Home/BlogAs a result of unusually heavy precipitation, the water level in Lake Superior has increased rapidly in the last year, by about 14 inches (based upon 3 month averages). This rate of rise is the fastest 12-month increase ending in April-May-June average levels since 1916, and the 2nd fastest since records began in 1860 (154 years ago). An Excel spreadsheet with the data is here.
Here’s a plot of monthly departures from the long-term average (deseasonalized):
Monthly departures from average of Lake Superior water levels between 1860 and June 2014.
As a result of the high lake levels, water flow out of Superior through the St. Marys river in Sault Ste. Marie, MI, has been increased by increasing the number of gates open.
As discussed by Steve Hayward today, this rise in lake levels was totally unexpected by climate scientists, who have been anticipating declining lake levels in response to global warming-induced drought.
Of course, those scientists will no doubt claim they will eventually be proved correct. Except that climate models they rely upon are notoriously poor at predicting regional changes in climate…even worse than predicting changes in global-average conditions.
Dr. S., do you know if there is any effort underway to correct those climate models?
If you are asking about whether they are being adjusted because they produce too much warming, I don’t know. I doubt it. I suspect the modelers continue to believe that they will be proved correct eventually…which means there will have to be a rapid rise in temperature in the coming years.
Thanx, I’ve been wondering about that for quite some time…
I conducted some e-mail correspondence with Justin Trenberth a couple of years ago, and among other topics, I asked him why he and his associates don’t spend more time and effort investigating the accuracy of their models, instead of devoting most of their attention to warning of the dire consequences of Global Warming. His answer was that the science is settled. They now need to convince the general public.
When I stated that there is not unanimous consensus among scientists, and named several “deniers” or “skeptics”, including Dr. Spencer, his response was either that they were “over the hill” or in Spencer’s case, “an outlier”.
Geologists assert that the lake levels are not really going down anyway; rather, it is the land that is rising – it is continuing to rebound in response to the retreat of the last ice age glaciers.
Some of us living in the eastern US, paying attention to the past year’s drought hysteria, are chuckling about this. We’re experiencing the inverse of a drought.
Now, it’ll be interesting to see what happens with the water table and weather for the next few years, as it OBVIOUS these patterns come and go. We’ve had many wet years, and many dry years.
Nothing to get alarmed about, no reason to incriminate man for the sake of enigma 🙂
What is average rainfall: add a drought and a flood together then divide by 2.
Also, noting that the financial leader Hank Paulson has jumped on the AGW bandwagon with a concurrence letter, I suggest people seek the businesses he is invested in or intends to invest in and join in. Al Gore led the way, Paulson just trying to get his. (Or am I being too cynical?)
Lewis, when dealing with the AGW crowd, it is impossible to be too cynical.
“Of course, those scientists will no doubt claim they will eventually be proved correct.”
Dr. Roy,
You silly scientist, you. Rapid increase in water levels in the Great Lakes is entirely consistent with our computer models for CAGW just as are decreases.
Let them eat cake… and possess it as well.
Wow, so you’ve predicted everything can happen. How useful!
If global warming is supposed to be causing the lake levels to drop then it would be helpful to see the temperature on the same graph. This way we can see that the effect of temperature vs. lake level.
ri
The solution is obvious: mandatory lithium medication for all Politicians and Climate Alchemists……
But the past decade was below average. Wasn’t the extensive ice cover expected to raise water levels this year? I.e., the warmth-induced ice cover, of course.
If the world is cooling now and the oceans still have their lag factor warmth, would that tend to result in more average global precipitation and would there tend to be certain areas that would be more affected?
In related news, humans have been adjusting the water level in Lake Superior, so the changes in water level are not only due to climate or weather.
yes, I mention that in my article…the rise in Lake Superior should end as the extra water is shared with the other Great Lakes.
Without the sceptic blinkers I see a 40 year declining long term trend, with transient peaks in 1986, 1997 and 2014.
What is the basis for your apparent certainty that the 2014 peak is the start of a trend reversal, and not just another transient?
I don’t think we know what will happen. But the original NYT article says scientists are “astounded”, or something like that. Obviously contrary to their expectations.
It is like that declining trend between 1900 and 1928 which was followed by a big upswing. That was pre-“AGW.” You might call it the natural ebb and flow of nature.
