Ocean News

Myark.
Do you believe :
1. the climate is changing naturally?
2. Man has a small or minor affect on the climate.
3. Natural forces and man, are more or less equal drivers of climate.
4. Man is the major cause of climate change, but warming might be OK.
5. Man is ruining the climate with catastrophic consequences.

 

Why is global warming a natural cycle and not driven by CO2?
Not man's CO2 or from any other source of CO2..
There is a LOT of scientific data from all over the word, including Antarctica.
These previous warm periods WERE global, and multiple warm periods roughly 1000 years apart.
The Medieval Warm period a millennia ago, the Roman Warm Period during centuries bracketing year 1 CE, the Minoan Warm Period 1300 BC, +/-, and the Holocene Thermal Optimum, 5000-9000 years ago.
Certainly another millennially spaced warm period about 4000+ years past, but I haven't yet discovered if it's acquired a name.
The evidence strongly indicates they were ALL warmer than today, and lower CO2 than today.
It will take MANY posts

 

Before we get into the data produced, it would be best to show the data IS global.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/me...xies-roman-era-similar-to-early-20th-century/

"Medieval Warm Period found in 120 proxies. Plus Roman era was similar to early 20th Century.

Two major proxy studies, larger than ever, were released in April and June 2012. They show that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) existed, and was similar to current temperatures. These comprehensive studies suggest current temperatures are not unusual, and that itself is not all that surprising — I’ve mentioned before how there are hundreds of proxy studies showing it was as warm or warmer back then. (CO2science has been documenting them.) But these studies are worth a mention because they are so large.

Climate models cannot explain what caused the warming 1000 years ago, nor the cooling 300 years ago, so they can’t rule out the same factors aren’t changing the climate today (though they claim they can). If climate models can’t explain the past, they can’t predict the future.
The last 12 Centuries

Ljungqvist used 120 proxy records — nearly 3 times as many proxies as previous studies and conclude: “during the 9th to 11th centuries there was widespread NH warmth comparable in both geographic extent and level to that of the 20th century”. Their proxies included ice-cores, pollen, marine sediments, lake sediments, tree-rings, speleothems and historical documentary data.
Temperature reconstructions medieval warm period

Ljungqvistet al 2012 Fig. 4. Mean time-series of centennial proxy anomalies separated by: (A) data type, (B) continents, (C) latitude, (D) seasonality of signal. The curves in (B–D) show the mean and moving block bootstrap confidence intervals (±2 standard error) (Wilks, 1997).
The numbers in parentheses indicates the number of proxies in each category.
The last 2000 years

In April 2012 Christiansen and Ljungqvist published a study of 32 proxies going back as far as 1AD for the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere. They found the first millennium was warmer than the second, that the Little Ice Age (17th Century) was awfully cold and colder than the “Dark Ages” cooling (circa 300- 800AD), and about -1.0 °C below the 1880–1960AD level. It warmed a bit in the 1700's then cooled again in the 1800's almost back to where it was in the 1600's. The Little Ice Age appears in records across vast areas, and the three century pattern of colder-warmer-and-almost-as-cold-again repeats all around the Northern Hemisphere. Things have warmed fast since the Little Ice Age but then, it was the coldest patch in the 2000 year record, so it’s not altogether surprising that it has rebounded quickly.

The MWP peaked from 950 to 1050AD at around 0.6°C warmer than the calibration period 1880–1960 AD: “Note that the extra-tropical NH mean temperature from HadCRUT3v in 1880–1960AD is 0.23 °C colder than in the often used standard climate period 1961–1990 AD.” That means the MWP was about 0.4 °C warmer than the 1961-1990 period."

Mapped are the Christiansen and Ljungqvist published 32 proxies locations.

There are 100s more proxy sites world wide.

False claims these warm periods were local anomalies are futile to continue to press.

