Hottest September on record: Could 2020 be the world's warmest year ever?

[iguanaman]

Not a miracle. Solar/GCR-driven climate.

No it would be a miracle....

But the change from 2004 to 2007 in the sun's output of visible light, and the attendant warming at Earth's surface of 0.1 watt per square meter, is roughly equivalent to the overall forcing of the sun on the climate over the past 25 years—estimated by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to be an additional 0.12 watt per square meter. That suggests scientists may have overestimated the sun's role in climate change.

Regardless, the solar change is dwarfed by the impact from the extra heat trapped by CO2 alone since 1750: an additional 1.66 watts per square meter, an effect that other greenhouse gases, such as methane, strengthen further. In other words, whereas the new satellite measurements call into question computer models of solar output, it does not change the fundamental physics of human-induced global warming.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weaker-sun-may-equal-warmer-earth/

 

[Jack Hays]

No it would be a miracle....
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weaker-sun-may-equal-warmer-earth/

Sorry, but that's some real denial.
Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)

 

[vegas giants]

Yes we are rounding the corner Jack. Warming will go away like a miracle. Right?

Our numbers are just great. Lol

 

[longview]

The levels of carbon 14 are not affected by how much sunlight reaches the ground. It is affected by cosmic rays hitting the upper troposphere and stratosphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

And did you even try to find more proxy data? Or did you find out that atomic bomb testing in the 50s and 60s pretty much screwed that up?

But they did use Carbon-14 as a proxy for solar activity not cosmic rays!
If atomic bomb testing screwed up the C-14 proxy, then there is no way to test if the effects continued.
Something's use as a proxy, is somewhat limited if the linearity of the proxy cannot be tested, against known data.

 

[Jack Hays]

But they did use Carbon-14 as a proxy for solar activity not cosmic rays!
If atomic bomb testing screwed up the C-14 proxy, then there is no way to test if the effects continued.
Something's use as a proxy, is somewhat limited if the linearity of the proxy cannot be tested, against known data.

The levels of carbon 14 are not affected by how much sunlight reaches the ground. It is affected by cosmic rays hitting the upper troposphere and stratosphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

And did you even try to find more proxy data? Or did you find out that atomic bomb testing in the 50s and 60s pretty much screwed that up?

• Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?

Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).

Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)

Fig. 6: The flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, as measured by ion chambers. Red line - annual averages, Blue line - 11 yr moving average. Note that ion chambers are sensitive to particles at relatively high energy (several 10's of GeV, which is higher than the energies responsible for the atmospheric ionization [~10 GeV], and much higher than the energies responsible for the 10Be production [~1 GeV]). Plot redrawn using data from Ahluwalia (1997). Moreover, the decrease in high energy cosmic rays since the 1970's is less pronounced in low energy proxies of solar activity, implying that cosmogenic isotopes (such as 10Be) or direct solar activity proxies (e.g., sun spots, aa index, etc) are less accurate in quantifying the solar → cosmic ray → climate link and its contribution to 20th century global warming.

 

[Buzz]

But they did use Carbon-14 as a proxy for solar activity not cosmic rays!

You obviously need to read up on how carbon-14 is used as a proxy for solar activity. It is because the differences in the solar winds and deflecting of cosmic rays that affect carbon-14 levels.

If atomic bomb testing screwed up the C-14 proxy, then there is no way to test if the effects continued.
Something's use as a proxy, is somewhat limited if the linearity of the proxy cannot be tested, against known data.

You didn't even look at the wiki page I linked to... did you? Carbon levels spiked with all the atomic testing but have long since gone back to normal.

 

[Buzz]

• Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?

Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).

Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)

Fig. 6: The flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, as measured by ion chambers. Red line - annual averages, Blue line - 11 yr moving average. Note that ion chambers are sensitive to particles at relatively high energy (several 10's of GeV, which is higher than the energies responsible for the atmospheric ionization [~10 GeV], and much higher than the energies responsible for the 10Be production [~1 GeV]). Plot redrawn using data from Ahluwalia (1997). Moreover, the decrease in high energy cosmic rays since the 1970's is less pronounced in low energy proxies of solar activity, implying that cosmogenic isotopes (such as 10Be) or direct solar activity proxies (e.g., sun spots, aa index, etc) are less accurate in quantifying the solar → cosmic ray → climate link and its contribution to 20th century global warming.

