It's been pretty cold (and wet) here lately, and that's following a cool summer:

"New Zealand mercury plunges to record lows

An extreme cold snap has broken temperature records and produced what are likely to be the country's coldest nights this year.

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research said the past few days had seen some of the lowest temperatures on record.

Air temperatures in Taumarunui, in the central North Island, dipped to -6.8C this week, the coldest since records began in 1947.

Te Kuiti and Turangi had their coldest July nights on record, and in the South Island, Blenheim experienced its second-coldest July temperature yesterday morning.

Queenstown had its third coldest night in 139 years of records.

Hamilton recorded -3.3C and Christchurch -5.4C.

The lowest city temperature was -10C

Niwa climate scientist Georgina Griffiths said a deep low to the north had dragged exceptionally cold Antarctic air over the country that lingered for weeks.
"The air must have been pretty cold to get to those minimum temperatures," Ms Griffiths said.

The cold air had also stayed for a remarkably long time, with Dunedin getting air frosts on each of the past 20 days. The extremes of the past week would probably make the recent frosty nights this year's coldest, she said.

Most of the coldest temperatures were recorded early on Monday.

MetService forecaster Rob Kerr said the cold snap was caused by persistently clear skies and light winds.

The central South Island was likely to remain still and cold until tomorrow, he said. The cold snap has caused trouble on the roads, including a crash yesterday that closed State Highway 1 in Canterbury. We shouldn't be lulled into a false sense of security. Four South Island roads had been affected by dangerous "black ice"."

With this post, this thread is now 62.2% along the way to 1000 posts.

Now that's a meaningful, not to mention helpful, contribution to the debate.

It's also 1/3 of the way to 100 pages long :)

Sadly, it's lost the flaminess of it's earlier days. Here's me, yearning for the condescension, short fuses, and name-calling that were so much fun pages and pages ago!

>> Sadly, it's lost the flaminess of it's earlier days. Here's me, yearning for the condescension, short fuses, and name-calling that were so much fun pages and pages ago!

I think the "flaminess. . . condescension, short fuses, and name calling" is still there. It's just buried under the imposing weight of Roger T's graphs.

BTW: that's 62.5%

Let's not forget the Smugly-Self-Satisfied Insult (tm).

"It's just buried under the imposing weight of Roger T's graphs."

By the way, I wonder what percentage of the pages would be Rog's graphs?

Heh, Nate is quick to jump on the well managed news release that 2010 according to massaged NCDC temperature series, is the 'hottest on record' *so far*. This pop-up myth rlies on the fact that we just came out of a long El Nino which lifted temperatures globally *temporarily*. Conditions are now rushing headlong in La Nina conditions and South america is already hard hit.

Not only are hundreds of people dying of extreme cold in Bolivia at the moment (the Govt has declared a state of emergency in response to the -24C temperatures experienced in the last few days) but snow is coming early in the northern hemisphere too. The Arctic is below seasonal averages, and I predict another savage winter ahead.

But it's not all extreme weather news at the moment.
John Christy (yes *that* John Christy) has just had a paper published in Energy and Environment showing a pretty much zero trend in snowpack for the southern Sierras over the last 100 years. Here's a free copy for BPL climateers:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/2010_christyh_snow.pdf

Now returning to Nate's observation that the high recent global temperature coincides with a period of solar quiet, he may be interested to know that most big El Nino's occur near solar minimum, and during low solar cycles, and that many more occur on the downslope of solar cycles rather than the upramp. Why is that?

My hypothesis is that the worlds oceans gain net heat-energy when the sun is more active than average. This is confirmed by records of th ocean heat content anomaly, which has been rising since the sixties. At the same time, the sun was very active, with well above average sunspot numbers and lots of big solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

But the proponents of the co2 caused global warming hypothesis say the sun can't be responsible for the modern period of global warming because the solar cycles have been getting lower since the end of the fifties, while temperature has risen.