 

With so much information from so many places, to post, it's only a necessary kindness to post the most conclusive data first, even though the subsequent bridging the gaps is anti-climatic. No pun in there. Not anti-climate!
It has been dismissed by AGWers as a merely local phenomenon or anomaly. I'm referring to the warming in Greenland, Scandinavia, and northern Europe 1000 years ago.
THAT warming isn't denied to have happened, only the degree of warming and extent of area is in contention.
The quickest way, most conclusive way, to present it WAS global is from the other end of the globe.
Antarctica!
Concurrent medieval warming in Antarctica simultaneous with Greenland and northern Europe, is convincingly global, and leaves the hundreds of other proxy locations worldwide as merely confirming.

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=105545&stc=1&d=1454312234

Medieval Warming in Antarctica!


"Ice Core Data Confirms Medieval Period Warmer Than Present
Submitted by admin on Tue, 06/15/2010 - 12:21.

New ice core data indicates that natural climate variations caused huge temperature variations in the past. A recent study finds:

The Medieval Warming period had temperatures that approached 1°C higher than current temperatures, in spite of lower CO2 levels.
The Minoan Warming period had temperatures that possibly exceeded current temperatures by 1°C, in spite of lower CO2 levels.
The previous interglacial period, approximately 130,000 years ago, had temperatures in excess of 4°C versus current temperatures, in spite of lower CO2 levels.

"2010 Antarctica Peer-Reviewed Research: Ice Core Data Confirms Medieval Period Warmer Than Present."

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/medieval-warm-period-rediscovered#comment-1405
Medieval Warm Period Was Global Event

March 29, 2012

Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study that shows that during medieval times the entire planet heated up. It then cooled down naturally, says the Daily Mail (U.K.).

A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University has found that contrary to the "consensus," the Medieval Warm Period approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn't just confined to Europe.
In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica -- which means that Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human carbon dioxide emissions.

At present the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change argues that the Medieval Warm Period was confined to Europe -- therefore that the warming we're experiencing now is a man-made phenomenon.

However, Professor Lu has shown that this isn't true -- and the evidence lies with a rare mineral called ikaite, which forms in cold waters.
"Ikaite is an icy version of limestone," says Lu. "The crystals are only stable under cold conditions and actually melt at room temperature."
It turns out the water that holds the crystal structure together -- called the hydration water -- traps information about temperatures present when the crystals formed.
This finding by Lu's research team establishes, for the first time, ikaite as a reliable way to study past climate conditions.

The scientists studied ikaite crystals from sediment cores drilled off the coast of Antarctica. The sediment layers were deposited over 2,000 years.

The scientists were particularly interested in crystals found in layers deposited during the "Little Ice Age," approximately 300 to 500 years ago, and during the Medieval Warm Period before it. Both climate events have been documented in Northern Europe, but studies have been inconclusive as to whether the conditions in Northern Europe extended to Antarctica.

Lu's team found that in fact, they did. They were able to deduce this by studying the amount of heavy oxygen isotopes found in the crystals. During cool periods there are lots, during warm periods there are not.

http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/0...l-warm-period-and-little-ice-age-were-global/

"Although the Lu team is the first to use akaite as a proxy, they are far from the first to find evidence of the MWP outside of Europe. The Medieval Warm Period Project of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change reviews (by my count) 20 studies in Africa, 8 in Antarctica, 68 in Asia, 6 in Australia/New Zealand, 92 in North America, 31 in various Ocean areas, and 19 in South America, in addition to 97 in Europe – all indicating a period of climatic warmth approximately one thousand years ago. Many of those studies indicate that the MWP was warmer than the Current Warm Period (see the chart at the top of this post)."

 

A small diversion.
I've been wanting to post this for quite some time.

I clipped and stretched the left end of the chart in previous post.
I drew verticles every thousand years.
They coincide, or nearly so with temperature spikes indicating warm periods.
arrows point to warm periods WARMER than today.
I'm convinced it's a millennial warming cycle.



Some of the 1000 year warm cycles are only as warm as now. Others much warmer than now.
I think our current warm cycle has about reached its peak.
We are experiencing a RomanWP style warm period rather than a MWP warming.
So such things appear to me.

 

Quote
Florida Is Sinking. Where Is Marco Rubio?

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/01/marco-rubio-climate-change-florida

An unusual January storm bent palm trees and turned city sidewalks into creeks as a small group of Miami-area mayors and administrators huddled in Pinecrest, one of Miami-Dade County's 34 municipalities. They had come at the invitation of Pinecrest's mayor to discuss rising sea levels, long predicted by climate change scientists and now regularly inundating their towns. The mood in the room was somewhere between pessimism and panic.

