It's just a natural cycle

It's just a natural cycle

"Climate records of the past show a roughly 1,500-year cycle. It was first discovered in ice cores in Greenland. Then it was seen in ocean sediments in the Atlantic. And now it's found everywhere including stalagmites in caves. It shows warming and cooling that could well account for the current warming." (Fred Singer)

Comments 1 to 8:

1. Dan Pangburn at 12:44 PM on 19 October, 2009
   The evidence that average global temperatures measured for the entire 20th century and to the present actually are a natural cycle with no influence whatsoever from carbon dioxide is shown at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. There is no Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (and therefore no ACC) from added atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is a mistake to believe that there is.
   Response: The paper (written by Dan Pangburn) you link to (here's a direct link to the PDF) proposes that just the effects of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and solar activity are sufficient to explain temperature trends over the last 130 years. This argument is fundamentally flawed. Over the past 50 years, the planet has been in positive energy imbalance. Globally, oceans have been accumulating heat.
   
   PDO is an ocean cycle that causes internal variability, where heat is exchanged between the ocean and atmosphere. The PDO cannot explain the strong energy imbalance. Changes in solar activity do affect the planet's energy imbalance but over the last 50 years, the sun has showed a slight cooling trend.
   
   Lastly, we have experimental observations confirming an enhanced greenhouse effect due to CO2 and CH4. Pangburn's explanation fails to explain what's happened to all the warming caused by increased greenhouse gases.
2. Dan Pangburn at 21:37 PM on 19 October, 2009
   That is the point. As the paper shows, increased greenhouse gases did not contribute significantly to global warming. The methodology and links to the source data (all measured) are given. Do the exercise yourself and discover that many (not all) Climate Scientists have made an egregeous mistake and a lot of people have been misled.
3. Riccardo at 03:39 AM on 5 January, 2010
   Anyone interested in how a cyclical signal should be detected may want to read this short and nice explanation.
   
   And those who think that a natural cycle is superimposed on a linear trend may want to read this.
4. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:19 PM on 26 January, 2010
   "In contrast, current global warming is occuring in both hemispheres and particularly throughout the world's oceans, indicating a significant energy imbalance."
   The fact remains that in the natural cycle of climate change we are (were?), when the phase of growing - rising - warming in NH - which show modern statistical data ("For smoothing we use local linear regression ...") presented here: http://www.rni.helsinki.fi/research/info/sizer/fig2big.jpg. It’s not Cherry Picking. "Many palaeoclimate records from earth's North Atlantic region depict a millennial-scale oscillation of climate, which during the last glacial period was highlighted by Dansgaard-Oeschger events that regularly recurred at approximately 1,470-year intervals (Rahmstorf, 2003 )."(by Idso K. and C., 2006).
   
   "The 1500 year cycles, known as Dansgaard-Oeschger events, are localized to the northern hemisphere and accompanied with cooling in the southern hemisphere."
   
   NIPCC, skeptics, We draw attention to a hypothetical series of circa 4.2 thousand. years (3 x Bond Events). Impact is stronger here - and the SH is only (weaker) warming; and circa 6 thousand. years solar cycle.
   We propose the following scheme for research: warming causes an increase in water vapor content of atmosphere - K.E. Trenberth, J. Fasullo, L. Smith, 2005: Trends and variability in column-integrated atmospheric water vapor. Fig 11. in this paper: here - on the map - we see that the place of the strongest growth of evaporation are related with the strength and reach of the north of THC (vitally affecting the AMO and AO). We know that present not only evaporation but also the strongest warming - it’s in the Arctic. This results in increased emissions of CO2 from the Arctic Sea, but also warming of Tundra: "Lloyd and Taylor (1994) found that the relative sensitivity to temperature change is much greater for soils at LOW temperatures than for warmer soils. For example, in the absence of moisture limitations, an increase from 0 to 1 deg C would result in a 22% increase in respiration, while an increase from 25 to 26 deg C leads to a 5% increase.", "Thus, modest global change scenarios resulting in a 1 to 2 deg C increase in mean temperature would have the most significant effect on the 60 g C/m2 year respired by tundra. [... and in the tundra - c. 1 / 5 land area - where the temperature has risen the most - from 2 to 3 deg C; and soil detritus is a great weight - most of the accumulated 21,6 kg C x m -2 (average) ...] (http://www.biology.duke.edu/bio265/ajm21/intro.html).
   At present, oxidation occurs at the age of detritus of several thousand to 10. thousand years. The ratio of carbon isotopes 14/13/12C - so here is similar to the fossil carbon.
   We believe that the cyclicality of the climate (in this and the Millennium) have a decisive influence solar cycles - direct; and through its impact on the moon - an indirect (LNC-LNO). We recommend to discuss in particular, the work:
   - http://ansatte.hials.no/hy/tide/default.htm,
   - Lunar nodal tide effects on variability of sea level, temperature, and salinity in the Faroe-Shetland Channel and the Barents Sea (Yndestad H. at al., 2008);
   - The 18.6-year lunar nodal cycle and surface temperature variability in the northeast Pacific (McKinnell, SM , and WR Crawford; 2007 ),
   - The impacts of the Luni-Solar oscillation on the Arctic oscillation (Ramos da Silva, R. , and R. Avissar; 2005 ),
   - Trends and anomalies in sea-surface temperature, observed over the last 60 years, within the southeastern Bay of Biscay (Goikoetxea N.; 2009),
   - Solar Forcing of Changes in Atmospheric Circulation, Earth's Rotation Solar (Mazzarella A.; 2008).
5. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:21 PM on 26 January, 2010
   "Changes in solar activity do affect the planet's energy imbalance but over the last 50 years, the sun has showed a slight cooling trend."
   
