General AGW discussion thread

[William]

This thread is started to record global temperature changes March 2008 to March 2009 and significant climatic change observations in the same period.

Based on the solar magnetic field modulation of cloud hypothesize, the planet should cool to roughly 1880 temperatures by March 2009, if the change matches the largest estimate of the cloud forcing function (Svensmark’s) and if the solar magnetic cycle moves to a Dalton minimum. (Based on the slope of past abrupt climate changes and assuming past abrupt climate changes were driven by solar magnetic field changes. See comments, for caveat. The solar magnetic cycle modulation of clouds hypothesis is still being evaluated, by the scientific community.)

The following is a graph that shows how global temperature has increased in the 20th century. Also included is a monthly global temperature deviation table that shows the first indication of global cooling (2008 February, cooling of about 0.35C to about 0.12C.)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/graphs/Fig.C.txt

The Baud thread “solar cycle 24” outlines how changes to the solar magnetic field are hypothesized to modulate planetary cloud cover. The paleoclimatic data shows that there are periodic abrupt drops in planetary temperature which correlate with solar magnetic field changes, but there has not been until the 21th century a hypothesized mechanism as to how solar magnetic cycle changes could possibly affect the earth’s temperature.

As noted in the Baud solar cycle 24 thread there are also a minority of solar physics that are predicting that cycle 24 will be move to a Dalton minimum (period of low solar magnetic cycle activity.) As noted in the same thread, there is observational evidence that supports the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted.

There are a minority of scientists (Svensmark, Shiva, and so forth) who have stated that a significant portion of the 20th century warming is due to solar magnetic field changes that increase or decrease the total amount of planetary cloud cover. (A link to Svensmark’s paper is provided below. See comments, for caveat.)

The following is Svensmark’s paper “Cosmoclimatology”. (The Baud thread solar cycle 24 is a better summary.)

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...k)&cookieSet=1

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...4.2007.48118.x

Comments:
1) Although papers have been written to support the solar magnetic modulation of cloud hypothesis and there is data to support that hypothesis, this subject is not resolved and there have been critical papers written that challenge the solar cloud modulation papers.

2) There are historic observations from the turn of the 19th century that can be used to predict how the climate in different regions would change if the planetary temperatures drop to 1880 levels by March 2009.

[orionjim]

Originally Posted by William

This thread is started to record global temperature changes March 2008 to March 2009 and significant climatic change observations in the same period.

Based on the solar magnetic field modulation of cloud hypothesize, the planet should cool to roughly 1880 temperatures by March 2009

You are suggesting using the GISS NASA Land/Ocean chart to compare to. Do you have any idea how cold it would have to get to change the earth’s land/ocean temperature by .8 C (the amount to get the temp. back to 1880’s) in one year? The land/ocean chart was used to get rid of most of the yearly land temperature variation, it's sort of like double averaging the data.

I would suggest using the Land data only and calculate significance limits to compare to.

Jim

[William]

In reply to orionjim's comment:

I would suggest using the Land data only and calculate significance limits to compare to.

Your above comment makes sense, there does, however, seem to be a larger than expected drop in land + ocean temperature, already. This is a summary of the by month land+ocean temperature anomalies. Has the land + ocean temperature anomaly dropped 0.35C?

Monthly Mean Surface Vs Surface & Ocean Temperature Anomaly (C)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.txt

Here are some thoughts, as to why the drop in planetary temperature, might be faster than expected.

1) Tinsley and Yu's cloud modulation mechanism (In response to changes in electroscavenging and GCR) is greatest over the ocean (as the atmosphere over the ocean is ion poor) and over specific regions of the ocean (40 degree to 60 degree latitude). The forcing function is therefore not linear over the entire planet. (i.e. There will more relative cooling, faster relative cooling over specific latitudes of the ocean.)

2) Svensmark stated in his book that to explain past abrupt climate changes that slightly less than 0.6C of the 0.7C 20th century warming would need to be due to solar changes. Using that assumption then roughly 0.6C of the 20th century warming would be due to electroscavenging. The cooling is then 0.6C + 1.2C = 1.8C. Where the 1.2C is due to increased GCR (reduced solar large scale magnetic field and reduced number of sunspots, Dalton like minimum.) and the 0.6C is due to less electroscavenging (reduced solar wind bursts from solar magnetic storms).