On the agenda: making flood prediction maps to help prioritize which roads, schools and hospitals to save as waters rise; how to keep saltwater from leaching into the aquifer; and what to do about 1.6 million septic tanks whose failure could create a Third World sanitation challenge. Someone also brought up the alarming possibility of the sea engulfing the nearby Turkey Point nuclear power plant.

The scale of South Florida’s looming catastrophe—$69 billion worth of property is at risk of flooding in less than 15 years—is playing out like a big-budget disaster movie, but dealing with it has been largely left to local political and business leaders in tiny rooms like the Pinecrest Municipal Center's Council Chamber. Their biggest problem is the one climate scientists have struggled with for decades: creating a sense of urgency. Before adjourning, the mayors considered finding a mascot to get people’s attention, like a climate change Smokey Bear or Woodsy Owl of the "Give a hoot, don't pollute" campaign. Coral Gables Mayor Jim Cason suggested a WWE wrestler could be hired for television and billboard ads with the slogan "Climate change: The problem is bigger than you think."

The irony—that Miami's local leaders still have to sell the urgency of rising sea levels—was sharpened as the meeting adjourned and participants exited into a veil of rain during what is supposed to be Florida's dry season. Small ponds formed in streets, another pretty average day in a city where reports of fish swimming in flooded boulevards and backyards during storms and high tides are becoming more common. Almost everyone knows someone who has stalled a car in rising waters, and Miami police now urge drivers to carry special window-busting hammers for such incidents.

About 2.4 million people in the Miami area live less than 4 feet above the high-tide line, and the ocean is expected to rise between 6.6 and 30 feet by 2100. Eighty-four years is a long time, but water doesn't rise like that all at once. It is already happening. Inch by inch, the slow inundation of Miami has begun, affecting infrastructure and life in one of the world's sexiest cities.

Even the most conservative estimates assume that a percentage of the next generation of Floridians will become internally displaced Americans, climate change refugees.

 

"Their biggest problem is the one climate scientists have struggled with for decades: creating a sense of urgency." quoting Myarks post.

Yeah! Just sign it, don't read it, you don't have TIME to think about it!
EXACTLY what AGW scientists and AGW alarmists want! We finally agree on something.

Saltwater intrusion in Florida was caused by draining large areas adjacent to everglades and land filling to create even more housing projects near Miami.
That's been illegal for decades now. But the damage was already done. ALL of south Florida has saltwater in the water table. It's MIDDLE Florida worried about the intrusion moving north, because of continued illegal pumping in south Florida.
It's not about mere millimeters sea level rise.

 

Buying land on the coast comes with the responsibility of knowing into what risks you are stepping. Sure, the streets flood from time to time, but that is weather, not climate. It rolls in but it rolls back out. If you are not willing to accept the risks of living where storm tides can ruin some property, stay in the uplands. I still await the wiring of the boat lift.

 

You're right, Hoyt.
100 year flood plains have been determined all across the USA.
It is clearly printed on each land deed if it's situated on a 100 year flood plain.
Meaning it flooded at least once in recent 100 years.
So, it will again.
People choosing to live in a desert, are laughable when they complain about drought.
People choosing to live in flood plains are laughable when they complain about flooding!

 

Learn from Florida natives and lift your house on stilts or live in a hive of ground level NY style penthouses.
Pays your money and makes your choice. Caveat Emptor!

 

http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeurope.php

"Roman Warm Period (Europe) -- Summary Climate alarmists contend that the degree of global warmth over latter part of the 20th century was greater than it has been at any other time over the past one to two millennia. Why? Because this contention helps them sell their claim that the "unprecedented" temperatures of the past few decades were CO2-induced."
In another part of our Subject Index we explore these contentions as they apply to the Medieval Warm Period. In this Summary, we explore them as they pertain to the Roman Warm Period, beginning with the part of the planet where climate alarmists are willing to acknowledge the Medieval Warm Period's existence, but not its magnitude, i.e., Europe.