The thing is, it doesn't work like that. While it's true solar cycle peak amplitudes have fallen, the cycles have been short, a lot higher than average and with brief minima between. This means the sun has been kicking out more energy for more of the time than usual. Sami Solanki, head solar physicist of the Max Planck institute in Switzerland says the sun has ben at it's most active for 8000 years.

The result is, the oceans have absorbed and retained a lot of heat from the sun over the last fifty years. The heat being forced down into the deeps by tidal action, subducting currents of different relative saltiness, and meridional overturning caused by the changing declination of the Moon.

Now the sun has gone quiet since 2003, that heat is able to escape again, which it is doing, in El nino events. There was a similar situation in the late 1800's when the solar cycles got low for 30 years following an active period. Here comes the first graph, showing the sea surface temperatures then (red) and now (green), with the solar cycles than and now below:

.

So, big el nino's soon after solar minimum causing spikes in temp a decade apart as solar activity dropped. Big el nino's reduce ocean heat content, and se surface temperature falls afterwards. The air temperature follows a couple of months later. This is because the ocean drives the atmosphere, not the other way round.

You can see this clearly in the next graph (sorry Arapiles) of sea surface temp (green) against air temp (red). I've scaled the sst's by a factor of 1.7 so you can see the relationship clearly. Small changes in sea surface temp have a big effect on air temp because the specific heat capacity of water is so much bigger than that of air. There is as much energy in the top 2 meters of ocean as ther is in the entire atmosphere above it. This fact should give all thoughful climateers a clue as to the relative importance of trace gases in the atmosphere compared to the sun warmed ocean bulk.

.

I made a prediction last year that following the coming El Nino, temperatures would plummet to below the dec-jan 2008 anomaly. I still stand by that. If I turn out to be right, you'll know I'm onto something, and the clue will be that you'll spot Dean fingering his wallet nervously, Assuming he hasn't backed out of our $1000 dollar bet.

Finally (hurrah!), here's a plot I did last year to think about. It features a cumulative count of solar activity levels either side of the long term average whch matches the ocean equilibrium value. This mimics sea surface temperature and ocean heat content well. And so it should, since it is the cause of both of them.

.

You see that huge drop in sea surface temperature around 1940? That's what is coming up next.

Edited by tallbloke on 07/25/2010 03:36:37 MDT.

"But the proponents of the co2 caused global warming hypothesis say the sun can't be responsible for the modern period of global warming because the solar cycles have been getting lower since the end of the fifties, while temperature has risen.

The thing is, it doesn't work like that. While it's true solar cycle peak amplitudes have fallen, the cycles have been short, a lot higher than average and with brief minima between. This means the sun has been kicking out more energy for more of the time than usual. Sami Solanki, head solar physicist of the Max Planck institute in Switzerland says the sun has ben at it's most active for 8000 years"

No - this is wrong. When the climate scientists say that the sun's activity has been constant or declining slightly over the last 30 or 40 years they are talking about the total solar insolation - the total amount of energy received at the earth from solar radiation. This is measured directly by satellites and shows no increase (and possibly a decrease) over recent decades. So the statement that the sun has been "kicking out more energy" contradicts direct measurements.

As usual, Rog writes a lot but says nothing of import. It ain't the sun; get over it.

At least there is some content in Stuart's post this time to rebut.

"they are talking about the total solar insolation - the total amount of energy received at the earth from solar radiation"

When Stuart says "energy received at the earth", what he actually means is energy recieved at the top of the atmosphere. What is actually important is the energy recieved at the surface of the ocean, because that's where the heat gets stored. The ISCCP (international cloud project) data shows that cloud cover dropped from 1980 to 1998. This allowed more solar insolation into the oceans, an effect I calculated to be adding an extra 4W/m^2 during the 1993-2003 decade. Way more than co2 can do.

"This is measured directly by satellites and shows no increase (and possibly a decrease) over recent decades."