The following is my back of the envelope calculation using an assumed cooling of 1.8C with an assumed e folding time for the solar magnetic field of 4 years and an assumed cooling of the top 50m of the ocean of also 4 years. Based on this calculation the ocean land temperature would take until 2011 to drop to 1880 levels. As the ocean + land temperature drop is possibly already -0.35 (A drop of -0.35C should not have occurred until 2009 based on this calculation) this calculation might be too conservative. The prediction of a drop in temperature of -0.8C by 2009 March, might therefore be possible.

Table 2, (Assume -1.8C total change)
2007 0
2009 -0.32
2010 -0.60
2011 -0.84
2012 -1.03
2013 -1.19
2014 -1.32
2015 -1.42

[William]

In reply to orionjim's comment:

I would suggest using the Land data only and calculate significance limits to compare to.

The following is the calculation you suggested using land + ocean. Does the planet appears to be cooling? Is the ocean temperature anomaly now negative?

January, 2008 Land + Ocean Temperature Anomaly is 0.12C compared to 0.56C Average 2003 to Jan. 2008. Standard deviation for that period is 0.118. 0.12C is 3.6 sigma.

Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly (C)
--------------------------------------------
Year+Month Station Land+Ocean
2006.04 .56 .44
2006.12 .76 .57
2006.21 .65 .55
2006.29 .62 .47
2006.38 .40 .43
2006.46 .64 .53
2006.54 .57 .43
2006.62 .70 .58
2006.71 .66 .55
2006.79 .76 .60
2006.88 .74 .62
2006.96 .81 .69
2007.04 1.09 .87
2007.12 .82 .63
2007.21 .72 .59
2007.29 .78 .66
2007.38 .72 .55
2007.46 .53 .53
2007.54 .62 .51
2007.62 .78 .56
2007.71 .72 .50
2007.79 .77 .55
2007.88 .66 .49
2007.96 .60 .40
2008.04 .31 .12

Land + Ocean (Above Normal)
Average (2003 to Jan, 2008) = 0.55
Standard Deviation Same Period = 0.118
2008 Jan, 2008 = 0.12 (3.6 Sigma)

Data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.txt

[Tunga]

There might be a better question to ask. Is the global cooling effect resulting from the downturn of the sun's magnetic field already underway?
http://gcdailyworld.com/story/1312291.html
This January was the coldest worldwide since January 1989.

Last years news articles talked about the unusual loss of Arctic ice as evidence that man-made global warming was underway. A recent NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/g.../19/73798.html
In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow. Cold weather in Vietnam killed nearly 60,000 cattle. This winter is the coldest on record in Afghanistan. The death toll of people killed by unusually severe cold weather in Afghanistan since December last year has risen to 926. It also killed 100,000 cattle in Afghanistan. Many cold records are falling this winter especially in Asia.

All of this is happening at a time when the strength of the sun's magnetic field (as evidenced by the effects of the solar winds on perturbing the Earth's magnetic field - Ap index, AA index) are at unusual lows.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Tunga

All of this is happening at a time when the strength of the sun's magnetic field (as evidenced by the effects of the solar winds on perturbing the Earth's magnetic field - Ap index, AA index) are at unusual lows.

I have looked through the Ae index given here and I do not see anything unusual about it. So, magnetospherically there is nothing different. Also, IMHO, Ap and AA indices are not really very useful in describing the disturbance of the Earth's magnetosphere. In my 8 years or Earth magnetospheric work I have not used these indices in any of my papers.

Also, the solar wind magnetic field remains at its usual value, varying between 0.2 and 80 nT, with a normal value of about 6 nT.

Interestingly, I found the following comments on geomagnetic activity and solar cycle:

Originally Posted by Oulu Space Physics Dept

11-year variability

The 11-year variability of the geomagnetic activity (e.g., Ellis, 1900) has been recently studied by Vennestrom and Friis-Christensen (1996). They suggest that the activity can be divided into three peaks:

1. Shortly before sunspot maximum. Linked with transient solar activity, and seen with relatively larger amplitude in ring current (storm) activity than in substorm activity.
2. About 2 years after sunspot maximum. Largest peak compound of transient and recurrent magnetic activity (the former dominating?).
3. Descending phase of the solar cycle. Largely recurrent, and seen with larger amplitude in substorm activity than in ring current (storm) activity.

