Heliogenic Climate Change

“Abstract: To estimate climate sensitivity from observations, Lindzen and Choi [2009] used the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent responses in the top-of-atmosphere outgoing radiation from the ERBE satellite instrument. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SST were used to evaluate feedbacks. This work was subject to significant criticism by Trenberth et al. [2009], much of which was appropriate. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper in which the various criticisms are addressed and corrected. In this paper we supplement the ERBE data for 1985-1999 with data from CERES for 2000-2008. Our present analysis accounts for the 36 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper which simply used what may have been undue smoothing. The present analysis also distinguishes noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. Finally, a more reasonable approach to the zero-feedback flux is taken here. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics and extend the effect of these feedbacks to the global climate. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zero-feedback fluxes thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric GCMs [global climate models] forced by the observed SST are less than the zero-feedback fluxes consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The observational analysis implies that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.”  “On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications“  h/t The Hockey Schtick

Posts on Lindzen and Choi 2009 here, here, and here.

“Abstract: This report compares the raw with the United States Historical Climatology Network Version 2 (USHCN V2) adjusted temperature records for the twenty-four USHCN listed temperature stations in the state of Pennsylvania. Averaging over the twenty-four stations the raw data yielded a small linear decline with temperatures trending -0.1 ± 0.1 ºC/century, while the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USCHN) Version 2 adjusted data revealed an increase of 0.7 ± 0.1 ºC/century.  …

Conclusions: In the state of Pennsylvania the raw temperature record reveals no significant change in temperature over the period from 1895 to 2009. The USHCN V2 adjusted temperature record shows an increase of less than a degree Celsius over those years.  … In both the short and longer term cases the USHCN V2 adjusted data yielded trends that were roughly 1ºC per century higher than those found in the raw temperature records.”  “A REVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK VERSION 2: ADJUSTED TEMPERATURE RECORD FOR PENNSYLVANIA, U.S.A.“

Nicola Scafetta has a new paper out, “Climate change and its causes — a discussion about some key issues” (13MB pdf).  It is well worth a read.  One “key issue” is “a large 60 year cycle in the temperature record” (p. 19).  Says Scafetta:

“It has been observed that several multi-secular climatic and oceanic records present large cycles with periods of about 50-70 years with an average of 60 years [18].17 Figure 10 [below] shows the global temperature record detrended of its quadratic upward trend [19] depicted in Figure 1. This sequence has been filtered of its fast fluctuations (by applying a six year moving average smooth algorithm) and it has been plotted against itself with a time-lag of about 60 years. The figure clearly suggests the existence of an almost perfect cyclical correspondence between the periods 1880-1940 and 1940-2000. The peak in 1880 repeats in 1940 and again in 2000. The smaller peak in 1900 repeats in 1960. This 60-odd year oscillation cannot be associated with any known anthropogenic phenomenon [19]. (See also Appendixes Q and R).”

-

What causes this 60-year cycle?  Scafetta goes on (p. 22):

“If the temperature is characterized by natural periodic cycles the only reasonable explanation is that the climate system is modulated by astronomical oscillations.20 Natural cycles known with certainty are the 11 (Schwabe) and 22 (Hale) year solar cycles, the cycles of the planets and luni-solar nodal cycles [19,24]. Jupiter has an orbital period of 11.87 years while Saturn has an orbital period of 29.4 years. These periods predict three other major cycles which are associated with Jupiter and Saturn: about 10 years, the opposition of [the] two planets; about 20 years, their synodic cycle; and about 60 years, the repetition of the combined orbits of the two planets. The major lunar cycles are about 18.6 and 8.85 years.