Wrong. It reached a peak in the 80's/90's (depending which side of the PMOD-ACRIM controversy you land on), and has fallen dramatically since 2003. Get your facts straight. The Sun's activity level gets it's main response from Earth a decade later, as shown by the correlation between temperature and solar cycle length. This is the inertia in the system. It means we will see serious drops in global temperature kicking in around mid 2014.

It's the sun, stupid.

And if you have any courage in your convictions, I'll see you for another $1000 on the same terms as Dean.

Put up or shut up.

Dean said:
> The majority of GISS, HadCrut, UAH, and RSS regressions for 2005 to 2020 (i.e. only HALF of a climate cycle) will have a positive slope. You're on. Pick any figure that strikes your fancy, up to $1000. The "judge" will be this forum

Rog responded:
Great, I'll see you for the full $1000.

Edited by tallbloke on 07/25/2010 04:14:57 MDT.

"The ISCCP (international cloud project) data shows that cloud cover dropped from 1980 to 1998. This allowed more solar insolation into the oceans ..."

I'm curious - so the earth IS heating up but it's due to either/or/both less sun being reflected by clouds or the sun getting hotter but whichever, it isn't CO2 or anthropogenic, but there's also no upward trend in global temperature despite the increase in insolation etc etc etc.

But what caused the drop in cloud cover? Transits of Venus?

And if, as has apparently been agreed by the Climate Doppers, the earth actually IS heating up might that not be driving the climate change we're seeing? But that's also confusing because at least some of the Climate Doppers, including a number in Australia, say that there is no such thing as climate change, whether due to either extra sun or more CO2 - and the current drought and high temperatures in South-Eastern Australia are a figment of my and the dam's imaginations and not due to any increase in insolation.

So to summarise: according to the Doppers the earth is heating up/isn't heating up and that has/hasn't led to climate change due to non-anthropogenic/non-CO2 reasons.

Seems clear enough to me.

Edited by Arapiles on 07/25/2010 05:57:47 MDT.

For some reason the image wont upload, but if you look here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
you'll see that the plot of TSI has it's peak around 1960 - hence my "decades".

As usual, the rest of you post is just bluster and noise. There is no evidence linking solar cycle length and temp, or a decade of "intertia" in the system, or any of the other nonsense you claim.

As for your bet, apart from the practical absurdity of making a bet whose outcome wont be known for a decade, (and covers too short a period for a linear regression to produce definitive results) I wouldn't trust you to pay up, so you can shove it.

"I wouldn't trust you to pay up, so you can shove it."

The world may, or may not, be heating up due to anthropogenic, or non anthropogenic, causes; however, this thread is heating up again, and the causes are definitely anthropogenic.

Pine no more for those halcyon posts of yesteryear, Nate.

Arapiles,
The Earth *was* heating up until 2003, it's been pretty much level since. The ISCCP data shows reduced cloud albedo to 1998. The Earthshine Project (Palle et al) which measures Earth's albedo by observing the amount of Earthlightlight reflected onto the Moon shows cloud increased again from the end of 1998 and has stayed at a higher level since. Ocean heat content has been falling since 2003, when the sunspot number fell below the long term average/ocean equilibrium value.

There are still periods when air temp increases in response to the release of solar derived energy from the oceans in El Nino events, but since this is resulting in declining ocean heat content due to raised cloud albedo/reduced insolation at the surface, the average air temp will fall with sea surface temps.

Both poles will be colder than average in another few months, and that hasn't happened for a long time now. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation has gone negative and we are due 30 years of cooler temps from that. Solar activity will be generally low for the next 60 years on my reckoning, very low for the next 22 years. Sea and air temp is about to take a big tumble over the next year from now. We will soon see who is right and who is wrong.

Stuart Allie shows his ignorance again. Here is the study on solar cycle length and it's relationship to temperature a decade later:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/solen_varsler.pdf

Since he judges others by his own standards, I'll stick to Dean's bet and ignore his further false accusations and ignorant denial of facts.

Just to annoy him some more, Here's Willie Soons graph of Sunshine hours versus temperature for Japan and China again:

.