We begin this discussion by noting that the studies of Olafsdottir et al. (2001) and Jiang et al. (2002) document the existence of relatively benign weather conditions in Iceland and its oceanic environs up to about 2500 ± 200 years ago (the "beginning of the end" of the Roman Warm Period), after which their data depict the region gradually descending into what has come to be known as the Dark Ages Cold Period. The first of these research teams also describes the concurrent long-term cooling-induced decline in vegetative productivity on Iceland, which was actually reversed for about four centuries during the Medieval Warm Period but then declined to what they describe as "an unprecedented low" during the Little Ice Age that lasted from about AD 1300 to 1900. In like manner, Jiang et al.'s data, obtained from the seabed of the north Icelandic shelf, depict a similar post-Roman Warm Period decline in summer sea surface temperature, which exhibited a dramatic increase that peaked around AD 1150 after having risen more than 1°C above the line describing the long-term downward trend. Thereafter, however, the temperature fell rapidly, by approximately 2.2°C, as the depths of the Little Ice Age were encountered, after which modern warming overcomes some of the dramatic cooling but cannot return the region to the pinnacle of Roman Warm Period warmth.

Further east in Ireland, McDermott et al. (2001) derived a similar picture of post-Roman Warm Period cooling based on ð18O data derived from a stalagmite. Here, however, the initial climatic deterioration did not begin until about 2000 years ago. Then, Berglund (2003) documented what he called a great "retreat of agriculture" throughout northwest continental Europe that was coincident with the declining temperature, based on assessments of "insolation, glacier activity, lake and sea levels, bog growth, tree line, and tree growth."

Contemporaneously, in northern Swedish Lapland, Grudd et al. (2002) developed a 7400-year history of summer mean temperature based on tree-ring widths obtained from 880 living, dead and subfossil northern Swedish pines. The most dependable portion of the record, based upon the number of trees that were sampled, consists of the last two millennia, which the researchers say "display features of century-timescale climatic variation known from other proxy and historical sources, including a warm 'Roman' period in the first centuries AD and a generally cold 'Dark Ages' climate from about AD 500 to about AD 900." They also note that "the warm period around AD 1000 may correspond to a so-called 'Mediaeval Warm Period', known from a variety of historical sources and other proxy records." Lastly, they note that "the climatic deterioration in the twelfth century can be regarded as the starting point of a prolonged cold period that continued to the first decade of the twentieth century," which "Little Ice Age," in their words, is also "known from instrumental, historical and proxy records."

Dropping down to northwest Germany, Niggemann et al. (2003) employed petrographical and geochemical techniques to develop a climatic history of the last seventeen millennia from a set of three stalagmites. This history closely matches the one derived by McDermott et al., with Niggemann et al. explicitly noting that it provides evidence for the existence of the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period, which also implies the existence of the Dark Ages Cold Period that separated the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods, as well as the cold period that preceded the Roman Warm Period.

Continuing south, Desprat et al. (2003) studied the climatic variability of the last three millennia in northwest Iberia via a high-resolution pollen analysis of a sediment core retrieved from the central axis of the Ria de Vigo in the south of Galicia. There they detected "an alternation of three relatively cold periods with three relatively warm episodes." In order of their occurrence, these periods are described by them as the "first cold phase of the Subatlantic period (975-250 BC)," which was "followed by the Roman Warm Period (250 BC-450 AD)," which was followed by "a successive cold period (450-950 AD), the Dark Ages," which "was terminated by the onset of the Medieval Warm Period (950-1400 AD)," which was followed by "the Little Ice Age (1400-1850 AD), including the Maunder Minimum (at around 1700 AD)," which "was succeeded by the recent warming (1850 AD to the present)."