Entropic man, the level of Lake Superior will likely depend significantly on the gates being either open, or closed, or somewhere in between.
They were built at the beginning of the 20th century, quite possibly with the express intent of controlling water flow.
Regional trends definitely have a lot of uncertainty. Think about it logically. More heat/energy and therefore more water vapor make possible that most regions that get moderate rainfall could in one year get enormous rainfall. This kind of year to year change shouldn’t surprise anyone. Whatever is influencing the jet stream (warmer pacific/less sea ice) I think could drive very strange and “stuck” weather patterns like we have seen for the last 4 years or so.
Holding a climate model accountable for year to year regional variability seems kind of absurd even if the model is getting it right in other ways.
Bassman give us your global temperature forecast between now and 2020.
I say global temperatures will be .5c lower on average. What do you say?
One item to remember is this period of below normal solar activity started in 2005 so the accumulation factor is coming into play.
Secondly it is not just solar activity within itself but the secondary effects associated with solar variability which I feel are extremely hard to predict as far as how strongly (to what degree)they may change and thus effect the climate in response to long prolonged minimum solar activity.
I strongly suspect the degree of magnitude change of the prolonged minimum solar activity combined with the duration of time of the prolonged minimum solar activity is going to have a great impact as to how EFFECTIVE the associated secondary effects associated with prolonged minimal solar activity may have on the climate. An example would be an increased in volcanic activity.To make it more complicated could thresholds come about? An example would be a changing atmospheric circulation pattern which may promote more snow cover/cloud cover and thus increase the earths albedo. How will the initial state of the climate play into it? An example of this would be the great amounts of excess Antarctica Sea Ice the globe has presently and how this might play out going forward under a very long period of prolonged minimum solar activity. Will climatic outcomes unknown come out of this?
Then one has to consider where the earth is in respect to Milankovitch Cycles (favorable )and how the earths magnetic field may enhance or moderate solar activity.
Given all of that I think at best only general trends in the climate can be forecasted going forward. I am confident enough to say in response to prolonged minimum solar activity going forward the temperature trend for the globe as a whole will be down. The question is how far down /how rapid will the decline be? I really do not have the answer because there are just to many UNKNOWNS. Further when you have unknowns in a system like the climate which is non linear, random and chaotic expect surprises.
NOTE: Ocean heat content could slow down the temperature fall at first. In regards to that I look first for more extremes in the climate due to low solar activity followed by a more pronounced drop in temperature as time goes by.
Still I believe year 2014 is the turning point for global temperatures as the maximum of solar cycle 24 comes to an end.
It can be shown that a strong correlation exist between sunspot numbers and ocean heat content. When the SIDC sunspot count is well over 40 (the long term average) like it was from 1934-2003 the energy gained from solar to the oceans is positive hence ocean heat content rises.
This is now changing with the exception of the maximum of solar cycle 24(2011-2014 early) which is on it’s way out.
Salvatore, First, I think your understanding of climate forcings doesn’t seemed to be based on peer review science. See the Nasa forcings value below.
Second, Thanks for asking about my thoughts on future temp changes. If PDO stays negative a warming rate of about .12 to .14 per decade. If PDO goes positive the warming will likely be around .2 to .25. I don’t value the RSS values much however.
… and you value the “peer reviewed” science ? Given the shenanigans of the TEAM, “peer review” in the context of ‘climate science’ has negligible credibility.
Sorry Here is the link
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
Thanks for your prediction.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce
Which I don’t agree with.
Salvatore, Here is an earlier post I made. The more I learn the less important I find surface temps to be in the short term. The quarterly updates on NOAA for deep ocean heat content are much more important for measuring energy gain. See post below:
I have had many discussions about measuring energy gain/loss on planet earth with people on this blog. Here is a new study (now with a video abstract) doing a great job of explaining natural variability and climate models. It shows that deep ocean heat content is by far the best way to measure energy gain on a timescale of a decade. It implies that surface temperatures are very unreliable for measuring forcing values on a timescale of a decade. This isn’t really news but its an incredibly informative paper worth reading to completion.
“Internal variability of Earth’s energy budget simulated by CMIP5 climate models”
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/3/034016
Bassman we don’t agree on any of this thus are entirely different climatic outlooks. I think it is almost solar induced ,you don’t.
