Cult of Climastrology members think the primary, heck, in some cases, the only, driver of climate. At lest during the current warm period. Reality and science say different. This comes via NoTricksZone
The sun drives the climate: Proof of the 90 and 200-year cycles in the earth’s climate history
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)Solar activity fluctuates very much in cycles, among them the Gleissberg Cycle over 90 years, plus or minus 30 years. In March 2015 a study by Orgutsov et al. appeared in the journal Advances in Space Research which discovered the solar Gleissberg Cycle during the growth period of the northern hemisphere over the past 450 years. The authors suspected a solar impact on temperatures on plant growth. The abstract:
Evidence for the Gleissberg solar cycle at the high-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere
Time evolution of growing season temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere was analyzed using both wavelet and Fourier approaches. A century-scale (60–140 year) cyclicity was found in the summer temperature reconstruction from the Taymir peninsula (∼72° N, ∼105° E) and other high-latitude (60–70° N) regions during the time interval AD 1576–1970. This periodicity is significant and consists of two oscillation modes, 60–70 year and 120–140 year variations. In the summer temperatures from the Yamal peninsula (∼70° N, ∼67° E) only a shorter-term (60–70 year) variation is present. A comparison of the secular variation in the Northern Hemisphere temperature proxies with the corresponding variations in sunspot numbers and the fluxes of cosmogenic 10Be in Greenland ice shows that a probable cause of this variability is the modulation of temperature by the century-scale solar cycle of Gleissberg. This is consistent with the results obtained previously for Northern Fennoscandia (67°–70° N, 19°–33° E). Thus, evidence for a connection between century-long variations in solar activity and climate was obtained for the entire boreal zone of the Northern Hemisphere.â€A year earlier Ogurtsov and a Finnish colleague had already published another paper on the Gleissberg cycles in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. Back then they reported a solar Gleissberg Cycle in the nitrate concentrations in polar ice cores:
Head on over and read the rest.
We also know that the 11 year solar cycle has an undeniable impact on climate. And there are 23 major papers this year alone on the complex topic of the sun and climate.
Warmists are more than willing to admit that the Sun was one of the major drivers of climate, along with other natural processes, in past warm and cool periods. But, now, they will barely admit that the sun and other natural drivers have any effect. It couldn’t possibly be because they have a political agenda, could it?
Actually, it’s because climate scientists are aware of solar influences on climate that they can largely rule out solar influences on the current warming trend.
Varenholt is also the author of “The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe”, a very good book on the sun’s role in climate cycles.
You mean the “current warming trend” that’s given us, according to satellite data, 18 years of… no warming.
Of course the Sun is a major driving force and of course the Sun is now in a rather cool part of the cycle, so why was last year the hottest on record? Why is this year expected to have even hotter temps if the Sun is NOT generating more irradiance than say 50years ago?
In fact the Sun has been in a cooling trend for the last 35 years even as. Our temps have gone up
Teach it us the climate truthers who refuse to say why temps have gone up as the Sun has cooled since it peaked in 1960 for power
so why was last year the hottest on record?
Uh, it wasn’t.
Why is this year expected to have even hotter temps…?
Uh, expected by whom?
NOAA: 2014 Earth’s warmest year on record
Most climate scientists. (It depends on the strength and duration of the El Niño.)
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/how-will-el-ni%C3%B1o-affect-2015%E2%80%99s-placement-among-warmest-years-record
Forgot the first link.
NOAA: 2014 Earth’s warmest year on record
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201412
And among the coldest 3% of years in the last 10,000.
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true. Yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 18 January 2015
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/20/2014-the-most-dishonest-year-on-record/
If anybody is still in any doubt that it is UNSCIENTIFIC to make claims about hottest years, without taking into account error bars, I would advise what the World Meteorological Organisation had to say on the issue in their report on global temperatures for 2006: “All temperature values have uncertainties, which arise mainly from gaps in data coverage. The size of the uncertainties is such that the global average temperature for 2006 is statistically indistinguishable from, and could be anywhere between, the first and the eighth warmest year on record.†–Paul Homewood, Not A Lot of People Know That, 17 January 2015
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/20/2014-the-most-dishonest-year-on-record/
The claim refers to the instrumental record.
The claim refers to the instrumental record.
Sure, but of the ten highest temperatures in the record, nine are from this century. And speaking of statistics, there is a strong signal in the historical record consistent with greenhouse warming, but not consistent with solar warming.
Um, no. Note the line for the 1961-1990 average.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/marcott2-13_11k-graph-610.gif?itok=HrOTBQaE
“Why is this year supposed to have the hottest temps…Most climate scientists…. it depends on the strength of the El Nino.” Of course the number of scientists is irrelevant, as this is supposed to be science, not politics. But anyway, the hottest because of an El Nino only proves that natural events leave a larger footprint than all that CO2. “2014, earth’s warmest year on record.” If so, even with NOAA’s tampering, would only mean the warmest since 1880 or so, with the use of thermometers. In other words, there’s no comparable evidence other than these 135 years of how hot or cold it was in the past. 135 years out of the other 4 billion that we don’t know about does not make a trend. It doesn’t mean a thing.
That explains why it is warmer than non-El Niño periods, but not why this El Niño period is warmer than any previous on record. It could be solar variation, but that is not consistent with the data.
There’s a lot of evidence about the climate of the past. Indeed, there’s an entire field of research called palaeoclimatology. The Earth apparently oscillates chaotically between ice ages and periods without ice caps.
Four billion years ago, the Earth was probably very hot, though crust was beginning to solidify, resulting in plate tectonics. The atmosphere was dense, and liquid water existed on the surface.
The claim refers to the instrumental record.
Yes it does.
“But not why this El Niño is warmer than any on previous record..” Again, we’re only looking at 135 years so there were obviously warmer ones in the past. Which makes this alleged one a non-event. “There’s a lot of evidence about the climate of the past….” But there are no comparable temperature records to say “the hottest year or coolest year”, so again, when one says 2014 was the hottest all it means, if true, is in the last 135 years. Obviously it was warmer before so another non-event. And a 135 year data window out of 4billion is not enough for any kind of a trend.
That’s the instrumental record, but we have a great deal of evidence of past climate change, and the mechanisms involved. Those mechanisms do not account for the current warming trend, and there is substantial evidence of greenhouse warming.