In light of these findings, Desprat et al. conclude that "a millennial-scale climatic cyclicity over the last 3000 years is detected for the first time in NW Iberia paralleling global climatic changes recorded in North Atlantic marine records (Bond et al., 1997; Bianchi and McCave, 1999; Chapman and Shackelton, 2000)." Considering that the same findings are reported by the other studies described above, the establishment of the Modern Warm Period in Europe over the course of the past century or so is seen to be nothing more than the most recent manifestation of the warming phase of this ever-recurring cycle of climate, which is totally unrelated to the coincidental historical increase in the air's CO2 content."
"

 

"The idea of a medieval warm period was formulated for the first time in 1965 by the English climatologist Hubert H. Lamb [1]. Lamb, who founded the UK Climate Research Unit (CRU) in 1971, saw the peak of the warming period from 1000 to 1300, i.e. in the High Middle Ages. He estimated that temperatures then were 1-2 ° C above the normal period of 1931-1960. In the high North, it was even up to 4 degrees warmer. The regular voyages of the Vikings between Iceland and Greenland were rarely hindered by ice, and many burial places of the Vikings in Greenland still lie in the permafrost.

Glaciers were smaller than today

Also the global retreat of glaciers that occurred in the period between about 900 to 1300 [2] speaks for the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. An interesting detail is that many glaciers pulling back since 1850 reveal plant remnants from the Middle Ages, which is a clear proof that the extent of the glaciers at that time was lower than today [3].

Furthermore, historical traditions show evidence of unusual warmth at this time. Years around 1180 brought the warmest winter decade ever known. In January 1186/87, the trees were in bloom near Strasbourg. And even earlier you come across a longer heat phase, roughly between 1021 and 1040. The summer of 1130 was so dry that you could wade through the river Rhine. In 1135, the Danube flow was so low that people could cross it on foot. This fact has been exploited to create foundation stones for the bridge in Regensburg this year [4].

Clear evidence of the warm phase of the Middle Ages can also be found in the limits of crop cultivation. The treeline in the Alps climbed to 2000 meters, higher than current levels are [5]. Winery was possible in Germany at the Rhine and Mosel up to 200 meters above the present limits, in Pomerania, East Prussia, England and southern Scotland, and in southern Norway, therefore, much farther north than is the case today [6]. On the basis of pollen record there is evidence that during the Middle Ages, right up to Trondheim in Norway, wheat was grown and until nearly the 70th parallel/latitude barley was cultivated[4]. In many parts of the UK arable land reached heights that were never reached again later.

Also in Asia historical sources report that the margin of cultivation of citrus fruits was never as far north as in the 13th century. Accordingly, it must have been warmer at the time about 1 ° C than today [7].

Archeology and history confirm interglacial

Insects can also be used as historical markers for climate. The cold sensitive beetle Heterogaster urticae was detected during the Roman Optimum and during the Norman High Middle Age in York. Despite the warming of the 20th century, this beetle is found today only in sunny locations in the south of England [8].

During the medieval climate optimum, the population of Europe reached hitherto unknown highs. Many cities were founded at this very time with high-altitude valleys, high pastures and cultivated areas, which were at the beginning of the Little Ice Age again largely abandoned [9].

The Middle Ages was the era of high culture of the Vikings. In this period their expansion occurred into present-day Russia and the settlement of Iceland, Greenland and parts of Canada and Newfoundland. In Greenland even cereals were grown about this time.. With the end of the Medieval Warm Period the heyday of the Vikings ended. The settlements in Greenland had to be abandoned as well as in the home country of Norway, during this time, many northern communities located at higher altitudes [10]. The history of the Vikings also corresponds very well to the temperature reconstructions from Greenland, which were carried out using ice cores. According to the reconstructions, Greenland was at the time of the Vikings at least one degree warmer than in the modern warming period [11].

Climate scientists want to eliminate contradictions

Until about the mid-90s of last century the Medieval Warm Period was for climate researchers an undisputed fact. Therefore in the first progress report of the IPCC from 1990 on page 202, there was the graphics 7c [12], in which the Medieval Warm Period was portrayed as clearly warmer than the present. However, the existence of this warm period became quickly a thorn in the side for the scientists responsible. When in 12th century without human influence the climate has been even warmer than at the height of industrialization, why should the current warming have non-natural causes?

Thus, the Medieval Warm Period was soon declared an odious affair."

 

Many more posts about many more proxies girdling the globe are coming.