Figure 12 shows a spectral analysis of the global surface temperature and of a record that depends on the orbits of planets (the speed of the sun relative to the center of mass of the solar system [19]). The two records have almost the same cycles. The temperature record contains the cycles of the planets combined with the two solar cycles of 11 and 22 years and a lunar cycle at about 9.1 years.21 (See also Appendixes Q-V).  …

The physical mechanisms involved in the process are likely numerous. The gravitational forces of the planets can partially modulate the solar activity. For example, it was noted that the alignment of Venus, Earth and Jupiter presents cycles of approximately 11 years that are in phase with the 11-year solar cycles [21] and multi secular reconstructions of solar activity reveal 60-year cycles associated with the combined orbit of Jupiter and Saturn and other longer cycles [22]. Solar changes could modulate climate change through various physical and chemical processes as explained in Section 6, which are currently not included in the models, as explained in Section 6.

There is also the possibility that the Earth’s orbital parameters are directly modulated by the gravitational forces of Jupiter, Saturn and the Moon, and the Sun’s magnetic force in such a way that the length of day is modulated and/or other planetary parameters are altered.  For example, the rotation of the Earth on its axis shows 60-year cycles that anticipate those of the temperature by a few years [18, 23]. Variations in the Earth’s rotation and tides caused by the lunar cycles can drive ocean oscillations, which in turn may alter the climate [19]. For example, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) present clear 60-year cycles and other faster cycles, see Figures 14 and 15. None of these mechanisms are included in the models adopted by the IPCC.”

Prior posts on the Jovian planets’ tidal influence on the Sun here.  Anthony Watts covers the paper here.

Anthony Watts had a post awhile ago (while I was on the Colorado River) discussing the new paper “CONTIGUOUS U. S. TEMPERATURE TRENDS USING NCDC RAW AND ADJUSTED DATA FOR ONE-PER-STATE RURAL AND URBAN STATION SETS” by Edward R. Long, Ph.D., illustrating both the urban heat island (UHI) effect and the faulty adjusting of urban and rural raw data in the U.S.  The two graphs here are from the paper (extracted by Anthony).

The first graph shows rural versus urban raw data.  What is striking is that (1) the raw rural data show that the 1930s were warmer than today and (2) the UHI effect is evident and large.

The second graph shows the same data after NCDC adjusts it.  One would expect that the rural raw data would not be adjusted and that the urban raw data would be adjusted downward to take into account the UHI effect.  But instead NCDC adjusts the rural raw data upward until it nearly matches the urban data!  The NCDC adjusted temperature record is clearly urban biased.

“And this is the “Temperaturegate” aspect: The NCDC’s massaging — they call it “adjusting” — has resulted in an increase in the rural values, from a raw value of 0.11^oC/century to an adjusted value of 0.58^oC/century, and no change in the urban values. That is, the NCDC’s treatment has forced the rural value to look more like that of the urban. This is the exact opposite of any rational consideration, given the growth of the sizes of and activities within urban locations, unless deception is the goal.”  “A Pending American Temperaturegate“  h/t Hide the decline

“Say what? What could possibly justify that kind of adjustment, seven tenths of a degree? The early part of the record is adjusted to show less warming. Then from 1973 to 1989, Matanuska is adjusted to warm at a feverish rate of 4.4 degrees per century … but Matanuska is a RURAL station. Since GISS says that the homogenization effort is designed to change the ”long term trend of any non-rural station to match the long term trend of their rural neighbors”, why is Matanuska  being adjusted at all?“  “Fudged fevers in the frozen north“

“Czechgate: Climate scientists dump world’s second oldest ‘cold’ climate record“

Maybe that imaginary AGW “warm air” that “holds more moisture” and “leads to more snowfall” is doing this to Lake Eire:

[Lake Eire] is about 90 to 95 percent ice-covered, and more cold temperatures forecast for the next week or so could freeze the entire lake, National Weather Service meteorologists in Cleveland said.