   The fact is, however, that before the sun was at its highest activity of 8 thousand. years (max - XIX solar cycle) http://www.aanda.org/images/stories/highlight/vol471-1/7704Usos.gif. We also believe that the sun gives its energy through the ocean - with a delay caused by the cycles presented here (solar, LNC: influencing THC - AMO, PDO, EN(LN)SO, NAO, AO, etc.). We believe, that global, hypothetical most probable period of delay is c. half of the Gleissberg cycle. F.e: light cool twenty-first century may be the result of the extended time of local solar minimum weak, from the 60s twenty century (XX solar cycle).
6. James Wight at 00:35 AM on 27 March, 2010
   John, I've been reading through Motl's rebuttals to your counterarguments, and I think he does have a point about this one. The title "It's just a natural cycle" implies that the page discusses natural climate cycles in general (including solar cycles, orbital cycles, etc). But your response only deals with the claim that we're experiencing something analogous to a Dansgaard-Oeschger event. Thus the title is a bit of an oversell.
   Response: I know, this argument started as a focus on the 1500 year cycle but when I started the Global Warming Links directory, I splintered it off into the more general natural cycle and the more specific 1500 year cycle. But I haven't got around to answering the more general argument. Problem is people have already started adding links to the 1500 year cycle argument so I can't go back to the way it was. Long story short, I painted myself into a corner with my argument structure and the only way out is to find the time to write detailed rebuttals to both. Okay, now where is that time, I know I left it around somewhere...
7. daniel at 01:18 AM on 27 May, 2010
   Can we trust that the ice core data is
   collected and interpereted correctly?
   Counting those fine lines using a variety
   of techniques and extrapolating climate
   way back into the past may sound
   straightforward to the average laymen
   but how much error is there in the graph?
   All it takes is a slight shift in the assigned
   timeline for one of the ice cores and viola
   the bipolar climate becomes global.
   Thanks for the video but you will need to
   present the graph with links to the source
   and a brief explanation of the methods
   and reliability of this data. :)
8. daniel at 00:06 AM on 19 August, 2010
   No one seems to be interested in a discussion about the quality of data presented in this video. I would like to add to my above comment that the error in assigning years to layers in any ice core is intrinsically cumulative. If you assume a conservative error estimate of say 1%. That is only 1 in every 100 annual layers is misassigned, then at 50 kyr BP when the most recent of the most striking DO events are suppossed to be taking place you have a +/- 500 year window within which you can align peaks. Given the peaks are so difficult to distinguish in time as they are currently portrayed, what does that tell you about the quality of work in the field of "Climate science"? Even in their current format the two datasets are not opposed but actually aligned at the first DO event at ~90-95kyr BP! But the video is trying to say they are not! Even the trail off from this initial "global" peak is the same in both hemispheres! The further in time we go back from 50kyr the worse (more cumulative) the error. Are there any obvious or striking DO events between 0 and 50 kyr BP? Even at 1% error is there a large enough window to align the supposedly bipolar peaks in this more recent region of time? Are we being too conservative at 1% error? Is "Climate science" really science?

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.