So, as far as I can see, there is no "unusual low."

[Tunga]

tusenfem writes "So, as far as I can see, there is no "unusual low.""

This article discusses the low and also contains a graph (1991-2008) of the Ap index.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com...sunspots-gone/

There is also some discussion here about solar cycle 24 & 25.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._longrange.htm

"AA Index" is not the most precise indicator but it has the advantage of a monthly data timeline going back to 1868. Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) data timeline goes back to 1880. Therefore "AA Index" permits a long term analysis against ocean temperature. "Ap Index" is a better parameter but has a shorter data history. Other parameters such as solar wind speed and density may be even a better parameter but are only a recent data series. Therefore when looking at a link between long-term temperature trends and the intensity of the magnetic field within the solar winds, the "AA Index" is a rough order approximation.

[William]

In reply to tusenfem:

Look at figure 12 in the attached which shows the number of solar magnetic storms per year, from 1865 to present and the corresponding number of sunspots. There is a roughly 20 times increase in the number of magnetic storms at the end of the solar cycles, when comparing the 20th century to the 19th century.

http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/earthmag.html#_Toc2075558

Background:
Mechanism:
The paleo record shows both a period of warming similar to the 20th century and cooling. The warming is hypothesized to be caused by electroscavenging were solar wind bursts create a space charge in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. The second mechanism is solar modulation of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR). More GCR more clouds (cooler planet) and less GCR less clouds (warmer planet). This paper by Brian Tinsley and Fangqun Yu “Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate” outlines the two mechanisms.

http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf


Paleo Record
The paleoclimatic record indicates that in the past there have been a series of abrupt climatic changes, at which time there is concurrent solar magnetic field changes. The abrupt climatic changes were confirmed as they are found in multiple independent proxy sources. (Ocean floor sediment, ice core data, and so forth.) There is smoking gun evidence that changes in the sun are causing abrupt climate change on the earth.

The question is: What is the mechanism? TSI changes are not enough to cause the temperature changes observed. Kaplan’s recent paper 2006 indicates that the abrupt climate changes are global, affecting both hemispheres simultaneously, which rules out orbital changes of insolation as the driver, as orbital changes in insolation affect each hemisphere roughly 90 degrees out of phase.

This paper for example, discusses the Younger Dryas abrupt temperature change. The largest solar change in the last 20 kyrs is noted to occur at the same time the planet abrupt changes from interglacial back to glacial.

Reduced solar activity as a trigger for the start of the Younger Dryas? By Hans Renssen et al.

http://www.geo.vu.nl/~renh/pdf/Renssen-etal-QI-2000.pdf

From the Younger Dryas paper:

Estimates for the increase in 14C at the start of the YD all demonstrate a strong and rapid rise: 40-70 %/% within 300 years (Goslar et al., 1995), 30-60%/% in 70 years … (Hughen et al.,1998) and … in 200 years (Hajdas et al., 1998). This change is apparently the largest increase of atmospheric 14C known from late glacial and Holocene records (Goslar et al., 1995). Hajdas et al. (1998) used this sharp increase of atmospheric 14C at the onset of the YD as a tool for time correlation between sites. What are the possible causes for this large increase in atmospheric 14C? Geomagnetic variations are not a likely cause, since these generally act on a much longer timescale (i.e. millennia).

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by William

In reply to tusenfem:

Look at figure 12 in the attached which shows the number of solar magnetic storms per year, from 1865 to present and the corresponding number of sunspots. There is a roughly 20 times increase in the number of magnetic storms at the end of the solar cycles, when comparing the 20th century to the 19th century.

http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/earthmag.html#_Toc2075558

So, basically that says that there is no unusual low as stated by Tunga, or what do you want to say?

[William]

In reply to tusenfem's comment: So, basically that says that there is no unusual low as stated by Tunga, or what do you want to say?

I do not understand your question. Is it is there evidence to support the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted or that an interruption in the solar magnetic cycle will result in global cooling?

I have provided observational data and logic to support the assertion that the solar magnetic field has been interrupted. In the Baud thread "sun cycle 24" there are three papers referenced that predict an imminent, solar magnetic cycle minimum based three different logical premises: 1) solar physical model, 2) An analysis of the paleo record of past solar magnetic cycle changes, and a third based on solar barycentric motion that matches the paleo record.