It will be interesting to see who is correct.
I choose to trust the vast majority of scientific peer reviewed research and you seem to reject most of it pertaining to climate change. We don’t disagree as in the best flavor of snow cone. Just to be sure, you don’t also reject evolutionary science right?
Hi Bassman,
You wrote to Salvatore:
“I choose to trust the vast majority of scientific peer reviewed research and you seem to reject most of it pertaining to climate change.”
Yet curiously, in this post you reference none of it. Nor do you provide any measurable data.
You go on to chide:
“Just to be sure, you dont also reject evolutionary science right?”
Curiously, you chide Salvatore on his opinion regarding what you label evolutionary science but provide no specific evolutionary claim or evidence supporting it! Do you often communicate this way? Do you labor under the impression that you act rationally?
Darwin wrote:
“Not one change of species into another is on record…we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.”
Charles Darwin – from Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol 1, p. 210.
Hmm! Given the definition some use regarding the term “species” I myself disagree with Darwin. However, regarding differing morphological types and/or kinds he still proves dead on the money.
Have a great day!
We both made are cases.
False equivalency is a very sly way of being dishonest. This debate is about data and unless you are saying almost all of it is fudged or biased then the debate now is the following: How much warming and how will it manifest itself across the planet in the coming decades?
Hi Bassman,
You asserted:
“This debate is about data and unless you are saying almost all of it is fudged or biased then the debate now is the following: How much warming and how will it manifest itself across the planet in the coming decades?”
The term “data” is an acronym meaning Direct Access To Answers. However, science historically referred to a branch of study concerned with establishing and systematizing FACTS, principles, and methods. Humans can understand little about anything in this universe unless it can be measured with some experienced frame of reference. Most if not all data-sets including the MSU satellite data sets on this website have been ADJUSTED! They often do not comprise the measurements themselves. In addition to having been derived from human interpretation ( in the case of the UAH MSU satellite data, of atmospheric oxygen microwave emissions) the DERIVED data-sets then get adjusted to conform to the beliefs and yes BIASES of those presenting the data. As I’ve mentioned before, Wikipedia at one point listed 10 adjustments to the UAH data set. This includes a .1 deg centigrade temp increase in the 1990’s due to orbital drift, which supposedly lead to a COOLING bias. To compensate the data-set temps subsequently displayed the warming ADJUSMENT! Please if you have acquired data-sets comprised of raw data absent such adjustments and/or someone’s imaginary fingerprints we’d all love to examine it. Personally, I’m quite skeptical that you’ll find any but GOOD LUCK!!! You’ll need it!
As to NOAA so called data (?):
dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/
As to the CAGW conjecture:
“Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.” –
Thomas Huxley
As to your future temp predictions and Salvatore’s:
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
― Mark Twain
Have a great day!
Yes and basic thermometers actually measure the temperature coefficient of expansion of alcohol or mercury, and electronic thermometers measure temperature coefficient of resistance or electron hole production in a semiconductor medium, or an EMF produced at a semiconductor junction. Yep nothing is all that simple.
The data tells me it is solar not GHG that rule the climate . You look at it differently.
We will find out soon.
Hi Salvatore Del Prete,
Believe it or not their exists a FACTOR distinct from either solar irradiance or GHG’s that rules both climate and temps.
Hint: In the northern hemisphere during the winter solstice when temps fall to near their coolest the earth is closest to the sun with a solar irradiance of ~1370w/m2 while temps reach their highest point near the summer solstice when the earth is farthest from the sun and the solar irradiance falls at ~1360w/m2. Btw the lunar landscape can reach temps in excess of 200 degrees centigrade with virtually no measurable atmosphere let alone GHG’s and a solar irradiance approximately the same as the earth. This FACTOR also explains why Venus must be enormously hotter than Mercury despite the fact that mercury is closer to the sun quite apart from the presence or absence of GHG’s. Few people take this FACTOR into consideration when discussing AGW, which explains why so many alarmists get away with scaring a gullible public out of what they call their minds!
Have a great day!
John k, Go to NASA or NOAA or just begin using google. The scientific evidence has been accumulating for decades. Even the author of this Blog trusts enough of it to say the planet will continue warming.
