Irrelevant and probably not true given higher temps in the medieval warm period. Here, educate yourself FC. And, if you can't understand it, just read the last few paragraphs in bold. If you want to see the charts associated with the article go to the link. By Joseph DâAleo, AMS Fellow, CCM The AO and NAO (Arctic Oscillation and North Atlantic Oscillation) has been predominantly negative this winter continuing a trend sine the 1990s. It has produced a brutal winter in Russia, especially Siberia into northern and sometimes central China with cold spells and snow in Europe and the United States. After a rebound last year, we seem to be still on a trend down since 1990. Climate models had indicated an upward trend. Note how the AO which reached record low levels in 2009/10 winter rebounded late in the 2010/11 winter and stayed higher in 2011/12 before falling again this year. That matches the solar cycle which bottomed out from 2007/08 through 2009/10 before spiking late in 2010/11 and peaking at the start of the 201/12 winter. it has fallen since and February came in with a SSN of just 38, well below the forecast (red). Solar flux too dropped to 104 sfus at a time we are supposed to be near solar max for this cycle. Notice how stratospheric warmings, which produce high latitude blocking and a negative AO and last for 4 to 6 weeks which were rare and mostly near max and min have been almost every years since the sun went âasleepâ. The AO and NAO are forecast to stay very low. NASA SHOWED A CONNECTION OF THE SUN WITH NAO Shindell et al in the following NASA Earth Observatory story a decade ago related the Maunder Minimum conditions and blocking to the low solar ultraviolet which through ozone chemistry warms the upper atmosphere in low and middle latitudes. When the sun is quiet the UV which changes 6-8% in the 11 year cycle stays near solar minimum levels. The solar flux is said to be a good proxy for the UV. See the temperatures their ozone/UV model showed for the Maunder Minimum versus normal solar times. See the - NAO!! Here is what they wrote: Many things can change temperatures on Earth: a volcano erupts, swathing the Earth with bright haze that blocks sunlight, and temperatures drop; greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, and temperatures climb. From 1650 to 1710, temperatures across much of the Northern Hemisphere plunged when the Sun entered a quiet phase now called the Maunder Minimum. During this period, very few sunspots appeared on the surface of the Sun, and the overall brightness of the Sun decreased slightly. Already in the midst of a colder-than-average period called the Little Ice Age, Europe and North America went into a deep freeze: alpine glaciers extended over valley farmland; sea ice crept south from the Arctic; and the famous canals in the Netherlands froze regularly - an event that is rare today. The impact of the solar minimum is clear in this image, which shows the temperature difference between 1680, a year at the center of the Maunder Minimum, and 1780, a year of normal solar activity, as calculated by a general circulation model. Deep blue across eastern and central North America and northern Eurasia illustrates where the drop in temperature was the greatest. Nearly all other land areas were also cooler in 1680, as indicated by the varying shades of blue. The few regions that appear to have been warmer in 1680 are Alaska and the eastern Pacific Ocean (left), the North Atlantic Ocean south of Greenland (left of center), and north of Iceland (top center). If energy from the Sun decreased only slightly, why did temperatures drop so severely in the Northern Hemisphere? Climate scientist Drew Shindell and colleagues at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies tackled that question by combining temperature records gleaned from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and the few measurements recorded in the historical record, with an advanced computer model of the Earthâs climate. The group first calculated the amount of energy coming from the Sun during the Maunder Minimum and entered the information into a general circulation model. The model is a mathematical representation of the way various Earth systems -ocean surface temperatures, different layers of the atmosphere, energy reflected and absorbed from land, and so forth -interact to produce the climate. When the model started with the decreased solar energy and returned temperatures that matched the paleoclimate record, Shindell and his colleagues knew that the model was showing how the Maunder Minimum could have caused the extreme drop in temperatures. The model showed that the drop in temperature was related to ozone in the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere that is between 10 and 50 kilometers from the Earthâs surface. Ozone is created when high-energy ultraviolet light from the Sun interacts with oxygen. During the Maunder Minimum, the Sun emitted less strong ultraviolet light, and so less ozone formed. The decrease in ozone affected planetary waves, the giant wiggles in the jet stream that we are used to seeing on television weather reports. The change to the planetary waves kicked the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) - the balance between a permanent low-pressure system near Greenland and a permanent high-pressure system to its south - into a negative phase. When the NAO is negative, both pressure systems are relatively weak. Under these conditions, winter storms crossing the Atlantic generally head eastward toward Europe, which experiences a more severe winter. (When the NAO is positive, winter storms track farther north, making winters in Europe milder.) The model results, shown above, illustrate that the NAO was more negative on average during the Maunder Minimum, and Europe remained unusually cold. These results matched the paleoclimate record. Note: The Maunder Minimum was followed by quiet periods in the 106 and 212 cycles shown as the Dalton Minimum and the early 1900 quiet era. A quiet sun leads to more -NAO, more cold winter weather. We may be entering at least a Dalton like Minimum, but even if it was like the early 1900s, it could get very cold after the Atlantic follows the Pacific into its cold phase with the low solar (next minimum due around 2020). The solar brightness (visible changes only 0.1% in the 11 year cycle), but there are significant amplifiers. We do not have a good estimate of their magnitude but they are much greater than the brightness. They include the UV discussed, the diffusion of cosmic rays which affects the nucleation of low clouds (Svensmark effect) and geomagnetic which produces warming in