In the Baud thread "solar cycle 24", there are multiple papers that provide paleoclimatic evidence of semi periodic abrupt climate change that correlation with past solar magnetic field changes. There is satellite data and analysis of the earth's albedo, provided in the Baud thread "solar cycle 24" that supports the assertion that there was a reduction in planetary cloud cover which would have caused a portion of the planetary warming during the 20th century.

Based on the paleoclimatic record the planet should if that line of reasoning is correct, abruptly cool, due to solar magnetic field changes which will increase planetary cloud cover. So far the planetary temperature data does indicate abrupt cooling.

This is for example, only one of a large group of papers all of which note past abrupt climate changes correlated with solar magnetic field changes. The problem was how did a solar change if it was not a change in TSI, affect planetary temperature.

Link: Role of solar forcing upon climate change

http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q...ng/VanGeel.pdf

"A number of those Holocene climate cooling phases... most likely of a global nature (eg Magney, 1993; van Geel et al, 1996; Alley et al 1997; Stager & Mayewski, 1997) ... the cooling phases seem to be part of a millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independent of the glacial-interglacial cycles (which are) forced (perhaps paced) by orbit variations."

"... we show here evidence that the variation in solar activity is a cause for the millennial scale climate change."

Last 40 kyrs

Figure 2 in paper. (From data last 40 kyrs)... "conclude that solar forcing of climate, as indicated by high BE10 values, coincided with cold phases of Dansgaar-Oeschger events as shown in O16 records"

Recent Solar Event

"Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) "...coincides with one of the coldest phases of the Little Ice Age... (van Geel et al 1998b)

Periodicity

"Mayewski et al (1997) showed a 1450 yr periodicity in C14 ... from tree rings and ...from glaciochemicial series (NaCl & Dust) from the GISP2 ice core ... believed to reflect changes in polar atmospheric circulation.."

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by William

I do not understand your question. Is it is there evidence to support the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted or that an interruption in the solar magnetic cycle will result in global cooling?

Well, you came up with this reference, replying to a comment I made to a post by Tunga. I just point out that what you write and what is in the paper is inconsistent with what Tunga claimed that magnetospheric activity was at an "unusual low".

I have not even considered the warming/cooling by magnetospheric activity.

And by the way, this forum is called BAUT with a T not a D.

[William]

In reply to tusenfem: I have looked through the Ae index given here and I do not see anything unusual about it. So, magnetospherically there is nothing different. Also, IMHO, Ap and AA indices are not really very useful in describing the disturbance of the Earth's magnetosphere. In my 8 years or Earth magnetospheric work I have not used these indices in any of my papers.

Based on how the cloud modulation mechanism “electroscavenging” works (see comment) the geomagnetic index to measure to determine if there is correlation is Ak rather than AA.

Paper by Georgieva, Bianchi, & Kirov “Once again about global warming and solar activity”

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760.....76..969G.pdf

From that above paper:

"It has been noted that in the last century the correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity has been steadily decreasing from - 0.76 in the period 1868-1890 to 0.35 in the period 1960-1982, ... According to Echer et al (2004), the probable cause seems to be related to the double peak structure of geomagnetic activity. The second peak, related to high speed solar wind from coronal holes, seems to have increased relative to the first one, related to sunspots (CMEs) but, as already mentioned, this type of solar activity is not accounted for by sunspot number. In figure 6 long term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataga 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p< 0.01."

Comment
1) The electroscavenging mechanism is controlled by changes in the ionosphere space charge which changes the global electric current. According to Tinsley an increase in the global electric current, results in the removal of cloud forming ions. Palle's satellite research data and analysis supports Tinsley's assertion.
2) Average land + ocean temperature appears to have dropped 0.5C, March, 2007 March to Feb. 2008.
3)The largest drop in temperature (March,2007 to Feb.,2008) has been in ocean surface temperature which supports the assertion that the change in planetary temperature is caused by a sudden increase in low level clouds, due to an abrupt drop in electroscavenging (electroscavenging removes cloud forming ions) and an abrupt increase in GCR (GCR creates cloud forming ions), as the atmosphere over the ocean is ion poor.

[William]

Regional meteorological observations, in 2007 and 2008 show the first indication of abrupt cooling?