Also John, if you think even 1% of the current body of scientific evidence for evolution is from Darwin you are either uneducated or being dishonest. That was the 1800s. Do you think Biologists took the last 160 years off and didn’t contribute a vast and conclusive mountain of evidence supporting evolution. Go to half-priced books and buy an older edition of Campbell biology and then you might realize how advanced the study of evolution is.
I asked Salvatore a scientific question in the
same way I would ask a concussion victim who the current president is. If Salvatore stated he rejected evolutionary science I would know he was bonkers.
Hello Bassman,
Your diatribe contains so many non-sequitors the mind reels at the absurdity.
You wrote:
“The scientific evidence has been accumulating for decades. Even the author of this Blog trusts enough of it to say the planet will continue warming.”
When did I claim the planet won’t continue warming? In fact, I’ve indicated just the opposite in previous posts.
You go on to assert without factual reference of any kind:
“Also John, if you think even 1% of the current body of scientific evidence for evolution is from Darwin you are either uneducated or being dishonest.”
Since you have yet to define what you mean by evolution your claim proves prima facia incompetent. Since I never said what percentage of the current body of scientific evidence derives from Darwin your accusation proves speculative at best. Nevertheless, once again you FAILED to provide any evidence at all. This proves once again that while you claim knowledge of such evidence you prove incapable of either providing it or more probably comprehending it yourself. As to the evidence for macro-evolution, Darwin’s body of scientific evidence for evolution doesn’t comprise 1% percent because 1% of zero remains zero. Oh! yes I’m quite aware of the supposed claim to genetic evidence. Imo, evidence proves quite the opposite of what you suggest.
As a simple test of your alleged scientific knowledge please explain to me the evolutionary process by which cats acquired 40 additional bones in their vertebrae, retractable claws, barbed tongues, eyes specialized for night vision or even the uni-directional lung system unique to aves (bird family) and found nowhere else in the fossil record. Personally, I doubt you have the ability. If you feel peculiarly arrogant try explaining in micro-biological detail the evolution of the human circulatory system including blood-clotting. Again we’ll all have a great laugh!
You go on to absurdly boast:
“I asked Salvatore a scientific question in the
same way I would ask a concussion victim who the current president is. If Salvatore stated he rejected evolutionary science I would know he was bonkers.”
Why would anyone reject evolutionary science (i.e. either the facts or laws of nature)? With bombastic pretension you ASSUME he will. However, if you assert macro-evolution in face of the KNOWN FACTS AND PASTEUR’S LAW OF BIOGENESIS that all life comes from pre-existing life and replicates after it’s own kind, we’d all love to hear the evidence or should we accuse you of what you seem to so frequently accuse others of DISHONESTY?
Have a great day!
Oh! Since you contributed a total of one author’s last name Campbell in YOUR SPIRIT OF NAME DROPPING you may want to research Redi, Spallanzani, Virchow, Behe, Denton and so many, many more!
Hello Bassman,
Please allow me one correction to my last point. When I referred to zero evidence of macro-evolutionary change I am referring to mutation by the slow accumulation of random genetic mutation not saltation all leaps or what some call miracles. Evidence certainly exists for that. Just ask Stephen J Gould.
Have a great day!
Hello Bassman,
Please allow me one correction to my last post. When I referred to zero evidence of macro-evolutionary change I am referring to mutation by the slow accumulation of random genetic mutation not saltational leaps or what some call miracles. Evidence certainly exists for that. Just ask Stephen J Gould, Goldscmidt, etc.
Have a great day!
Correction: Bird family should read Bird CLASS –
John, if you have enough Faith in the effects of Time, then evolution is a proven Fact.
After all man is very similar to Chimpanzees. There are only 40 million genetic differences between. This happened over the past 6 million years. Here’s what happened. Mutations occurred, the offspring were born with superior characteristics, and they found other offspring with the same random mutations and mated. They were superior, so the non-mutated offspring died off. (99.999% of the species) And this kept happening, 40 million times over the past 6 million years. And that is what got us to where we are today. Then of course, all this stopped happening, so we could study it. This is all very believable science. /sarcoff
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html
“Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. “
Thanks for the reply NoFreeWind,
You made several points. Allow me to address each individually. You wrote:
“..if you have enough Faith in the effects of Time, then evolution is a proven Fact.”