“We’re thinking it probably will ice over the rest of the way,” said weather service meteorologist Karen Oudeman.  …

The lake hasn’t completely frozen over since the winter of 1995-96 … , said George Leshkevich, a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Mich.  “Lake Erie could freeze over entirely for first time in years“

“A leading scientist has revealed that Europe could be just five years away from the start of a new Ice Age.  …

[R]enowned physicist Vladimir Paar says most of central Europe will soon be covered in ice.  …

Professor Paar, from Croatia’s Zagreb University, has spent decades analysing previous ice ages in Europe and what caused them.  …

“Previous ice ages lasted about 70,000 years. That’s a fact and the new ice age can’t be avoided.  …

“This could happen in five, 10, 50 or 100 years, or even later. We can’t predict it precisely, but it will come,” he added.

And the professor said that scientists think global warming is simply a natural part of the planet.

“What I mean is that global warming is natural. Some 130,000 years ago the earth’s temperature was the same as now, the level of CO2 was almost the same and the level of the sea was four metres higher.  …  ,” he said.

And he added: “The reality is that mankind needs to start preparing for the ice age. We are at the end of the global warming period. The ice age is to follow.  … [W]e do not know precisely when it could start – but soon.”"  “Croat scientist warns ice age could start in five years“  h/t Prison Planet

“Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been urged by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) to abandon all of its in-house adjustments to temperature records. This follows an admission by NIWA that it no longer holds the records that would support its in-house manipulation of official temperature readings.  …

“The only inference that can be drawn from this is that NIWA has casually altered its temperature series from time to time, without ever taking the trouble to maintain a continuous record. The result is that the official temperature record has been adjusted on unknown dates for unknown reasons, so that its probative value is little above that of guesswork. In such a case, the only appropriate action would be reversion to the raw data record, perhaps accompanied by a statement of any known issues,” said Terry Dunleavy, secretary of NZCSC.

“NIWA’s website carries the raw data collected from representative temperature stations, which disclose no measurable change in average temperature over a period of 150 years. But elsewhere on the same website, NIWA displays a graph of the same 150-year period showing a sharp warming trend. The difference between these two official records is a series of undisclosed NIWA-created ‘adjustments’.

“Well qualified climate scientist members of our coalition believe that NIWA has forfeited confidence in the credibility of its temperature recording procedures, and that it cannot be trusted to try to cover up its own ineptitude by in-house adjustments. What is needed is open access in the public domain to all of the known reasons for post-reading adjustments to enable independent climate analysts to make their own comparative assessments of temperature variations throughout New Zealand since the middle of the 19th century,” said Mr Dunleavy.”  “NIWA Unable To Justify Official Temperature Record“

“What this shows is that on average the adjustment process more than quadrupled the trend in raw temperatures, increasing the trend of the mean from 0.0113 for raw data to 0.0536.” “Long record GHCN analysis”

From “Climategate: Leaked Emails Inspired Data Analyses Show Claimed Warming Greatly Exaggerated and NOAA not CRU is Ground Zero“  h/t Hockey Schtick

“Mike McMillan (17:28:30) :

I’ve completed USHCN vs USHCN version 2 blink comparison charts for Wisconsin. As with the Illinois charts, the majority of stations had their raw data adjusted to show more warming by lowering the temperatures in the first half of the 20th century.

That brings the raw data more in line with the GISS homogenized versions. I haven’t blinked the original GISS with the new homogenized charts yet, but I’d bet a nickle they’ll show even more warming.

Wisconsin original USHCN raw / revised raw data -
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_wisconsin.htm

Illinois original raw / revised raw -
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions.htm”

From:  “USHCN – U.S. Historic Cimate Network“

“It seems the temperature readings were adjusted six times after analysis in July 1999 indicated that the temperature anomaly for 1934 was nearly 60%  [0.5 C] higher than for 1998. See the above graphic for how GISS adjusted 1934 down and 1998 up until 1998 was warmer than 1934 (the January 2007 analysis) or at least virtually indistinguishable (the March and August 2007 analyses).”  “US version of Climategate coming?“  h/t The Air Vent

“Joseph [D'Aleo] did the leg work to find the real raw data and compare it to the NOAA / NCDC GHCN “UN-adjusted” data. What he finds are that the “UN-adjusted” data are very much adjusted (and some of us would say very much “maladjusted” ;-)

Just look at that. Up to 3 whole degrees of F (over 3 in a couple of places) of added “warming trend” via the NOAA / NCDC “unadjusted” adjustments. Heck, even the language you must use to describe what is going on is painful to the ear. But what else to call it? The lable NCDC applies is “unadjusted” so that has to be used to know which data set I’m talking about. The data are clearly changed, so it is adjusted. And we are left with lumpy terms in quotations like – “Unadjusted” adjusted data.