Southern Hemisphere had record cold winter, 2007

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Frig...ere_Winter.pdf

It was an outstanding winter for us in part of South America. Buenos Aires in Argentina had its first snow since 1918. Southern Brazil experienced 4 consecutive months of cold and below average temperature with daily and all-time records.”

Santiago, Chilean capital, had its coldest winter since the Little Ice Age. The last time it was so cold there was in 1885 (see Padahuel plot from NASA GISS).”

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ra...frica_999.html

Snow fell on South Africa's biggest city Johannesburg for the first time in 25 years as icy temperatures gripped vast swathes of the country on Wednesday, the weather office said. .... "Sleet has been recorded occasionally since then, but never snow," added climatologist Tracey Gill.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...ter-in-decades

Europe

In Britain the barmy February weather came to an abrupt halt at the weekend as temperatures plunged to -10C in central England.

Middle East

..the Middle East saw snow, with Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman and northern Saudi Arabia reporting the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. ..

Antarctic

Figures show that there is nearly a third more ice (my comment yearly freezing of ocean surrounding Antarctic ice sheet) in Antarctica than is usual for the time of year.

Arctic Ice

Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels.

[William]

This is a link to a summary and pictures (I was surprised by the pictures which compare their 2007 winter to past events.) that a South American meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart has written concerning South America’s 2007 record cold winter. I would expect based on the solar modulation of cloud mechanisms that the next South American winter (starting May, 2008 will be more extreme.)

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&ct=res...q-g-18_pvGNBZQ

Comment:
Eugenio Hackbart is the Chief Meteorologist for MetSul Weather Center, a private weather center located in Sao Leopoldo, state of Rio Grande do Sul, Southern Brazil. His opinions are published in Portuguese at the site: www.metsul.com

[William]

Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System to a step change

Background
There is evidence of a recent abrupt drop in planetary temperature based on the NASA data. (See below comment and above comments for details.) Although regional meteorological observations (in both hemispheres), supports a drop in planetary temperature, additional data is required to confirm the change is real.

When there is more data, it should be possible to determine the magnitude of the forcing function change which appears to be related to the recent solar magnetic cycle changes and to determine the final equilibrium temperature (assuming a long term solar magnetic cycle change.)

This paper is a good overview of the science and technical issues, concerning the planet’s response to a step change in forcing. It examines planetary temperature changes to step changes in forcing from volcanic eruptions, to estimate the planetary time constant to be 5 years +/- 1 yr. In addition, it finds evidence for a planetary response to a forcing change of 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(W m-2).

The current evidence of an abrupt change in planetary temperature supports a short time constant. (See the paper for details as to why the planet has a short time constant. The reason is that the layers of the earth's ocean do not mix due to density differences. This paper's findings is consistent with paleoclimatic evidence of abrupt climate changes. It is also consistent with a basic text book I have on Atmospheric Science.)


Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System, S. E. Schwartz

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

In contrast to these studies (my comment: which assert a time constant of 40yr to 400 yrs) there is a growing body of observational evidence to suggest that the time over which changes in climate can take place can be quite short, just a few years. High-resolution studies of temperature change in ice cores as inferred from isotope ratios and other variables demonstrate substantial widespread temperature change in periods as short as five to ten years [Taylor et al., 1997; NRC, 2002; Alley et al., 2003].

…cooling of global proportions in 1816 and 1817 followed the April, 1815, eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia. Snow fell in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and portions of Massachusetts and New York in June, 1816, and hard frosts were reported in July and August, and crop failures were widespread in North America and Europe – the so-called "year without a summer" (Stommel and Stommel, 1983). More importantly from the perspective of inferring the time constant of the system, recovery ensued in just a few years. …

From an analysis of the rate of recovery of global mean temperature to baseline conditions between a series of closely spaced volcanic eruptions between 1880 and 1920 Lindzen and Giannitsis [1998] argued that the time constant characterizing this recovery must be short; the range of time constants consistent with the observations was 2 to 7 years, with values at the lower end of the range being more compatible with the observations.

… time constant of about 2.6 years is inferred from the transient climate sensitivity and system heat capacity determined by Boer et al. [2007] in coupled climate model simulations of GMST (My comment GMST is global mean surface temperature) following the Mount Pinatubo eruption. Comparable estimates of the time constant have been inferred in similar analyses by others [e.g., Santer et al., 2001; Wigley et al., 2005].