But time for a few posts about what is likely causing these cyclic millennial warm periods.
A cyclic result probably has a cyclic cause.
The sun has cycles. CO2 doesn't. Even the most cross-eyed AGWer doesn't believe the heat is COMING from CO2.
So!
Way back in 1997, this article appeared.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html


"Harvard University Gazette


Brightening Sun is Warming Earth
May account for major part of global warming

By William J. Cromie

Gazette Staff

There is a better explanation for global warming than air pollution, two Harvard researchers say: the Sun is increasing in brightness and radiance.

"Changes in the Sun can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming," claims Sallie Baliunas, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA).

"We're not saying that variations in solar activity account for all of the global rise in temperature that we are experiencing," cautions her CfA colleague, astrophysicist Willie Soon. "But we believe these variations are the major driving force. Heat-trapping gases emitted by smokestacks and vehicles -- the so-called greenhouse effect -- appear to be secondary."

If that conclusion proves true, it promises a huge economic and political impact on the "third rock from the Sun." The Clinton Administration is trying to negotiate an international treaty to gradually reduce greenhouse pollutants without bringing economic havoc to industries that satisfy our enormous appetite for the energy that comes from burning oil, coal, and gas.

Other world leaders and environmentalists are pushing for immediate action, but Baliunas thinks there is time to carefully consider what action to take. "The best models of global warming call for a very slow temperature rise of less than two degrees in the next 100 years," she has told various congressional committees and briefings. "There is time for more research and a measured response because the penalty you pay in increased temperatures from greenhouse warming is small."

Anything that's cost-effective to cut emissions can be done right away, Baliunas says. Dramatic cuts with high economic penalties might be postponed in the expectation that more effective and affordable technologies will become available in the next 25 years or so.

To ease the economic burdens, President Clinton has proposed various incentives. These include offering $5 billion in tax breaks for businesses to conserve energy and to develop new technologies, such as efficient electric cars and fuel cells that burn clean hydrogen. Vice President Al Gore described these incentives last Friday in a talk at the Kennedy School of Government.

A Bright Connection

Baliunas and Soon base their ideas about the cause of global warming on irrefutable evidence that sunlight is getting stronger. Since the late 1970s, three Sun-watching satellites recorded surprising changes in heat, ultraviolet radiation, and solar wind. The radiation alters the paths of winter storms; solar winds affect cloudiness and rainfall.

The increased activity, everyone agrees, is tied to a cycle that sees the Sun dimming, then brightening, every 11 years or so. From the late 1970s to mid-1980s, activity on Earth's star declined. Since then it has risen, declined, then risen again. The satellites measured an increase in brightness of as much as 0.14 percent on the latest rise.

Two unknowns, however, prevent Sun-watchers from making any useable forecasts about the next five years. No one knows why the Sun cycles like it does, or when it will reach its next maximum. The best guess is the year 2000.

Also, a 0.14 percent jump in brightness is not enough to account for the approximately 1 degree F rise in temperature on Earth in the past 100 years. What's more, various observations show that our planet is almost 2 degrees F warmer than it was around the year 1700.

Baliunas quickly points out that the satellite measurements apply to only one cycle, and evidence exists that the estimated jump in brightness over several previous cycles was almost four times as much -- 0.5 percent.

Also, looking elsewhere in the Milky Way reveals larger shifts in brightness of other Sunlike stars. Twenty years ago, when still a Harvard graduate student, Baliunas took over a project that has been recording brightness changes in such stars of between 0.1 and 0.7 percent.

"A change of 0.5 percent in brightness sustained over several past cycles could account for the 2 degree change in climate we have experienced since the beginning of the 18th century," Baliunas maintains. "We don't know if this actually happened, but it indicates that the Sun is a major driver of climate change. We cannot ignore its variations when accounting for the present global warming."

Sun Spots and Storms

What is more, these Baliunas-Soon assumptions consider only brightness changes. Also increasing during the maximum part of solar cycles are invisible but potent ultraviolet rays which heat up Earth's atmosphere and change the paths of winter storms.

This radiation hits oxygen molecules in the upper stratosphere and converts them to ozone. Some 25 miles above our heads, the ozone layer is best known for screening out ultraviolet radiation implicated in skin cancer, cataracts, and crop damage. However, researchers at Harvard's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences have found that increased amounts of ozone interfere with movement of heat from the equator to the poles. That, in turn, shifts the pattern of jet streams that steer the storms around the planet.

Exactly how this contributes to warming Earth during maximum solar activity, and to cooling it during minimums, remains a mystery. "Our uncertainty is enormous," Soon admits, "but we can't omit ultraviolet forcing as a factor in global warming."

The most striking markers of the Sun's waxings and wanings are the coming and going of black spots on its face. Sunspots mark areas where strong magnetic fields exit and enter the surface of the Sun. They are about a thousand degrees cooler than the bright areas that surround them, but are still incandescently hot.

These spots not only follow an 11-year cycle; they also cycle through longer periods of high and low magnetic activity. When the Sun boasts a maximum of spots, cycle after cycle, Earth tends to be warmer than when its face is clear.

During the years from 1640 to 1720, for example, observers counted abnormally few sunspots and Earth's climate entered a period of unusually cold weather. Since the mid-1960s, solar magnetism has been increasing along with global temperatures.

At such maximums, the wind of magnetic fields and charged particles that normally wafts across the 93 million miles from Sun to Earth blows harder. These gusts can trigger colorful displays of auroral lights during long polar nights. The strongest winds may also disrupt long-range radio communications, cause power outages, and disturb the operation of satellites.

Solar winds also produce radioactive carbon atoms in the atmosphere that eventually rain down and become assimilated into tree rings. High solar winds lead to rings with fewer radioactive atoms and vice versa. Changing levels of radiocarbon provide a natural record of magnetic changes on the Sun that can be matched with weather records of coldings and warmings.

"There have been 19 cold periods in the past 10,000 years and a decrease in solar magnetic activity can be linked to 17 of them," Baliunas notes.

Exactly how this happens remains unknown. It probably involves both changes in energy and variations in electrical charges on drops of water in the atmosphere. The drops provide seeds for the formation of clouds which add to natural and greenhouse warmings.

Neither Baliunas nor Soon ties these changes to El Niño, the periodic warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that brings mostly unwanted weather changes from India to Indiana. "There is no solar cycle with the same 4-to-7-year period and no known direct connection with changes on the Sun," Baliunas says.

"Over longer periods, both the ultraviolet radiation and the particles in solar winds alter the balance of energy in the atmosphere, affecting the movement of winds," Soon points out. "Together with changes in brightness, these mechanisms must affect longer-term changes in climate. All the records we have of climate tie it to variations in the Sun. It is reasonable to assume that that effect persists at the present time."

No one doubts this; but the magnitude of its influence on global warming remains in question. However, a significant number of researchers insist that solar changes are not great enough to produce the warming we are experiencing. They maintain that human activity is the main cause of rising temperatures that threaten widespread flooding, increased storminess, and potentially disruptive shifts in croplands. It is this group that wants to take immediate action to reduce heat-trapping air pollutants.

Baliunas and Soon maintain that interest in and understanding of solar effects will increase faster than rising temperatures, allowing time to study the Sun-climate relationships.

"But," Baliunas admits, "I am addressing scientific issues. Economic, political, and environmental considerations are quite another story."


Have we learned anything new about solar wind since 1997?

"Changing levels of radiocarbon provide a natural record of magnetic changes on the Sun that can be matched with weather records of coldings and warmings.

"There have been 19 cold periods in the past 10,000 years and a decrease in solar magnetic activity can be linked to 17 of them," Baliunas notes.

Exactly how this happens remains unknown."

 

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

"Sooner or later, every prediction failed. An example was a highly credible forecast that there would be a dry spell in Africa during the sunspot minimum of the early 1930s. When that came out wrong, a meteorologist later recalled, "the subject of sunspots and weather relationships fell into disrepute, especially among British meteorologists who witnessed the discomfiture of some of their most respected superiors." Even in the 1960s, he said, "For a young [climate] researcher to entertain any statement of sun-weather relationships was to brand oneself a crank."(10) Specialists in solar physics felt much the same. As one of them recalled, "purported connections with... weather and climate were uniformly wacky and to be distrusted... there is a hypnotism about cycles that... draws all kinds of creatures out of the woodwork."(11) (This was a robust tradition: into the 21st century, enthusiasts with weird or incomprehensible theories of solar-terrestrial connections, backed up by selected data and intricate graphs, continued to show up at scientific meetings of meteorological societies.) By the 1940s, most meteorologists and astronomers had abandoned the quest for solar cycles in the weather. Yet some respected experts continued to suspect that a connection did exist, lurking somewhere in the data."



"Another tentatively credible study came from a team led by the Danish glaciologist Willi Dansgaard. Inspecting layers of ancient ice in cores drilled from deep in the Greenland ice cap, they found cyclical variations. They supposed the Sun was responsible. For the cycle that they detected, about 80 years long, had already been reported by scientists who had analyzed small variations in the sunspot cycle.(22*) Another cycle with a length of about 180 years was also, the group suspected, caused by "changing conditions on the Sun." The oscillations were so regular that in 1970 Dansgaard's group boldly extrapolated the curves into the future. They began by matching their results with a global cooling trend that, as others reported, had been underway since around 1940. The group predicted the cooling would continue through the next one or two decades, followed by a warming trend for the following three decades or so.(23)

The geochemist Wallace Broecker was impressed. He "made a large leap of faith" (as he later put it) and assumed that the cycles were not just found in Greenland, but had a global reach.(24) He calculated that the global cooling trend since around 1940 could be explained by the way the two cycles both happened to be trending down. His combined curve would bottom out in the 1970s, then quickly head up. Greenhouse effect warming caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide gas ( CO2) would come on top of this rise, making for a dangerously abrupt warming.(25)

(Later studies failed to find Dansgaard's cycles globally. If they existed at all, the cause did not seem to be the Sun, but quasi-cyclical shifts in the North Atlantic Ocean's surface warmth and winds. This was just another case of supposed global weather cycles that faded away as more data came in. It was also one of several cases where Broecker's scientific instincts were sounder than his evidence. The downturn in temperature since the 1940s, whether due to a variation in the Sun's radiation or some other natural cause, could indeed change to a natural upturn that would add to greenhouse warming instead of subtracting from it. In fact that happened, beginning in the 1970s.) "

"A few scientists persevered in arguing that much smaller solar changes (which they thought they detected in the satellite record) had driven the extraordinary warming since the 1970s. But even among these outlying groups, leaders admitted that in the future,"solar forcing could be significant, but not dominant."(58*)
The import of the claim that solar variations influenced climate was now reversed. Critics had used the claim to oppose regulation of greenhouse gases. But what if the planet really did react with extreme sensitivity to almost imperceptible changes in the radiation arriving from the Sun? The planet would surely be similarly sensitive to greenhouse gas interference with the radiation once it entered the atmosphere. Some of the scientists who reported evidence of past connections between solar and climate changes warned explicitly that their data did not show that the current global warming was natural — it only showed the extreme sensitivity of the climate system to small perturbations. Back in 1994 a U.S. National Academy of Sciences panel had estimated that if solar radiation were to weaken as much as it had during the 17th-century Maunder Minimum, the entire effect would be offset by another two decades of accumulation of greenhouse gases. A 2010 study reported that by the late 21st century a Maunder-Minimum solar effect would be offset with barely a single decade of emissions. As one expert explained, the Little Ice Age "was a mere 'blip' compared with expected future climatic change"


Because figuring out the sun was beyond them, and some weaknes in character, impatience maybe, concluded they were entitled to know what drives climate, without any more wasted time or endeavor.
Climate must therefore be extremely sensitive.
How convenient! Lazy! Arrogant! Presumptuous! And unscientific!
Now tiny little weak CO2 could be the driver, and the "science" could be declared settled.

Now there back to not understanding again.
Temperature isn't following CO2!
Already tried the easy explanation that climate must be very sensitive.
Got nothing left!

 

While the sun is our primary heat source, it's not the ONLY heat source.
Geo-thermal energy, the molten magma beneath our feet, is the other!
There have been some interesting correlations between sun cycles and weather events, but couldn't find a consistency.
Next post, do sun cycles affect earths core, and the core fluctuations affect climate?