It looks to me like we will need to go all the way back to “first sources” to have any hope of finding out what is really going on in the temperature history of the planet. GHCN “Unadjusted” clearly is too adjusted to be suitable to the task.”  “GHCN – Does “unadjusted” mean cooked?”

Update:  Joe may be mistaken (see comment by Gene Zeien).

“[Antarctica is] not melting anything like as much as expected [by alarmists]. In fact, during the continent’s summer this time last year, there was less melting than at any time in the 30 years that we have had reliable satellite measurements of the region.  …

John King of the British Antarctic Survey, based in Cambridge, warned against misinterpreting the lack of summer warming.

“Climate change denialists will use this work as evidence that Antarctica is not warming, despite the authors saying their works show no such thing,” he said.”  “Why Antarctica Isn’t Melting Much — Yet“

“

and the last 65 million years:

based on oxygen isotope ratios in fossils. See here.” Via “The Hockey Schtick“

“Last year I posted an analysis of satellite observations of the 2007-08 global cooling event, showing evidence that it was due to a natural increase in low cloud cover. Here I will look at the bigger picture of what how the satellite-observed variations in Earth’s radiative budget compare to that expected from increasing carbon dioxide. Is there something that we can say about the relative roles of nature versus humanity based upon the evidence?

What we will find is evidence consistent with natural cloud variations being the dominant source of climate variability since 2000.”  Read the rest here:  “Clouds Dominate CO2 as a Climate Driver Since 2000“

“Notice that nice rosy red [on the gistemp anomoly map] over the top of Bolivia? Bolivia is that country near, but not on, the coast just about half way up the Pacific Ocean side. It is almost entirely high cold Andes Mountains.  …

One Small Problem. There has not been any thermometer data in GHCN since 1990.

None. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.

So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data?

Easy. GIStemp “makes it up” from “nearby” thermometers up to 1200 km away. So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Peru and the Amazon Jungle.

Not exactly the same as snow capped peaks, but hey, you gotta make do with what you have, you know? (The official excuse given is that the data acceptance window closes on one day of the month and Bolivia does not report until after that date. Oh, and they never ever would want to go back and add date into the past after a close date. Yet they are happy to fiddle with, adjust, modify, and wholesale change and delete old data as they change their adjustment methods…)

What about that other red spot in the middle of Canada? Yup, you guessed it. No thermometers survive in GIStemp in Yukon and The Northwest Territories, and only one survives in Nunavut (at the northern edge of Canada, but in a location called The Garden Spot of the Arctic due to the unusual warmth of the area allowing a variety of plants and animals to survive there that do not survive elsewhere.  …

How about all that Red in the Arctic? Well, no surprise, there are no thermometers up there. Yes, all that red across the top is fiction. It is called “estimation” based on ice estimates and “interpolation” and even “the reference station method” but in the end it all comes down to “just made up”.”  “GHCN – GIStemp Interactions – The Bolivia Effect“

“Until now, many scientists believed the prominence of the Sierra Nevada developed more recently, with rapid “uplift” over the past 20 million years. In this new study, the team has shown the mountain range was in fact just as tall as far back as 50 million years ago as it is today. They also discovered the region was 6-8 degrees Celsius warmer than today, consistent with other evidence for a globally warmer, ice-free Earth at that time.” “Fossil Leaves Depict Warm, High Sierra Nevada Mountains in Ancient Past“