Comments:
Based on the NASA Land + Ocean (Above Normal)
Average (2003 to Jan, 2008) = 0.55C (Above deemed normal.)
Temperature Jan, 2008 = 0.12C (Above deemed normal, 3.6 Sigma significant.)

Change in planetary temperature over about a year = -0.43C

[William]

This is a link to University of Oulu’s Cosmic Ray data site. This site provides long term trend data of neutron counts which are proportional to galactic cosmic rays (GCR). This is a link to a request for data from Jan. 1, 2001 to March 10, 2008. The neutron counts, as shown in the plot of the data, have increased roughly 12% in the last two years, which is due to the reduction in the solar heliosphere.

http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/Request.dl...=00&mR=00&PD=1

If this link does not work, go directly to the University of Oulu site set start at “Jan 1, 2001 and end to Jan. 2008.

http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/

As noted in the comments above, according to the solar modulation of cloud hypothesis, a reduction in solar wind bursts which has recently occurred will result in less electroscavenging. As electroscavenging removes cloud forming ions, this change should result in more planetary clouds.

In addition as solar cycle 24 has failed to start there is a weaker solar heliosphere. Due to the weaker solar heliosphere there are now 12% more GCR striking the earth's upper atmosphere which should also create more cloud forming ions, particularly over the oceans which are ion poor.

Based on the hypothesis, less electroscavenging and more GCR should result in more clouds over the oceans, which are ion poor. An increase in planetary clouds should cool the planet. (This is a link to a paper that explains the electroscavenging mechanism and the GCR mechanisms.)

http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

This is a link to noaa ocean surface data. As the data shows, the planet's oceans have started to cooled. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html

[William]

The following data (over the next year or so) can be used to prove or disprove the solar magnetic cycle hypothesis and to determine the relative contribution of CO2 to the 20th century warming. (See comment.)

This is the by month average ocean/land temperature. (This temperature is a composite.)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.txt

This is a link to a site that provides the ocean surface temperature. The temperatures are updated every 3 to 4 days. As noted, by others the planet’s oceans have recently cooled. The question (need data to answer) is will the oceans continue to cool and if so, by how much.

Compare April 2000 to April 2008.

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html

Comments:
1) The solar magnetic cycle appears to be stalled. If the solar magnetic cycle fails to start, then there will be an increase in galactic cosmic rays that strike the earth's atmosphere. In accordance with Svensmark/Tinsley/Yu/Palle’s theory, an increase in GCR will cause an increase in clouds over the oceans which are ion poor. More planetary cloud cover will cool the planet.
2) In the 20th century according to Palle’s satellite and earthshine analysis there was a reduction in planetary cloud cover due to the process electroscavenging. Electroscavenging is the name for the process where high speed solar wind bursts create a space charge in the ionosphere which in turn increases the global electric circuit and removes cloud forming ions.
3) The paleoclimatic record shows a series of gradual warmings similiar to the 20th century warming and also abrupting cooling periods. There is evidence of correlation with solar magnetic cycle changes to the cooling periods but there was no known mechanism as to how a change in the solar magnetic cycle could cause a reduction in planetary temperature.

[HypothesisTesting]

Originally Posted by William

This is a link to a summary and pictures (I was surprised by the pictures which compare their 2007 winter to past events.) that a South American meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart has written concerning South America’s 2007 record cold winter. I would expect based on the solar modulation of cloud mechanisms that the next South American winter (starting May, 2008 will be more extreme.)

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&ct=res...q-g-18_pvGNBZQ

Comment:
Eugenio Hackbart is the Chief Meteorologist for MetSul Weather Center, a private weather center located in Sao Leopoldo, state of Rio Grande do Sul, Southern Brazil. His opinions are published in Portuguese at the site: www.metsul.com

I saw on yesterday's world surface temp. plot at weather.co.uk that a cold air mass already has intruded as far north as about northern Argentina. That seems to support this idea

[George]

There is some interesting skepticism coming from a Senate report, apparently stemming from news out of the UN Global Warming Conference taking place now in Poland.

Here.

This does not mean they are against the idea of Global Warming nor even against the idea that some warming being due to man's involvement.

[Swift]

Here is a working link and some content.

