Back then, when we all believed...
-
ict558 wrote:
Why would the authors propose Solar Activity as the driver of climate change rather than CO2 on the basis of a study involving Central English Temperatures?
Thats explained in the piece.
ict558 wrote:
Oh? "The science is settled", then?
Science is never settled, but for the efect of solar activity on climate look at Herschel. http://www.agu.org/history/sv/articles/ARTL.html[^]
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Let us try again. 'The piece' refers to the paper "Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?"[^], which claims that the histories of Central England Temperatures and Solar Activity strongly suggest that low solar activity has caused colder European winters, and that jet-stream 'blocking' is the probable cause. (I did manage to grasp that it was not attempting to promote CO2 as a driver of climate change.) The study was limited to the history of Central England Temperatures. The study correlated Solar Activity and those temperatures. The study could not, therefore, pronounce on the hemispheric effect of Solar Activity. The study could not, therefore, pronounce on the global effect of Solar Activity. The study could not, therefore, propose Solar Activity as an alternative to CO2 as the driver of climate. So, why would the authors propose Solar Activity as the driver of climate change, rather than CO2, on the basis of a study which could not support the claim?
fat_boy wrote:
Science is never settled, but for the efect of solar activity on climate look at Herschel.
Try: <irony>Oh? "The science is settled", then?</irony> Being that your dismissive reaction was so similar to that of the 'Hockey Team'. As you say, science is never settled. That is why scientists specialising in the effect of Solar Activity on the climate can suggest several known mechanisms (based on published research) by which the 'blocking' effect could be produced. Studies continue to determine which (or, possibly, new) mechanisms.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
Let us try again. 'The piece' refers to the paper "Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?"[^], which claims that the histories of Central England Temperatures and Solar Activity strongly suggest that low solar activity has caused colder European winters, and that jet-stream 'blocking' is the probable cause. (I did manage to grasp that it was not attempting to promote CO2 as a driver of climate change.) The study was limited to the history of Central England Temperatures. The study correlated Solar Activity and those temperatures. The study could not, therefore, pronounce on the hemispheric effect of Solar Activity. The study could not, therefore, pronounce on the global effect of Solar Activity. The study could not, therefore, propose Solar Activity as an alternative to CO2 as the driver of climate. So, why would the authors propose Solar Activity as the driver of climate change, rather than CO2, on the basis of a study which could not support the claim?
fat_boy wrote:
Science is never settled, but for the efect of solar activity on climate look at Herschel.
Try: <irony>Oh? "The science is settled", then?</irony> Being that your dismissive reaction was so similar to that of the 'Hockey Team'. As you say, science is never settled. That is why scientists specialising in the effect of Solar Activity on the climate can suggest several known mechanisms (based on published research) by which the 'blocking' effect could be produced. Studies continue to determine which (or, possibly, new) mechanisms.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
You really cant read between the lines can you? Do you suppose that they could get a paper published which stated solar activity was the principle driver of global climate? Of course not. Its too much. But a paper which states that it affects only Europe (and here your logic fails because according to you they couldnt 'pronounce' on European temperatures using only Central England data, yet they have. And please, for gods sake dont argue this, its irrelevant) can be published because its implicaitons are less far reaching.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
You really cant read between the lines can you? Do you suppose that they could get a paper published which stated solar activity was the principle driver of global climate? Of course not. Its too much. But a paper which states that it affects only Europe (and here your logic fails because according to you they couldnt 'pronounce' on European temperatures using only Central England data, yet they have. And please, for gods sake dont argue this, its irrelevant) can be published because its implicaitons are less far reaching.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
Do you suppose that they could get a paper published which stated solar activity was the principle driver of global climate?
"The Sun drives Earth’s climate system. Therefore changes in the Sun must drive changes in Earth’s climate system". The first sentence is, of course, absolutely correct; but understanding why the second sentence does not follow from the first requires scientific training and study.[My emphasis] Lockwood, M 2010 Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum Proc. R. Soc.
fat_boy wrote:
and here your logic fails because according to you they couldnt 'pronounce' on European temperatures using only Central England data
They did not need to pronounce. They needed only to refer to the European climate records.
fat_boy wrote:
And please, for gods sake dont argue this, its irrelevant
Agreed, your point was, indeed, irrelevant.
fat_boy wrote:
But a paper which states that it affects only Europe ... can be published because its implicaitons are less far reaching.