Off-topic.

 

[longview]

You obviously need to read up on how carbon-14 is used as a proxy for solar activity. It is because the differences in the solar winds and deflecting of cosmic rays that affect carbon-14 levels.
You didn't even look at the wiki page I linked to... did you? Carbon levels spiked with all the atomic testing but have long since gone back to normal.

If the Carbon-14 levels have returned to normal, why is there not a continuous record up to say 2000, rather than one that stops at 1950?
P.S. Shaviv's theory has little to do with cosmic rays measured at the top of the atmosphere, but rather the amount of cosmic rays that penetrate deeper into the atmosphere.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

2020 is on track of being one of the warmest year on record even with an La Nina event during. There this is part of an alarming trend.

"While El Niño, the warm phase of the climatic phenomenon, can trigger drought in Australia and India, and increase cyclones in the tropical Pacific, La Niña can cause eastern Pacific sea temperatures to fall by up to 3-5C, which has a cooling effect on global temperatures.

According to Taalas, however, this is now more than offset by global heating, and 2020 “remains on track to be one of the warmest years on record”, with 2016-20 expected to be the warmest five-year period on record.

“La Niña years now are warmer even than years with strong El Niño events of the past,” said Taalas.

This year’s La Niña is expected to endure into the first quarter of next year and is rated by the WMO as “moderate to strong”. The last time there was a strong event was in 2010-11, which contributed to the 2010 Pakistan floods and the 2010-11 Queensland floods."

2020 likely to be one of warmest years on record despite La Niña

Climate crisis exacerbates extreme weather during natural events, say experts

www.theguardian.com

 

[Buzz]

If the Carbon-14 levels have returned to normal, why is there not a continuous record up to say 2000, rather than one that stops at 1950?

Huh?? How can there be a continuous record if the levels were completely distorted by atomic testing in the 50s and 60s? It can't. But scientists can use current amounts and compare them to solar measurements to confirm the reliability of Carbon-14's use as a proxy outside of the testing era .

P.S. Shaviv's theory has little to do with cosmic rays measured at the top of the atmosphere, but rather the number of cosmic rays that penetrate deeper into the atmosphere.

Shaviv's theory has absolutely nothing to do with using Carbon-14 as a proxy for solar activity.

 

[Jack Hays]

Bureau Of Meteorology: Central, Eastern Tropical Pacific “Coolest Since La Niña Event Since 2012”
By P Gosselin on 31. October 2020

Share this...
Data recorded from the equatorial Pacific show a substantial La Nina in place and falling temperatures with it.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) here reported on October 27: “All of the international climate models surveyed by the Bureau indicate the current La Niña will persist until at least January 2021. Most climate models reach their peak in December, before starting to weaken.”

Strong sea surface cooling developing in the equatorial Pacific. Image Tropical Tidbits
“Some models indicate that the current La Niña could possibly reach similar strength to the La Niña of 2010–12,” reports the BOM. “Sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific are the coolest since the end of the La Niña event in 2012, but they are not as cool as during October 2010.”
The following chart shows the latest sea surface temperature anomaly for the Pacific El Niño equatorial regions of 3 and 4:

Image: Tropical Tidbits

The substantial La Niña event will likely cause the global mean temperature to drop a few tenths of a degree Celsius.
Low solar activity
Another factor that could spell trouble, especially for Europe, is the currently very low solar activity. Harsh European winters have been found to be linked to low solar activity.
Indeed, as in previous calculations, the experimental numerical NOAA model CFSv2 recently predicted a cold and long winter in large parts of Europe, especially from January 2021 until May 2021, see the following chart:

Source: Meteociel CFSv2 forecasts winter 2020/21 Europe

 

[longview]

Huh?? How can there be a continuous record if the levels were completely distorted by atomic testing in the 50s and 60s? It can't. But scientists can use current amounts and compare them to solar measurements to confirm the reliability of Carbon-14's use as a proxy outside of the testing era .
Shaviv's theory has absolutely nothing to do with using Carbon-14 as a proxy for solar activity.

