|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 25, 2011 13:44:44 GMT 1
The Oxygen isotope is a proxy for temperature, the carbon isotope is a proxy for solar activity. See how closely the two are correlated over thousands of years. This information was extracted from stalagmites in Oman. Warmists seem to expect us to believe that this clear correlation no longer hold in the last few decades.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 26, 2011 7:35:56 GMT 1
According to Nature, the oxygen isotope is a proxy for rainfall www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6835/abs/411290a0.htmlThe conclusion of this paper (don't know if it is the same one you are referring to - you don't reference the source of the data in your post) is of a: This is hardly a big surprise - of course the sun affects the climate. This relates to the climate in Oman several thousand years ago. There are also new factors now, for instance human emissions of CO2. We don't know, and can't conclude, whether this correlation holds today. And even if it does, why would this invalidate AGW? As usual you are trying to draw conclusions which are not justified by the data and which are not claimed by the authors of the data.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 26, 2011 9:20:38 GMT 1
"The ratio of 18O to 16O in ice and deep sea cores is temperature dependent, and can be used as a proxy measure for reconstructing climate change." "During colder periods of the Earth's history (glacials) such as during the ice ages, 16O is preferentially evaporated from the colder oceans, leaving the slightly heavier and more sluggish 18O behind" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope_analysis#PaleoclimatologyFrom the abstract... "The delta18O record from the stalagmite, which serves as a proxy for variations in the tropical circulation and monsoon rainfall" 'serves as a proxy' is not the same as 'is a proxy' "The ratio of 18O to 16O in ice and deep sea cores is temperature dependent" That is a proxy for temperature. Inferences drawn from that proxy are not a proxy, they are inferences drawn from that proxy. www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6835/abs/411290a0.htmlConclusion: Proxy of a proxy is poxy. StuartG
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jul 26, 2011 10:48:49 GMT 1
I found this interesting article on Solar activity and the role it plays in climate. It might take the argument forward, although some AGW proponents may feel that Dr Theodor Landscheidt's research is too often used by AGW sceptics. www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htmFor me, one interesting fact is about sun's activity and cloud cover: We have often been warned about positive feedback systems and "tipping points", here we have an hypothesis about a negative feedback/self regulating system. P
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 26, 2011 15:26:22 GMT 1
This diagram has been used many times you only have to google (image) it.
How you people do pick and choose which proxies count!
What about ALL the palaeo proxies used by Mann et al most notably the ancient tree rings?
I wish you would apply your scepticism to your own pet guru's output.
You have to accept that proxies are AS GOOD AS IT GETS IN THE HISTORY OF CLIMATE, NickRs! But some are more credible than others.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 26, 2011 15:38:31 GMT 1
The IPCC tries to minimize the effect of the sun on temperature in order to exaggerate the role of a greenhousde gas. This is why knowledge of the history of natural variation is essential to any estimate of a human contribution.
Remember, it was Hubert Lamb, the founder of the CRU, who insisted that the basis of climatology had to be the knowledge of natural variation.
Not only does the IPCC downplay the role of the sun's variability it also completely omits water vapour, by far the most important greenhouse gas, from its list of forcings. How VERY scientific that is!
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 26, 2011 22:33:55 GMT 1
P. Non-Approved reading... "Nearly all of the energy that drives the climate system comes from the sun, and variations in solar radiation on several timescales are linked with substantial variations of Earth’s climate." "Solar irradiance also varies slightly over an 11-year cycle as the sun’s magnetic activity alters its energy output. Although the total energy output of the sun varies by only ~0.1% over the solar cycle [Fröhlich and Lean, 1998], radiation at longer UV wave- lengths increases by several percent. Still larger changes—a factor of two or more—are found in extremely short UV and X-ray wavelengths. For the past 200 years this fairly regular cycle has inspired researchers to link solar-cycle variations to variations in weather and climate. Ultimately, most of the proposed links came to naught because the relationships were specious. [Comment: UV and X-rays are more energetic than say IR or Long Wave radio waves. Hence even a small amount of extra UV/X-rays will have a greater energy input than say IR on the Earth.] "Solar-ozone mechanism. As noted above, the UV spectrum varies by several percent over a solar cycle. Since UV radiation is absorbed by ozone in the stratosphere, the concentration of ozone varies with the intensity of UV radiation. This radiativephotochemical mechanism effectively amplifies the solar cycle through a positive feedback with the ozone concentration, apart from dynamical feedbacks. Ozone variations have a direct radiative impact on the stratosphere and troposphere, and observations of temperatures are broadly consistent with the expected radiative forcing" www.nwra.com/resumes/baldwin/pubs/Baldwin_Dunkerton.pdfThe difference in energy levels was demonstrated pictorially in Kirkby's lecture on "Cosmic rays and climate" , Jasper Kirkby /CERN, CERN Colloquium, 4 June 2009 Sun (photosphere) seen in visible (677nm) at solar max (2001) on page 17 [looking benign, relatively] and... Sun (corona) seen with extreme UV eyes (20nm) on page 18 [looking very energetic] obtained here... indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576and be seen in the .pdf by flipping between the two with the mouse wheel These pages in the .pdf are the slides from the lecture on video here... www.youtube.com/watch?v=63AbaX1dE7I[as an aside MM holds out the hope that the CLOUD experiment results will be published, if they are they will be sidelined in some way or diluted ] StuartG
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 26, 2011 23:02:15 GMT 1
no sooner did I finish my last post, look what popped into my in-box... "CERN ´Gags´ Physicists to Keep Climate Change Conclusions Secret" "CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer has put a ´gag´ order on physicists at CERN due to an experiment regarding climate change. CERN says this is due to their results of a subatomic cosmic ray experiment, called CLOUD, likely being politicized. The CLOUD experiment expands upon the research of physicist Henrik Svensmark; which revealed that cosmic rays seed clouds. Nigel Calder explains that the IPCC did not take this cosmic cloud seeding into account when devising their climate theory. Despite the IPCC´s theory ignoring cosmic rays, CERN´s CLOUD experiment demonstrates that there is a close correlation between the earth´s temperature and the penetration of cosmic rays." www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=90239what a bloody joke. StuartG
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 27, 2011 7:21:38 GMT 1
I was simply pointing out that you had incorrectly stated that the O18 was a proxy for temperature whereas in this case it's actually a proxy for rainfall.