No, a FACT derives from OBSERVATION. To believe in what many consider Darwinian evolution (i.e. neo-Darwinism and/or the synthetic theory) you must believe in many processes never observed including Spontaneous Generation (disproven by the work of Redi, Spallanzani, Rudolph Virchow and Louis Pasteur among probably many others and by the LAW OF BIOGENESIS, beneficial mutations that advance the design and complexity of an organism ( virtually all supposedly random mutations prove harmful or deadly, occasionally minor mutations result in some variation with some minor flaw that does little damage.
I must leave the computer now I will finish addressing your post later. Thanks again.
Have a great day!
Thanks again for your reply NoFreeWind,
Upon rereading your post the sarcasm came out very clearly. I must admit it’s very funny
Have a great day!
Do you believe that evolution and creation are mutual exclusives. If so you have discarded science.
Must have been in the wrong place, the previous comment was in reply to Bassman.
The first projection of future rainfall that I found seems to show that the Great Lakes region should see increased precipitation in winter, and roughly the same or maybe a slight drying in summer.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/climate_future_predictions_global.html
Dr. Roy, thanks for the chart on Lake Superior levels. A quick “eye-balling” of the plot leads me to think the lake will have several more years of, at least, average moisture.
Bassman, you are at it again with your continued demonstration that you are not a scientist. Both AGW and evolution are “belief systems”, or “religions”. The science is NOT settled on either.
In fact, if you were a real scientist, you would know that both beliefs are falling apart. The “Big Bang” is so flawed “they” have had to invent things like dark matter and dark energy to support the failed theory. DNA research as far back as the 1980s destroyed the concept of “common ancestor”. Heck, “they” can not even show how the Moon got here!
And, I won’t even mention all the failed science, false theories, and faked data pushed by the AGW crowd. (Kind of fits in with Piltdown Man, huh?)
Well, Salvatore believes the sun is a much stronger forcing than NASA does. You could almost rule this idea out based on the fingerprint of the current warming. More warming has been occurring at night and winter suggesting a trapping effect vs more incoming energy. I would also reject Salvatore’s idea simply based on the fact that pollution has been decreasing incoming solar energy, yet the planet is still warming.
John K on the other hand rejects evolutionary science. That is bonkers. John, start with “the greatest show on earth” if you want a massive Volume of evidence, the book is incredibly well written. Or as I said before just by Campbell biology or any other college text that includes lots of evidence.
I thought Roy was the author of this Blog, correct?
Hi Bassman,
You asserted without evidence:
“John K on the other hand rejects evolutionary science.”
Really, when did I do that? When you provide actual evidence I’m more than willing to consider it. Perhaps I’m old fashioned or maybe even as you distort BONKERS BECAUSE I believe SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE COMPRISES THE FACTS AND LAWS OF NATURE NOT SPECULATION. PER THE SCIENTIFIC/SOCRATIC METHOD THEORIES AND/OR HYPOTHESES FOR ALL THEIR VALUE AT PROVIDING A PROVISIONAL MODEL DO NOT REPRESENT SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. FACTS AND EVIDENCE DO! Louis Pasteur’s Law of Biogenesis has not been proven false. Human experience and observation only further supports it. Since you repeatedly failed to provide evidence for macro-evolution as understood by the neo-Dariwinism/synthetic theory or as Ernst Mayr prefers the synthetic theory, one can only conclude you lack any. Once again we welcome any attempt on your part.
You then suggest:
“John, start with the greatest show on earth if you want a massive Volume of evidence, the book is incredibly well written. Or as I said before just by Campbell biology or any other college text that includes lots of evidence.”
Hmmh! Apparently, you haven’t read them including the college textbook or you should be able to provide observational evidence of macro-evolutionary changes in accord with neo-Darwinism as you claim there’s “lots” of it.
Have a great day!
P.S. – Allow me to repeat my previous request. If as you claim there exists “LOT’S” of evidence proving such macro-mutations, please them including if you CAN a micro-biological account explaining the evolutionary pathway and development of the circulatory system including red blood cells, phagocytes, leukocytes, blood clotting, etc. The system proves IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX on a moments consideration, since time and the evolutionary process are DIRECTIONAL AND LINEAR! We wouldn’t want to consider your consistent refusal to provide any OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE OF SIGNIFICANT MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGE (like the evolutionary development of the system mentioned above) while simultaneously boasting of it’s existence an example of COGNITIVE DISSONANCE would we?!!!