You are so 2009.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
fat_boy wrote:
Do you suppose that they could get a paper published which stated solar activity was the principle driver of global climate?
"The Sun drives Earth’s climate system. Therefore changes in the Sun must drive changes in Earth’s climate system". The first sentence is, of course, absolutely correct; but understanding why the second sentence does not follow from the first requires scientific training and study.[My emphasis] Lockwood, M 2010 Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum Proc. R. Soc.
fat_boy wrote:
and here your logic fails because according to you they couldnt 'pronounce' on European temperatures using only Central England data
They did not need to pronounce. They needed only to refer to the European climate records.
fat_boy wrote:
And please, for gods sake dont argue this, its irrelevant
Agreed, your point was, indeed, irrelevant.
fat_boy wrote:
But a paper which states that it affects only Europe ... can be published because its implicaitons are less far reaching.
You are so 2009.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
ict558 wrote:
They needed only to refer to the European climate records.
Does Central England data do for the whole of Europe?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
ict558 wrote:
They needed only to refer to the European climate records.
Does Central England data do for the whole of Europe?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
Does Central England data do for the whole of Europe?
What part of "They needed only to refer to the European climate records." did you not understand?
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
fat_boy wrote:
Does Central England data do for the whole of Europe?
What part of "They needed only to refer to the European climate records." did you not understand?
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
But you wrote "The study was limited to the history of Central England Temperatures." And now you are saying the study used data from across Europe?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
But you wrote "The study was limited to the history of Central England Temperatures." And now you are saying the study used data from across Europe?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
and here your logic fails because according to you they couldnt 'pronounce' on European temperatures using only Central England data
They did not need to pronounce. They needed only to refer to the European climate records.
fat_boy wrote:
And now you are saying the study used data from across Europe?
No. The study used the CET history to suggest that: "colder UK winters (relative to the longer-term trend) can therefore be associated with lower open solar flux (and hence with lower solar irradiance and higher cosmic ray flux)". Section 5 (Discussion and implications for the future[^]) proposes a mechanism by which this association can be explained. Supporting evidence is not provided by the study, but by the referenced papers, which refer to the excessively cold conditions recorded in Europe during the Maunder Minimum.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
fat_boy wrote:
and here your logic fails because according to you they couldnt 'pronounce' on European temperatures using only Central England data
They did not need to pronounce. They needed only to refer to the European climate records.
fat_boy wrote:
And now you are saying the study used data from across Europe?
No. The study used the CET history to suggest that: "colder UK winters (relative to the longer-term trend) can therefore be associated with lower open solar flux (and hence with lower solar irradiance and higher cosmic ray flux)". Section 5 (Discussion and implications for the future[^]) proposes a mechanism by which this association can be explained. Supporting evidence is not provided by the study, but by the referenced papers, which refer to the excessively cold conditions recorded in Europe during the Maunder Minimum.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
ict558 wrote:
They needed only to refer to the European climate records.
But by your admission they have not refered to European records, only to one in central England (and there are plenty others tht go back a long way that could have been used, like De Bilt) so, to use your words and logic, they are equally unable to 'pronounce' on European weather. However, going back to my original point that if the effect that existed during the LIA also exists today why would not all NH weather be afected and not just that of the UK? Of course it IS affected. Just look at the evidence. THay cant SAY the whole NH is affected because its too much of a divergence form the "CO2 is driving climate". If they did they wouldnt get published.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
ict558 wrote:
They needed only to refer to the European climate records.