We are not talking about Mann etc but about stalagmites in Oman.
I repeat my question. Why do you think this study invalidates AGW?
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jul 27, 2011 10:11:59 GMT 1
Stu Thanks for your posts. I too am worried about the CLOUD scientists being told not to interpret their results because they would enter the politically charged climate change arena. Our only hope is that the publication will be of the FULL results and that this will allow other scientists who are not so hand-tied to interpret the results for the good of us non-scientist who are interested. Mind you, hope is not certainty! P
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 28, 2011 14:00:07 GMT 1
"Why do you think this study invalidates AGW?"
Because it demonstrates the close relationship between sun cycles and temperature that YOU think no longer apply having been replaced by anthropogenic effects in the late 20th Century.
Why do YOU think this close relationship has been superceded?
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 28, 2011 19:55:53 GMT 1
Quote from: « Reply #53 Yesterday at 6:21 » "I was simply pointing out that you had incorrectly stated that the O18 was a proxy for temperature whereas in this case it's actually a proxy for rainfall." That appears to be incorrect... ---- "Connection between temperature and climate" "The 18O/16O ratio provides a record of ancient water temperature." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_isotope_ratio_cycle#Connection_between_temperature_and_climate---- "Ocean waters rich in light oxygen: Conversely, as temperatures rise, ice sheets melt, and freshwater runs into the ocean. Melting returns light oxygen to the water, and reduces the salinity of the oceans worldwide. Higher-than-standard global concentrations of light oxygen in ocean water indicate that global temperatures have warmed, resulting in less global ice cover and less saline waters." earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_OxygenBalance/---- "As the δ 18O values reflect the temperature – the δ 18O value can be used as a proxy to show palaeo-temperatures. These can be used to show changes that occurred between glacial and interglacial conditions, and also smaller changes – such as the “Little Ice Age”. For instance, the δ 18O value related to temperature has been used as a proxy to generate mean sea temperatures for the Quaternary Period (figure 3). Figure 3: The record of the 18O composition of seawater during the Quaternary Period. The measurement of 18O is from carbonate deposit (from Imbrie et al., 1984, in Clarke and Fritz, 1997). (ii)" ---- Page 8 "20. For example, oxygen isotope records (18O/16O) locked up in the carbonate shells of marine microfossils called foraminifera, or in long-lived corals have been widely used to estimate past temperature, salinity, and circulation regimes, such as the intensity and frequency of past El Niño/Southern Oscillation events as well as related glacial-interglacial changes. Stable carbon isotope records (13C/12C) in foraminifera provide constraints on ocean circulation patterns, oceanic nutrient levels, as well as atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nitrogen isotopic ratios (15N/14N) have been used as a recorder of changes in the productivity and nutrient levels in seawater." www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC51/GC51InfDocuments/English/gc51inf-3-att3_en.pdf---- StuartG
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 28, 2011 20:38:01 GMT 1
As usual you are attributing comments to people that they have never made. Your usual tactic.
I said earlier on this page of this thread
Please do the courtesy of taking some notice of what other people write.
So we agree that the sun always has and will continue to affect the climate. No-one would disagree with this. The point is that there is now an additional factor, namely human emissions of CO2. This will almost certainly cause extra warming over and above the sun's effects.
Anthropogenic effects haven't replaced the sun's effect, they are in addition to it.
To put it another way, just because the sun affects the climate doesn't preclude other things also affecting the climate.
It's not a difficult concept.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 29, 2011 10:37:37 GMT 1
Anthropogenic effects haven't replaced the sun's effect, they are in addition to it.
So let's have the testable equations demonstrating this, please and allocating the warming between "natural" and "unnatural", please.
You're all hot air, NickRs
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 29, 2011 10:42:24 GMT 1
This is the famous IPCC diagram which relegates solar impact to virtually nothing. But it's all hot air just like NickRs flannel.
|
|