hypothesis.
Read here. Analyzing sediment cores from the northeast Atlantic Ocean, researchers looked back some 2,400 years. Roman and Medieval Warming peak temperatures were significantly warmer than current period, while atmospheric CO2 was substantially lower. Why was Atlantic so much warmer in past?
"pervasive multidecadal- to
centennial-scale variability throughout the sedimentary proxy records
can be partly attributed to solar forcing and/or variable heat
extraction from the surface ocean caused by shifts in the prevailing
state of the North Atlantic Oscillation," as well as to "internal
Read here. More peer-reviewed science that documents the significant impact solar conditions have on global temperatures. Asian warming due to human CO2 emissions is not a real factor.
(Since the major climate scientists associated with IPCC have been identified as perpetrating science fraud, it's important to note that none of the scientists involved with this Asian study are a party to those frauds.)
Read here. The AGW hypothesis claims that the world's oceans have significantly warmed due to human CO2 emissions, and will continue to warm at an accelerated pace. The IPCC climate models were programmed to assume this ocean warming assumption. Reviewing the major research studies on this issue over the last decade, it's been found that the oceans have not significantly warmed, and more importantly, have actually cooled (lost heat) in recent years. This behavior runs counter to every IPCC climate model. In addition, one of the studies points to the oceans acting as a giant climate thermostat incorporating negative feedback mechanisms. The negative feedbacks prevent the global warming from achieving any type of "tipping point."
Read here. It's not just laypersons wondering about the cooler weather/climate. Researchers are finding solar indicators that are disturbing, to say the least. If a new 'Little Ice Age' plunges the globe into an extended cooling phase without the proper preparation and planning by political leaders and scientists, will some form of tribunals (International Criminal Court proceedings?) have to be conducted to hold those accountable to humankind? World leaders might want to start hedging their bets (watch to see if CO2-centric scientists start getting "thrown under the bus").
Read here. ENSO (El Niño/Southern Oscillation events) is the dominant world climate force that emanates from the Pacific ocean area. It alone is responsible for the major global warming/cooling trends we experience day-to-day, not CO2. Yet, IPCC climate models are close to 100% incapable of dealing with ENSO properly.
Read here. Research is finding that natural phenomenon, such as ocean oscillations, are the primary causal agents in sea/ocean waters warming/cooling. The AGW hypothesis asserts that human-CO2 "caused" global warming is warming the Arctic waters. All the scientific findings prove otherwise.
Read here. IPCC climate scientists claim that increases/decreases of CO2 are the Earth's principal driver in climate change. Study after study proves that this claim is absolutely wrong. The coral areas surrounding the Tahitian islands have recorded pre-history climate change and the corals indicate CO2 changes are irrelevant. The prediction failures of IPCC climate models can be blamed on the incorrect model assumption that CO2 change is a "cause," not an "effect."
Read here. The real research data, not virtual generated model data, is proving that Arctic warming is direct result of ocean cycles. Levels of CO2 are not causing global warming and global cooling of Arctic - it happens naturally. (click image to enlarge)
Read here. Researchers found that really huge and long lasting droughts plagued the central portion of the U.S. prior to modern times. These droughts dwarfed the famous 'Dust Bowl' drought that occurred during 1930's. The findings indicate that sea surface temperatures and solar output are principal causes of drought cycles. CO2, natural or human, not a factor at all.
But it is more than interesting that we are told drought will become
more common as greenhouse gases buildup in the future, and that
variability will increase giving us an undesirable combination of
droughts and floods. But as we look at these two recent articles, we
see that during the 20th century, and during a time of substantial
increase in greenhouse gas concentration, droughts were actually less
severe than during the mid-Holocene and variability decreased as well.
Read here. African droughts, especially severe instances have occurred during high solar radiation periods, which suggests the common sense conclusion that solar conditions drive Earth's climate, not CO2 levels. With past evidence of said droughts and solar activity, African nations have no real basis for "global warming" reparations from wealthier countries.
The African drought/rainfall research also revealed the existence of Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age.
Read here and here. Although MSM reporters, climate modelers, and Hollywood celebrities like to believe the tiny CO2 molecule in its minuscule atmospheric amounts (trace gas) cause the climate to change, the world's leading scientists are revealing to all the huge galactic and solar forces that are in play, which have driven Earth's climate over the eons.
Read here. The IPCC researchers, and all the IPCC climate models, dismiss solar impact on current climate conditions despite overwhelming historical data that Sun is the principal driving climate force.
Read here. As the AGW CO2 hypothesis continues to collapse under mounting weight of opposing empirical evidence, the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), and a multitude of world's best research facilities, are conducting new research and making new discoveries that point to the Sun as a principal driver of climate change. (click image to enlarge)
Source here. As ever more climate alarmist scientists are recognizing that the Earth is now moving towards an extended cooling period due to weaker solar activity, a very basic question needs to be addressed. How in the world did the IPCC and its climate modelers get it so wrong, when it is so obvious that CO2 is a bit player regarding climate change versus the solar influence? As Al Gore's schoolmate friend would ask, "Doesn't South America and Africa seem to fit together?" (click to enlarge image)