tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post6457325401113283016..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The Sun explains 95% of climate change over the past 400 years; CO2 had no significant influenceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-76776478607229472862017-04-28T19:18:44.513-07:002017-04-28T19:18:44.513-07:00You do not mention cosmic rays. When the sun is m...You do not mention cosmic rays. When the sun is more active, its stronger magnetic field shields earth from cosmic rays. Now, that the sun is getting weaker (less sunspots) we have more cosmic rays, which become neutrons and muons in the atmosphere. The neutrons have been proved, by CERN, to cause condensation of water and cause cloud formation. Dr. I. Charvátová shows when the cooling is going to occur. There are many links to her work. This is one. http://www.billhowell.ca/Charvatova%20solar%20inertial%20motion%20&%20activity/Charvatova,%20Hejda%20Aug08%20-%20A%20possible%20role%20of%20the%20solar%20inertial%20motion%20in%20climatic%20changes.pdffisicaetceterahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17289021789689674967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-35232580295265833552016-04-23T13:14:56.428-07:002016-04-23T13:14:56.428-07:00Hi MS,
I wasn't sure if this is the best meth...Hi MS,<br /><br />I wasn't sure if this is the best method by which I can contact you, or if there is a more applicable place, but I had a question.<br /><br />I'm involved in a climate debate online and was wondering if you could provide me with scientific studies pertaining to the time lag associated with solar forcing upon climate. I have found several studies, but a couple are inadequate in demonstrating the point. Any studies concerning the thermal inertia of the system, climate response time lags following variations in solar forcing, etc., would be greatly appreciated.<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />TomTomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06342455926188600107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-33066316636875497052014-09-28T17:52:09.051-07:002014-09-28T17:52:09.051-07:00This is probably closer to the truth than the Al G...This is probably closer to the truth than the Al Gore crowd wants to hear. If you add the weakening earth's magnetic field and reduction in algae and plankton along with drilling releasing hidden methane pockets the basis for targeting CO2 is nothing but a Ponzi scheme.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04513153357890489647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-74155051233185902552014-09-10T17:09:39.942-07:002014-09-10T17:09:39.942-07:00As a layman I have always wondered how the CAGW be...As a layman I have always wondered how the CAGW believers can put so much faith in the power of the trace gas CO2 to drive global temperatures. It has always seemed to defy logic and I have never seen anything written that shows the "proof" of the hypothesis. It is nice to see a scientific study that concludes that CO2 is not, nor ever has been, a "control knob" for global temperatures. <br />Again, as a layman, it seem so much more logical that the sun and its fluctuations in released energy would be the most powerful controlling force for temperatures on earth. <br />Thanks for putting together this study.DaveAndrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07582581861468549101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-70776745247954928082014-07-30T09:06:15.483-07:002014-07-30T09:06:15.483-07:00Does your "effective weighted integration&quo...Does your "effective weighted integration" of sunspots correlate better to temperature than a simple "cumulative departure from the mean"<br /><br />If you would be willing to write this up as a guest post for a lay audience, I would be happy to post it here at The Hockey Stick. ThanksMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-39298247239723761452014-07-30T07:41:07.182-07:002014-07-30T07:41:07.182-07:00This is an interesting exercise but using SST to e...This is an interesting exercise but using SST to explain SST is not ideal ( especially if you use it 3 times: T^4, PDO,AMO ). <br /><br />Here is an alternative but similar idea:<br /><br />The continuous integral with T^4 cooling can be replaced with a simple relaxation response.<br />http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981<br /><br />Instead of adding a T^4 feedback term that reduces the integrand, this approach assumes that SSN is a proxy for some aspect of solar activity that influences surface temps.It further assumes that there is a simple relaxation to equilibrium which implies a decaying exponential response to any change in SSN. <br /><br />This is just like a pot of hot water cooling. once the flame is cut.<br /><br />The way to calculate this is like a running average with exponential weighting. <br /><br />It is probably the simplest physical model. <br /><br />The last script on this page can be used or any convolution type filter adapted. <br />http://climategrog.wordpress.com/category/scripts/<br /><br />This has several theoretical advantages. <br /><br />It only has 3 parameters. scaling and time-constant and offset<br />It does not use SST to explain SST. <br />It does not assume a specific feedback ( Plank T^4 f/b ) is the only climate reaction <br />It matches changes around 1850 - 1950 much better than what you show above.<br /><br /><br />Notable differences between the relaxation and SST : <br /><br />Residual of "11y" cycle does not match the circa 9y variability in SST. <br />Relaxation starts to drop just before 1990, not 2005.<br /><br />The latter is probably explained by the long term effects of volcanoes which has not yet been "noticed" my mainstream:<br /><br />http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902<br />http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=955<br />Greg Goodmanhttp://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-12147000417084143092014-06-02T16:44:18.283-07:002014-06-02T16:44:18.283-07:00http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611001866Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-47658265726856991372014-05-17T11:57:58.290-07:002014-05-17T11:57:58.290-07:00Sun more important in late 20th century warming th...Sun more important in late 20th century warming that previously believed<br /><br />http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/10.1007s10509-013-1775-9.pdfMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-39654157492078899952014-02-24T21:59:18.508-08:002014-02-24T21:59:18.508-08:00David, it would be nice if, for a change, you woul...David, it would be nice if, for a change, you would instead contribute a constructive comment that is scientific in nature, rather than a troll drive-by shooting. MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-55165763110090902112014-02-24T21:42:37.544-08:002014-02-24T21:42:37.544-08:00Has this amazing finding been submitted to a peer ...Has this amazing finding been submitted to a peer reviewed journal? It will overturn 150 years of climate science, and make the author world famous. What is he waiting for?? David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-50054300051009552772014-02-11T15:58:20.323-08:002014-02-11T15:58:20.323-08:00This is very interesting and makes sense.