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The linked page is part of the Inhofe EPW Press Blog, as in Republican Senator Jame Inhofe of Oklahoma and the Environment & Public Works Committee, which he is a member of.

I take that as meaning this is his private blog, and does not necessarily reflect the official position of either the committee or the US Senate.

I am very suspicious of several things about this. First, who are these 650 scientists and why does a raw count (650 vs. 52) matter. Personally, the opinion of 52 climatologists about global warming is a lot more important than 650 electrical engineers (I love EEs, I'm just picking on them for the moment). And I'm pretty positive that more than 52 scientists worked on IPCC 2007, 52 is probably just the committee heads or the principle authors.

Second, I'm suspicious that the attack is also on Al Gore. As I've said numerous times, Al Gore is only a spokesperson for Al Gore, and frankly, whether he is right, wrong, or something in between on global warming doesn't matter to the IPCC or most anyone else.

[George]

Originally Posted by Swift

I am very suspicious of several things about this. First, who are these 650 scientists and why does a raw count (650 vs. 52) matter. Personally, the opinion of 52 climatologists about global warming is a lot more important than 650 electrical engineers (I love EEs, I'm just picking on them for the moment).

Both links list some impressive credentials applicable to atmospheric science. However, it is doubtful they all are as credible as those listed in the link. At least one, Lord Nigel Lawson of Blaby, is reportedly an economist.

And I'm pretty positive that more than 52 scientists worked on IPCC 2007, 52 is probably just the committee heads or the principle authors.

Yes. Isn't it closer to 2000 total? I believe the governments signed-off on their report, which should have involved even more scientists.

Second, I'm suspicious that the attack is also on Al Gore. As I've said numerous times, Al Gore is only a spokesperson for Al Gore, and frankly, whether he is right, wrong, or something in between on global warming doesn't matter to the IPCC or most anyone else.

This doesn't surprise me that the main firgurehead would be mentioned.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by George

This doesn't surprise me that the main firgurehead would be mentioned.

Oh, it doesn't surprise me. I just don't think it proves anything significant about GW.

I've noticed a lot of people who disagree on global warming seem to like to attack Gore or his movie or things like that, rather than the IPCC or serious studies. But to me, showing that Al Gore misspoke in his movie, for example, has close to no significance as to whether global warming is real or not, IMHO.

[Ara Pacis]

650? Wow, I guess I can start burning lots of oil again.

[mike alexander]

Well, if Lord Nigel Lawson of Blaby says it's rubbish, that's good enough for me!

[Pippin]

I can see all the reputable sources used in their analysis:
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/200...t-ever-growth/
this is verifiable proof obviously along with the authors other very good works:
Space Aliens May Have Destroyed Home Planet With CO2 Emissions
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/200...co2-emissions/

Well I'm convinced ! :P

[Swift]

Is the second link a joke? (I suspect not, which is really scary, that he thinks that Hubble data was some hidden NASA warning about GW).

[Pippin]

Sadly no it was not a joke, I clicked on a few of the supporting links from the original article. I didn't click them all, but none of the ones I clicked were from anyone remotely "reputable".

[captain swoop]

Originally Posted by mike alexander

Well, if Lord Nigel Lawson of Blaby says it's rubbish, that's good enough for me!

He was Chancellor in Thatchers Govt in the 80s

[mike alexander]

Space Aliens May Have Destroyed Home Planet With CO2 Emissions

I was able to trace this back to The Onion.

No, really, I just made that up.

I'm sure Lord Nigel would offer that, along with a patrician sniff, as proof of.... well, I don't know.

For God's sake, don't tell this guy about interstellar clouds of carbon monoxide!

[tdvance]

The main take-away would be that "a consensus believe..." oft used in arguments is either inaccurate or oversimplified. 650 (not 650 random citizens, 650 who presumably know what they're talking about) is certainly a statistically significant dissent. I always wondered what Feynman, often railing against "cargo cult science", would say. Of "Nuclear Winter" proposed by Sagan, et al., he said, "those guys don't know what they're talking about". I suspect if he were alive today, he'd be saying something similar.

I believe the status is--there is no proof, certainly not in the sense of General Relativity or Quantum Electrodynamics, that temperature observations are anything more than natural climate cycles. I think the "burden of proof" should be high in science, as it is in physics, chemistry, and even the very complex medicine.