Have a great day!
My sentence should read:
If as you claim there exists LOTS of evidence proving such macro-mutations, please provide them including if you CAN a micro-biological account explaining the evolutionary pathway and development of the circulatory system including red blood cells, phagocytes, leukocytes, blood clotting, etc.
Baseman you are acting as if warming periods have never occurred before which were very similar to the recent current warming period that ended in 1998 or so.
It was just another warming and was related in large part to the phase change of the PDO around 1978, combined with an increase in ocean heat content which can be shown to be linked with solar activity. I had mentioned this in an earlier post.
The climate from 1978-1998 had nothing more then a typical warming period due to natural variations.
from john k
Believe it or not their exists a FACTOR distinct from either solar irradiance or GHGs that rules both climate and temps.
I do not get the point. Of course the N.H. is furthest from the sun during it’s summer and closet to the sun during winter and vice versa for the S.H.
According to Milankovitch Cycles when the N.H is furthest from the sun during it’s summer that favors cooling.
In addition the less oblique the earth’s axis is and the less eccentricity the orbit of the earth is favor cooling.
On balance Milankovitch cycles favor cooling as insolation values at 65N latitude are around 428 Wm2 which is close to threshold values that started glacial inceptions in the past.
Milankovitch Cycles will be favorable for cooling the next 0-4000 years.
This combined with weak solar activity going forward,(primary and secondary effects from this weak solar activity ) a weakening earth magnetic field, favorable land/ocean arrangements, set the stage for cooling rather then warming unless you subscribe to a trace gas with a trace increase somehow trumping what I have alluded to.
Hi Salvatore Del Prete,
You wrote:
“I do not get the point. Of course the N.H. is furthest from the sun during its summer and closet to the sun during winter and vice versa for the S.H.”
Many on this website don’t seem to understand that solar irradiance and atmospheric gas composition frequently pales in comparison to rotational period in determining climate conditions.
Thanks and have a great day!
More on the points I have been trying to get across on my earlier post.
These four factors either combined or in some combination are responsible for all the climate changes on earth. If one agrees with this then one will also have to agree that global climate change is synchronous.
MY FOUR FACTORS
1. The initial state of the global climate.
a. how close or far away is the global climate to glacial conditions if in inter- glacial, or how close is the earth to inter- glacial conditions if in a glacial condition.
b. climate was closer to the threshold level between glacial and inter- glacial 20,000 -10,000 years ago. This is why I think the climate was more unstable then. Example solar variability and all items would be able to pull the climate EASIER from one regime to another when the state of the climate was closer to the inter glacial/glacial dividing line, or threshold.
.
2. Solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects. Lag times, degree of magnitude change and duration of those changes must be taken into account. I have come up with criteria . I will pass it along, why not in my next email.
a. solar irradiance changes- linked to ocean heat content.
b. cosmic ray changes- linked to clouds.
c. volcanic activity- correlated to stratospheric warming changing which will impact the atmospheric circulation.
d. UV light changes -correlated to ozone which then can be linked to atmospheric circulation changes.
e. atmospheric changes – linked to ocean current changes including ENSO, and thermohaline circulation.
f. atmospheric changes -linked also to albedo changes due to snow cover, cloud cover , and precipitation changes.
g. thickness of thermosphere – which is linked to other levels of the atmosphere.
.
3. Strength of the magnetic field of the earth. This can enhance or moderate changes associated with solar variability.
a. weaker magnetic field can enhance cosmic rays and also cause them to be concentrated in lower latitudes where there is more moisture to work with to be more effective in cloud formation if magnetic poles wander south due to magnetic excursions in a weakening magnetic field overall.
4. Milankovitch Cycles. Where the earth is at in relation to these cycles as far as how elliptic or not the orbit is, the tilt of the axis and precession.
a. less elliptic, less tilt, earth furthest from sun during N.H. summer favor cooling.
I feel what I have outlined for the most part is not being taken as a serious possible solution as to why the climate changes. Rather climate change is often trying to be tied with terrestrial changes and worse yet only ONE ITEM , such as CO2 or ENSO which is absurdity.
Over time not one of these one item explanations stand up, they can not explain all of the various climatic changes to all the different degrees of magnitude and duration of time each one different from the previous one. Each one UNIQUE.