Edited by tallbloke on 07/26/2010 03:46:01 MDT.

"So to summarise: according to the Doppers the earth is heating up/isn't heating up and that has/hasn't led to climate change due to non-anthropogenic/non-CO2 reasons.

Seems clear enough to me"

+1

Arapiles said:

"But what caused the drop in cloud cover? Transits of Venus?"

Increased solar activity if Henrik Svensmark is right. The experimental evidence on Forbush decreases looks good, and the CLOUD experiment at CERN should show some results before long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0

According to Nir Shaviv, the amplification of the solar signal in sea surface temperature is around 7-10 times over the solar cycle.
http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter

Arapiles said:
"I'm curious - so the earth IS heating up but it's due to either/or/both less sun being reflected by clouds or the sun getting hotter but whichever, it isn't CO2 or anthropogenic, but there's also no upward trend in global temperature despite the increase in insolation etc etc etc."

Either you just didn't bother to read what I said, or you did but you can't understand it, or you are deliberately trying to obscure the issue and ridicule people who are making an honest effort to work out what is really going on with climate. Which is it?

Doppers:
(Christianity / Protestantism) (in South Africa) a member of the most conservative Afrikaner Church, which practises a strict Calvinism.

It would seem this label might apply better to the members of the Cult of Carbon Culpability, who ignore, obfuscate, stonewall and marginalize all the new scientific developments which are calling their religious dogma into question. "The debate is over" "Our consensus says" etc etc etc.

Edited by tallbloke on 07/26/2010 00:58:17 MDT.

Rog

"Arapiles said:

"But what caused the drop in cloud cover? Transits of Venus?"

Increased solar activity if Henrik Svensmark is right."

So, there was greater insolation because of less cloud cover - which was caused by increased solar activity? Doesn't that seem a little circular to you?

"Either you just didn't bother to read what I said, or you did but you can't understand it, or you are deliberately trying to obscure the issue and ridicule people who are making an honest effort to work out what is really going on with climate. Which is it?"

Actually none of the above - the arguments being put forward simply struck me as being contradictory. And I don't doubt your honesty but I do doubt the honesty of a lot of the people who see it all as some massive conspiracy.

Re ridicule, how would you characterise your comments on "members of the Cult of Carbon Culpability, who ignore, obfuscate, stonewall and marginalize all the new scientific developments which are calling their religious dogma into question."?

Finally, re the derivation of "Dopper" - the Doppers I was referring to were the (historical) South African counter-movement to the Enlightenment - apparently a dopper was a candle-snuffer: the Doppers saw themselves as snuffing out the Enlightenment. The definition you gave (from Free Online Dictionary?) misses the point. For a better discussion try Rian Malan's "A Traitors Heart" - Malan was a grand-nephew of one of the architects of apartheid so he knew what he was talking about on the topic of doppers.

Rog, humor me. Just as an experiment to examine the efficacy of using data to support one's arguments, would you be willing to try, for a week, to be the devil's advocate and argue, using graphs and scientific reports, against your own present argument? In other words, to argue against yourself? The experiment might enlighten us all. The only caveat would be that you give it as much passion as you are giving your present argument. How about it?

Edited by butuki on 07/26/2010 07:42:25 MDT.

"So, there was greater insolation because of less cloud cover - which was caused by increased solar activity? Doesn't that seem a little circular to you?"

Total Solar Irradiance is the energy the sun puts out from it's surface which arrives at the top of the atmosphere. Insolation at the surface is what we are really interested in because that is what determines how much solar energy enters the oceans. TSI only varies a couple of Watts/meter squared over the solar cycle, but with cloud reduction feedback that can be amplified a lot at the surface.

If Svensmark is right, a more active sun with higher solar wind velocity keeps more galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. His evidence on Forbush Decreases points to GCR's seeding clouds - less GCR's = less clouds.

So, more active sun, less clouds, more heat into the ocean than the small change in Total Solar Irradiance would suggest, because the cloud reduction feedback amplifies the solar signal, as Nir Shaviv tells us.