higher latitudes (ionization visible as the aurora). This suggest the IPCC has greatly underestimated the solar effect while the flattening of temperatures for 17 years as per Pachauri and the Hadley center suggest they have seriously overestimated ANY greenhouse warming from CO2. I donât profess to know exactly what the number are but the arrows suggest the direction. So if the sun continues in its doldrums, we should see more interesting winters. Europe and Asia have had some brutal cold the last 5 years and very heavy snows. Many European scientists are said to be baffled, bewildered and confused by the cold not forecast by their super computer models and some are beginning to believe they donât understand the climate they way they thought they did. We have had 4 of the top 5 snowiest winters for the hemisphere for the last decade. Remember the forecasts that snow would become a rare commodity. Wait until the AMO follows the PDO negative with the quiet sun for broad North American cold, but it should be interesting and snow should be in the picture most years. We have not gotten the winter ranking yet, but I would guess 2012/13 will rank high up given December was snowiest ever for the hemisphere and January #6. We were well above in February too. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
and yet 97% of elite climate scientist don't think so. Interesting. I guess they haven't been reading Joe's blog. LOL. Oh, and BTW, the solar output has gone down over the last 50 years. And CO2 is a very important greenhouse gas. I thought you would like to know these thing as they seem to have escaped your attention.
Well, you already know everything you have said above is a lie. I guess that is all you have though. Maybe you and your lies will slowly fade away like a bad dream. In the mean time we will keep slamming you with the truth when you post your fabrications.
And in 2011 and 2012, Australia endured their coldest winters in over 50 years. In 2008 Australia had their coolest summer in over 50 years. This global warming is going to be a real crisis for them.
So you are still pushing the totally fabricated 97% figure. Do you believe that if you repeat a lie often enough it will become the truth?
No really....... 97%. Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (October, 2009) American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases." (August 2012) American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earthâs physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (November 2007) American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate systemâincluding the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasonsâare now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007) American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (December 2006) Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change "The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earthâs climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October 2006) American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change "There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." (July 2004) National Science Academies U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (pdf) "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005) International academies: Joint science academiesâ statement: Global response to climate change (pdf) "Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the worldâs climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring." (2005, 11 national academies of science) International academies: The Science of Climate Change "Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified." (2001, 16 national academies of science) Research National Research Council of the National Academies, Americaâs Climate Choices "Most of the recent warming can be attributed to fossil fuel burning and other human activities that release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." America's Climate Choices, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010 U.S. Climate Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009) "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases." Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." Doran surveyed 10,257 Earth scientists. Thirty percent responded to the survey which asked: 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? and 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Naomi Oreskes "Oreskes analyzed 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the ISI database with the keywords 'climate change.'... Of all the papers, 75 percent either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it; 25 percent dealt with methods or ancient climates, taking no position on current anthropogenic [human-caused] climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, IPCC, 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. âWarming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea levelâ âMost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.â IPCC defines "very likely" as greater than 90% probability of occurrence. Sign-on Statements The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change: Scientistsâ letter to the U.S. Congress. Statement signed by 18 scientists. "We want to assure you that the science is strong and that there is nothing abstract about the risks facing our Nation." (2011) Climate Change and the Integrity of Science Signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences. "... For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. ... The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. ...Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation." (2010) U.S. Scientists and Economists' Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions "We call on our nation's leaders to swiftly establish and implement policies to bring about deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions. The strength of the science on climate change compels us to warn the nation about the growing risk of irreversible consequences as global average temperatures continue to increase over pre-industrial levels (i.e. prior to 1860). As temperatures rise further, the scope and severity of global warming impacts will continue to accelerate." (2008) http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
So, you are still having trouble with some basic facts about AGW. I repeat it because it's true. Do you think ignoring facts will make them go away? LOL A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004). This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had masterâs degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.