Examples would be the sudden start/end of the Oldest, Older and Younger Dryas dramatic climate shifts, the 8200 year ago cold period, and even the sudden start of the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period.
These four factors either combined or in some combination are responsible for all the climate changes on earth. If one agrees with this then one will also have to agree that global climate change is synchronous.
MY FOUR FACTORS
1. The initial state of the global climate.
a. how close or far away is the global climate to glacial conditions if in inter- glacial, or how close is the earth to inter- glacial conditions if in a glacial condition.
b. climate was closer to the threshold level between glacial and inter- glacial 20,000 -10,000 years ago. This is why I think the climate was more unstable then. Example solar variability and all items would be able to pull the climate EASIER from one regime to another when the state of the climate was closer to the inter glacial/glacial dividing line, or threshold.
.
2. Solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects. Lag times, degree of magnitude change and duration of those changes must be taken into account. I have come up with criteria . I will pass it along, why not in my next email.
a. solar irradiance changes- linked to ocean heat content.
b. cosmic ray changes- linked to clouds.
c. volcanic activity- correlated to stratospheric warming changing which will impact the atmospheric circulation.
d. UV light changes -correlated to ozone which then can be linked to atmospheric circulation changes.
e. atmospheric changes – linked to ocean current changes including ENSO, and thermohaline circulation.
f. atmospheric changes -linked also to albedo changes due to snow cover, cloud cover , and precipitation changes.
g. thickness of thermosphere – which is linked to other levels of the atmosphere.
.
3. Strength of the magnetic field of the earth. This can enhance or moderate changes associated with solar variability.
a. weaker magnetic field can enhance cosmic rays and also cause them to be concentrated in lower latitudes where there is more moisture to work with to be more effective in cloud formation if magnetic poles wander south due to magnetic excursions in a weakening magnetic field overall.
4. Milankovitch Cycles. Where the earth is at in relation to these cycles as far as how elliptic or not the orbit is, the tilt of the axis and precession.
a. less elliptic, less tilt, earth furthest from sun during N.H. summer favor cooling.
I feel what I have outlined for the most part is not being taken as a serious possible solution as to why the climate changes. Rather climate change is often trying to be tied with terrestrial changes and worse yet only ONE ITEM , such as CO2 or ENSO which is absurdity.
Over time not one of these one item explanations stand up, they can not explain all of the various climatic changes to all the different degrees of magnitude and duration of time each one different from the previous one. Each one UNIQUE.
Examples would be the sudden start/end of the Oldest, Older and Younger Dryas dramatic climate shifts, the 8200 year ago cold period, and even the sudden start of the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .015% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.
That is my position. I will run this again when the June climate data comes out.
I have had this train of thought since 2008.
The discovery of the Sun-Spot Cycle is an interesting story in itself – one which shows “professional science” as sometmes more like “professional farce”.
The cycle was discovered by a PHARMACIST (Heinrich Schwabe)who had the gall simply to look (with protection, of course) at the Sun year after year from 1826 onwards, and write down what he observed – which was quite different from what professional astronomers thought they were seeing.
Between Galileo and Schwabe, in all scientific papers the possibility of solar periodicity was specifically and dogmatically denied. (The first part of this 200 year span had few Spots, but the second part had abundant Spots for observation.)
Even after Schwabe’s factual report, it was only when an “Establishment” scientist (von Humboldt) in effect said, “I sprinkle Holy Water over what this twerp says” that any notice at all was taken.
Then followed an instant and universal turn-around in the community of idiot savants: From “No!” to “Yes!” and from “Never!” to “Always!”
The Great Lakes flow into the St Lawrence seaway and into the Atlantic at about 2 million gallons per second at Cornwall. That is a whole lot of fresh water that we could be using.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/stl/default.asp?lang=En&n=B82B3625-1
Another factor in the rise in lake levels, and apparently an important one is the extensive ice coverage last winter. Open water evaporates a lot faster, especially in windy conditions, than does snow covered ice at ambient temperature.
I grew up in northeast Ohio – the reduction in lake effect snow storms as Lake Erie froze over was impressive.
It was hard to find your blog in google search results.
I found it on 21 spot, you have to build some quality backlinks , it will help you to get more visitors.
I know how to help you, just search in google – k2 seo
tips and tricks