So, not at all circular. A lot of people get mixed up about this, so you are not alone. The effect of lots of excess energy building up in the oceans seems to be a whopping big El Nino later on , as at 1998, and then a decaying curve of smaller ones during lulls in solar activity as the ocean heat content falls. This increases humidity levels, and therefore cloud cover, which then acts as a negative feedback to cool the Earth again.

Re ridicule, how would you characterise your comments on "members of the Cult of Carbon Culpability, who ignore, obfuscate, stonewall and marginalize all the new scientific developments which are calling their religious dogma into question."?

I would characterize it as something I wouldn't have said if you hadn't been labelling people sceptical of 'man made global warming' as "Climate Doppers". What I meant was that "Doppers" seems to apply to AGW believers more than those who are keeping an open mind and reassessing evidence on an ongoing basis. Your historical aside about attempts to snuff out the enlightenment confirms it. Probably for both of us in our opposing viewpoints. ;-)

would you be willing to try, for a week, to be the devil's advocate and argue, using graphs and scientific reports, against your own present argument?

Hi Miguel,
I've thought this one over. A good scientist is always looking for ways to falsify their own hypothesis, but I can't see a way of doing this with the opposing argument, because as far as I can see, it isn't scientific.

The Catastrophic man made global warming hypothesis rests on the argument that the increase in co2 observed since ~1950 is mostly of human origin, and has caused most of the observed rise in temperature over the last ~60 years. The proponents of this hypothesis don't have anything much to back this claim up with as far as I can see. It's true that the atmospheric co2 level has risen and global temperature (mostly northern hemisphere) has risen too, but correlation doesn't prove causation, especially when temperature always changes before co2 level does. Also, the sun's activity level was well above it's long term average during that period too.

The greenhouse effect is real, it adds around 29C to Earth's black-body radiant temperature, but whether or not the increase in the level of co2 in the atmosphere from 0.03% to 0.04% over the last 60 years has done anything that hasn't been counteracted by something else is unknown. According to physicist Ferenc Miscolczi, the greenhouse effect is saturated, and more co2 just leads to a faster hydrological cycle. No-on has yet rebutted his paper in the literature so far as I am aware.

The first 100 parts per million of co2 undoubtedly adds quite a lot to the greenhouse effect, but it's potency diminishes on a logarithmic scale as more is added. The change from 300ppm to 400ppm will only have made as much difference as the change from 30 to 60 ppm at best. That's the radiative physics of the situation that all are agreed on.

From an engineers perspective, this means whatever the co2 level gets up to is a fart in the breeze compared to the actions of water vapour, ocean bulk and solar forcing. Sun, clouds and sea are just so massive in their scale of effect on climate compared to trace gases in the atmosphere.

A simple experiment any backpacker can do to prove this to themselves is this. Take two platy's of cold water. Put one in the full sunshine and leave the other in the shade. The one in the sun will be getting 230W/m^2 of shortwave solar energy hitting it, plus ~340W/m^2 downwelling radiation from the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly water vapour). Come back a few hours later and test the temperature of the two platys. You'll find the water in the shade is no warmer despite the 340W/m^2 of downwelling longwave greenhouse radiation hitting it as well, but the water in the sun will have risen in temp from ambient to around 29C.

Now consider the implication of that for the oceans, which cover 70% of the Earth, at depths of up to 15000 feet.

The sun heats the ocean, the ocean heats the atmosphere, and the atmosphere loses heat to space while the convection of evaporated ocean water regulates the speed at which the ocean cools. That's the big picture. Any co2 in excess of around 120 parts per million is pretty much along for the ride, because the window of opportunity it has to do anything exciting is pretty small compared to what water vapour does.

Sun, sea and clouds, plus the adiabatic lapse rate experienced as you climb a mountain. These are some of my favourite things.

Edited by tallbloke on 07/26/2010 14:51:10 MDT.