I have ...This is very interesting and makes sense.<br /><br />I have one question. How shall I interpret the factor "(0.3596,y)"? What does the comma mean?<br /><br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681484571960843980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-19143807060377712892014-02-10T21:14:09.132-08:002014-02-10T21:14:09.132-08:00I look forward to this work being submitted to a p...I look forward to this work being submitted to a peer reviewed journal. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-35551738199322685952014-01-05T15:31:39.467-08:002014-01-05T15:31:39.467-08:00From a comment at WUWT:
Greg says: December 28, 2...From a comment at WUWT:<br /><br />Greg says: December 28, 2013 at 11:58 pm lsvalgaard says: >> geologyjim says:”does not answer my question about the RATE OF CHANGE.” Becasue the Rate of Change is not important. The amount of energy output is. Indeed , so “activity” probably needs to be integrated in some fashion to get energy. Simply integrating some measure of activity over all time would not be reasonable since as the Earth warms or cools in response to a changing input there will be tendency to return once the perturbation ends. If climate has linear relaxation response to such perturbations the Laplace response will be convolution with a decaying exponential. That is basically a weighted integration. As an illustration SSN is integrated with 20 year time constant response and compared to low-pass filtered SST. <br /><br />http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=752MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-55462291096746038922014-01-05T15:08:01.430-08:002014-01-05T15:08:01.430-08:00plot for yourself at WoodforTrees:
http://woodfor...plot for yourself at WoodforTrees:<br /><br />http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:30/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/offset:-40/integral/normaliseMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-42957047767012581172013-12-19T15:40:13.597-08:002013-12-19T15:40:13.597-08:00Hansen 1988: Sun controls climate
http://hockeysc...Hansen 1988: Sun controls climate<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/hansen-1988-sun-controls-climate.htmlMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-87655381664961652252013-12-10T13:14:51.826-08:002013-12-10T13:14:51.826-08:00http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/10/analysis-of-ent...http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/10/analysis-of-entire-inventory-of-historical-data-clearly-points-to-one-conclusion-natural-factors-are-dominant/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-39271689505178364312013-12-09T07:39:28.330-08:002013-12-09T07:39:28.330-08:00Dan You might like to compare your cooling foreca...Dan You might like to compare your cooling forecast with mine at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com<br /> -here's a summary of the conclusions of the latest post.<br />"I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.<br /><br /> Here are the conclusions of those posts.<br /><br />1/22/13 (NH)<br /><br /> 1) The millennial peak is sharp - perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming - and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two - 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.<br /> 2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/- <br /> 3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 - 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees<br /> 4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 - 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.<br /><br />4/02/13 ( Global)<br /><br />1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17<br /> 2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22<br /> 3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024<br /> 4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 - 0.15<br /> 5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 - 0.5<br /> 6 General Conclusion - by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,<br /> 7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.<br /> 8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial - they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields . <br /> 9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent - with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.<br />Dr Norman Pagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07481441558527911558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-45314791045488117932013-12-03T12:58:06.412-08:002013-12-03T12:58:06.412-08:00http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/03/german-scientis...http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/03/german-scientists-show-climate-driven-by-natural-cycles-global-temperature-to-drop-to-1870-levels-by-2100/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-67203080541864562522013-12-03T06:38:32.613-08:002013-12-03T06:38:32.613-08:00http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/01/ipcc-finds-the-...http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/01/ipcc-finds-the-important-natural-climate-driver-solar-surface-radiation-intensity-but-then-ignores-and-buries-it/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-27076881630117447452013-11-25T14:08:16.759-08:002013-11-25T14:08:16.759-08:00The global temperature observations only go back t...The global temperature observations only go back to 1850 in the HADCRU record. Only a few individual station records exist before 1850.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-2838077179224180702013-11-25T13:30:53.110-08:002013-11-25T13:30:53.110-08:00It would have been interesting to show / calculate...It would have been interesting to show / calculate the temperature back to 1810 in graph 1 perhaps.J Martinnoreply@blogger.com