But by your admission they have not refered to European records, only to one in central England (and there are plenty others tht go back a long way that could have been used, like De Bilt) so, to use your words and logic, they are equally unable to 'pronounce' on European weather. However, going back to my original point that if the effect that existed during the LIA also exists today why would not all NH weather be afected and not just that of the UK? Of course it IS affected. Just look at the evidence. THay cant SAY the whole NH is affected because its too much of a divergence form the "CO2 is driving climate". If they did they wouldnt get published.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
so, to use your words and logic, they are equally unable to 'pronounce' on European weather
It has nothing to do with 'my' logic, Tub, the cold European winters during the Maunder Minimum are a matter of record - they have no need to, and do not, pronounce upon them. The authors are not attempting to correlate Solar Activity with European temperatures, but are attempting to establish a mechanism by which the low Solar Activity could bring about the extreme Central England winter temperatures. Put (very) simply: They link the low UK temperatures with more frequent easterly winds. They link the frequent easterly winds with winter blocking events in the eastern Atlantic area. They note that persistent winter blocking events are further east at low Solar Activity. In winter, these high pressure areas bring cold air to Europe (which includes the UK). If they persist, extremely cold temperatures result. Low Solar Activity -> Colder Winters. BTW: To pronounce is to express one's opinion.
fat_boy wrote:
However, going back to my original point that if the effect that existed during the LIA also exists today why would not all NH weather be afected and not just that of the UK?
I should investigate that, if I were you, I believe there are papers that explain it.
fat_boy wrote:
Of course it IS affected. Just look at the evidence.
Oh, no need for you to investigate, then. But the localisation of a single cooling event does not undermine the LIA. There are other things going on in the atmosphere, I am told.
fat_boy wrote:
THay cant SAY the whole NH is affected because its too much of a divergence form the "CO2 is driving climate". If they did they wouldnt get published.
Well, firstly, it would be "CO2 is driving climate change". Secondly, they have been published. On the first couple of pages of a quick search I have found several papers that undermine the role of CO2 [emissions]. Some reducing its effect by 50%, some eliminating it as a driver of climate [change] altogether. These are peer reviewed academic papers published during Jan-2001 to Oct-2009, i.e. at the time that the 'Hockey Team' were in the ascendant. These papers themselves refer back to a body of work from the 1970s to 1990s. A steady increase in un
-
fat_boy wrote:
so, to use your words and logic, they are equally unable to 'pronounce' on European weather
It has nothing to do with 'my' logic, Tub, the cold European winters during the Maunder Minimum are a matter of record - they have no need to, and do not, pronounce upon them. The authors are not attempting to correlate Solar Activity with European temperatures, but are attempting to establish a mechanism by which the low Solar Activity could bring about the extreme Central England winter temperatures. Put (very) simply: They link the low UK temperatures with more frequent easterly winds. They link the frequent easterly winds with winter blocking events in the eastern Atlantic area. They note that persistent winter blocking events are further east at low Solar Activity. In winter, these high pressure areas bring cold air to Europe (which includes the UK). If they persist, extremely cold temperatures result. Low Solar Activity -> Colder Winters. BTW: To pronounce is to express one's opinion.
fat_boy wrote:
However, going back to my original point that if the effect that existed during the LIA also exists today why would not all NH weather be afected and not just that of the UK?
I should investigate that, if I were you, I believe there are papers that explain it.
fat_boy wrote:
Of course it IS affected. Just look at the evidence.
Oh, no need for you to investigate, then. But the localisation of a single cooling event does not undermine the LIA. There are other things going on in the atmosphere, I am told.
fat_boy wrote:
THay cant SAY the whole NH is affected because its too much of a divergence form the "CO2 is driving climate". If they did they wouldnt get published.
Well, firstly, it would be "CO2 is driving climate change". Secondly, they have been published. On the first couple of pages of a quick search I have found several papers that undermine the role of CO2 [emissions]. Some reducing its effect by 50%, some eliminating it as a driver of climate [change] altogether. These are peer reviewed academic papers published during Jan-2001 to Oct-2009, i.e. at the time that the 'Hockey Team' were in the ascendant. These papers themselves refer back to a body of work from the 1970s to 1990s. A steady increase in un
ict558 wrote:
"the effect that existed during the LIA also exists today " I should investigate that, if I were you, I believe there are papers that explain it.
THis is why you havent understood pretty much everything I have written. The original piece I linked to stated this, and that is the point. That since the same effect was in force back then and affected the whole NH how can the same efect today only effect the UK? Once again, the fact is it isnt only affecting he UK. Its affecting the US too. And here is my point, they cant currently state that NH climate is solar driven because its too much of a divergence from the current position and to do so wold ensure non publication of the paper.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville