In my previous post on multiple regression of known solar cycles versus HadCRUT5, I simply threw the solar cycles, ENSO, and sunspots into the regression blender and compared the result to various models that included CO2. Before reading this post, it is a good idea to read the previous one, since much of this post relies on the information in it. It was a very simple statistical analysis designed to show that the IPCC conclusion that rising CO2 and other greenhouse gases are “responsible” for “1.1°C of warming since 1850-1900” is probably erroneous. The difference between the HadCRUT5 1850-1900 average and the 2018-2023 (through all of 2022) is 1.18°C, so they are saying that essentially all the warming since the 19th century is due to humans. The analyses described in this post show they cannot be certain of their conclusion because they have ignored persuasive evidence that changes in the Sun caused at least some of the warming.

We have shown that various statistical combinations of known solar cycles correlated with HadCRUT5 as well as, or sometimes better than, changes in CO2 concentration. The way that the Sun might affect our climate is unknown. The IPCC only considers the direct effect of changing total solar irradiance (or TSI) directly on the Earth, as if the Sun were an incandescent light bulb over a piece of paper, but this cannot be correct. The climate effect of solar changes during a single 11-year solar cycle[1] is nearly an order of magnitude larger than the change in solar radiation can account for.

Recently great strides have been made in modeling and understanding the solar dynamo. However, modeling many important elements of the generation of solar cycles remains beyond our grasp. We only know their effect on Earth’s climate is much larger than the change in power received from the Sun during the cycle. We can examine the correlation of known (but poorly understood) solar cycles and climate change, but we cannot explain the mechanisms involved.

How additional CO2 can warm Earth’s surface is understood, but the climate sensitivity[2] to CO2 is not known. Recent published estimates of the sensitivity, range from near zero to over 5°C/2xCO2 (2xCO2 means doubling of the CO2 concentration). The IPCC claims that human generated CO2 and other human activities have caused all (or essentially all) recent warming. This is speculation. We do not know how much changing CO2 can affect climate, and we can’t explain the large observed effects due to solar changes,[3] so how can we know all the observed warming is due to CO2 and human activities? The advantage of the CO2 hypothesis is that the mechanism is known, but since the magnitude of the effect cannot be calculated accurately, quantitatively it is just as unknown as the solar effect, which the IPCC is clearly underestimating.[4]

In this post we will take a closer look at the correlation between solar activity and HadCRUT5, and address some of the many comments to my previous post. First overfitting.

Overfitting

Solar cycles are not understood but can be observed in cosmogenic isotope studies that have been used to document the very long Hallstatt (or Bray 2400-year, ±200 years) and Eddy (1000-year ±30 years) cycles. These two long cycles correlate with the most significant climate events in history, the Bray Cycle correlates with the Greek Dark Age (~ 1200 to 800BC) and the early part of the Little Ice Age (~ 1300 to 1600, we target 1470 as the Hallstatt low). The Eddy Cycle correlates with the Medieval Warm Period (~ 950 to 1250), the latter part of the Little Ice Age (~1500 to 1816, we target 1680 for the Eddy low), and the Modern Warm Period (~1940 to ~2005).[5]

The shorter cycles are not as climatically significant but noticeable. Both the “Pause” in warming and the cool period around 1910 correlate well with the Feynman Cycle, and the cooler period from 1945 to 1976 in the early part of the Modern Solar Maximum correlates with the Pentadecadal cycle. All these cycles are plotted for the instrumental period in Figure 1 along with HadCRUT5.



Figure 1. The known solar cycles plotted for instrumental era along with the HadCRUT5 global surface temperature record.

As some pointed out in comments on my last post, with this many cycles, multiple regression will always find a reasonable fit to almost anything trending upward. Further all the time series, including HadCRUT5, are strongly autocorrelated. The cycles are anchored to the solar lows or highs as specified in Ilya Usoskin’s 2016 and 2017 papers[6] or Joan Feynman’s 2014 paper.[7] The 22.1-year Hale Cycle is anchored to early 2020 during the solar cycle 24 minimum. It has been proposed that the de Vries Cycle is a beat period between the Hale Cycle and the 19.86-year orbit of the Sun around the solar system barycenter,[8] this configuration is consistent with this hypothesis.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/25/climate-co2-and-the-sun/

The Bray (Halstatt) Cycle.

"The existence of a ~ 2400-year climate cycle, discovered in 1968 by Roger Bray, is supported by abundant evidence from vegetation changes, glacier re-advances, atmospheric changes reflected in alterations in wind patterns, oceanic temperature and salinity changes, drift ice abundance, and changes in precipitation and temperature. This is established with proxy records from many parts of the world.

Introduction

In our attempt to better understand the nature of our planet’s abrupt climate changes I have already reviewed the glacial-interglacial cycle, and the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle’s that take place during glacial periods. I now start reviewing the millennial climate cycles that abruptly impact the slowly changing Holocene climate. The most significant and regular one is the ~ 2400-year Bray cycle.

Recently, the Bray (Hallstatt) Cycle was reviewed by analyzing the main findings of some of the most significant articles by researchers who have studied it. That article summarizes the current scientific understanding of the ~ 2400-year cycle. In part A of this article, we are going to review, in detail, the evidence for the existence of the ~ 2400-year climate cycle. In part B, we will go over the arguments that the ~2400-year cycle of the production of cosmogenic isotopes 14C and 10Be represents a cycle in solar activity. In part C, we will discuss what it is considered the most likely mechanism by which solar variability could affect climate, as proposed by the authors researching the subject. Afterwards we recommend that the interested reader read the post “Impact of the ~ 2400 yr solar cycle on climate and human societies.” The post explores, in detail, the climatic effects and their impact on human civilization in each of the Bray cycle lows during the Holocene.

The biological 2400-year climate cycle

Over a century ago Scandinavian botanists started to reconstruct the climate of the Holocene from peat bog stratigraphy. They could distinguish the sediment layers into wet/dry, cold/warm, periods, and developed crude dating methods. Their efforts resulted in an understanding that the Holocene climate could be subdivided into periods of different climatic conditions, like in a diagram by Rutger Sernander from 1912 (figure 50 A, upper diagram).



Figure 50. Postglacial vegetation and climate periods as understood during the first half of the 20th century. A). Upper diagram, Rutger Sernander’s view of postglacial warm climate periods in southern and central Sweden, showing his proposed abrupt climate degradation at the Sub-Boreal/Sub-Atlantic transition, termed “fimbulvintern.” The dashed line indicates G. Andersson’s opposite view of continuous temperature evolution. Lower diagram, Late Glacial/Postglacial temperature evolution in southern and central Sweden based on biological evidence, after Magnus Fries, showing the temporal disposition of the nine pollen zones in Roman numbers. The thin line represents a near-millennial oscillation in humidity. Dates in calendar years. Source: T. Bergeron, 1956. Fornvännen, 51, 1-18. B). Analytical pollen zones defined by Knud Jenssen and Johs. Iversen for southern and central Sweden confirming Sernander’s climatic reconstruction. Dates in calendar years. Source: O.K. Davis, 2009. Introduction to Quaternary ecology."

https://judithcurry.com/2017/07/11/nature-unbound-iv-the-2400-year-bray-cycle-pa...

Poor JM.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 29^th, 2023 at 2:53pm:


And yet he likes to show statistics. You know, the ones CO2 v Temperature.  Curve fitting and statistics.

I notice that the Environment Expert Monk hasn't shown his face up here to take you on Lee.

Jasin wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2023 at 3:03pm:



That's because that halfwit is banned till 23/12/23.

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1612043899

I see JM is lauding the fact he can control his own garbage posts.

Al Gore is not really a High Priest. John Kerry and Barack Obama are not really apostles of truth. Our own Tim Flannery … well, the less said the better. António Guterres, the UN Secretary-Genearl who claimed the crown of Climate Clown just before you could plonk it in your own head at COP28, has the world ‘boiling’ already. Boiling! And they all blame emissions of carbon dioxide … for they know not what they do.



‘The whole thing is a total scam. There is actually no scientific evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate change over the eons.’ That’s Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, not your average ‘denier’, eh? ‘We don’t need CO2. For us, it’s a waste product – we need oxygen. But plants are the ones who make the oxygen for us, and we’re making the CO2 back for them.’ He said the burning of fossil fuels – which emit CO2 – is a good thing for plant life.

Moore pointed to a graph that charts CO2 and temperature over the past 500 million years. ‘It’s very clear that CO2 and temperature have been out of sync more often than they’ve been in sync. That more or less negates the whole idea that there’s a direct cause-effect going on there.’

Moore says current CO2 concentrations are ‘historically low’. (As opposed to hysterically high, as you might think, Minister?) ‘Going back 150 million years, CO2 was somewhere between 2,000 and 2,500 parts per million (ppm).’

Generally, atmospheric CO2 is low (around 180 ppm) during glacial periods and higher during inter-glacial periods, according to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Before the industrial era, circa 1750, atmospheric CO2 was about 280 ppm for several thousand years, the IPCC states. The current peak level in the atmosphere is around 420 parts per million (ppm), according to 2021 data from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Research.

Moore says that that’s a good thing, and that the push for Net Zero CO2 is a disastrous policy. Anything under 150 ppm is ‘starvation level’ for most plant species.

‘CO2 is only now at 0.042 per cent of the atmosphere. And the fact of the matter is plants would prefer between 1,500 and 2,000 ppm for optimum growth.

‘Commercial greenhouse growers worldwide purposefully increase the CO2 level in their greenhouses to between 800 and 1,200 ppm. Really, it’s about 2,000 where you’re at the optimum level for trees and plants, in general.’

Here’s more: weather-related deaths and climate disasters have in fact declined ‘precipitously’ over the years, according to John Christy, a climatologist and professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the director of the Earth System Science Centre. ‘CO2 is portrayed now as the cause of damaging extreme weather. Our research indicates these extremes are not becoming more intense or frequent. Thus, CO2 cannot be the cause of something not occurring.’

Christy said the Earth’s climate has ‘tremendous natural variability’ and that it’s currently in a gradual warming phase. ‘CO2 has been unfairly demonised because it is actually plant food in its atmospheric form, and it is the consequence of generating carbon-based energy, which unquestionably improves lives around the world.’ He calls CO2 the ‘currency of life.’

‘In past epochs, there were many times more CO2 levels in the atmosphere than today.’

The UN is blindly planning for countries to cut emissions to as close to zero as possible by 2050. Plants would wither if denied CO2. If plants wither, so do we. Children first.

‘The plan is collective suicide,’ says Malgosia Askanas, a senior research and development associate at Aurora Biophysics Research Institute.

Askanas said the concern over CO2 is not based on science. ‘It started with the hysteria of the New Ice Age and a little-known CIA report in 1974 that claimed that a major climatic change was underway,’ she said. ‘Later, the “global cooling” alarmism morphed into its opposite, by employing the false notion of global warming due to excess CO2 – which is chemically a falsehood.’
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/01/dear-chris-bowen-a-new-years-letter/

AGW - falsehoods cobbled together from the propaganda bin.

lee wrote on Nov 28^th, 2023 at 12:21pm:


Assuming this to be true (and it does tie in with the recorded collapses of various civilizations/cultures in history, due to climate change), how do you propose to deal with future climate change, while avoiding similar economic collapses going forward?

Hint: business as usual won't cut the mustard....