You were the one who said that Carbon-14 levels had returned to normal, the way that trees pick up Carbon-14 has not changed, so if the levels return
to normal, so should the ways trees pick it up. At some point we should have some level of linearity between the old and new measurements,
and yes there would be a spike in the middle.
I did not say that Shaviv's theory had anything to do with Carbon-14, but was replying to your statement that level of cosmic rays had not changed.
Shaviv's theory is not the level of cosmic rays change, but that the level that actually enters the atmosphere changes.

 

[Buzz]

You were the one who said that Carbon-14 levels had returned to normal, the way that trees pick up Carbon-14 has not changed, so if the levels return
to normal, so should the ways trees pick it up. At some point we should have some level of linearity between the old and new measurements,
and yes there would be a spike in the middle.
I did not say that Shaviv's theory had anything to do with Carbon-14, but was replying to your statement that level of cosmic rays had not changed.
Shaviv's theory is not the level of cosmic rays change, but that the level that actually enters the atmosphere changes.

Look... you were the one who brought up using Carbon-14 as a proxy for solar activity. I was just pointing out your mistakes on the matter. And I never said that levels of cosmic rays have not changed. I was just pointing out to Jack that Shaviv's theory has nothing to do with using Carbon-14 as a proxy.

 

[longview]

Look... you were the one who brought up using Carbon-14 as a proxy for solar activity. I was just pointing out your mistakes on the matter. And I never said that levels of cosmic rays have not changed. I was just pointing out to Jack that Shaviv's theory has nothing to do with using Carbon-14 as a proxy.

It was skeptical science that showed a connection between Corbon-14 as a proxy for solar activity. A proxy they stopped at 1950.
You also do not represent Shaviv's theory correctly, when you say things like it is invalidated because the level of cosmic rays has not changed.

 

[Buzz]

It was skeptical science that showed a connection between Corbon-14 as a proxy for solar activity. A proxy they stopped at 1950.
You also do not represent Shaviv's theory correctly, when you say things like it is invalidated because the level of cosmic rays has not changed.

Oh for God's sake, long... You suggested that Sceptical science was being dishonest by presenting a proxy that ended in 1950 when there is a perfectly logical reason why it ended then. And I wasn't saying anything about Shaviv's theory other than that it doesn't apply to this debate. And I have not said that cosmic rays entering our atmosphere have not changed.

Can't you just admit your mistakes instead of making even more in an attempt to pretend you didn't?

 

[longview]

Oh for God's sake, long... You suggested that Sceptical science was being dishonest by presenting a proxy that ended in 1950 when there is a perfectly logical reason why it ended then. And I wasn't saying anything about Shaviv's theory other than that it doesn't apply to this debate. And I have not said that cosmic rays entering our atmosphere have not changed.

Can't you just admit your mistakes instead of making even more in an attempt to pretend you didn't?

You are the one misrepresenting the facts, Skeptical science did end the graph in 1950, and you did suggest that Shaviv's theory
had been debunked because there has been little change in cosmic rays.

 

[Buzz]

You are the one misrepresenting the facts, Skeptical science did end the graph in 1950,

Where did I ever say that they didn't?

and you did suggest that Shaviv's theory had been debunked because there has been little change in cosmic rays.

I suggested no such thing. All I have said about Shaviv's theory was that it doesn't have anything to do with using Carbon-14 as a proxy.

I haven't misrepresented anything. Why are you misrepresenting what I have said?

 

[longview]

Where did I ever say that they didn't?
I suggested no such thing. All I have said about Shaviv's theory was that it doesn't have anything to do with using Carbon-14 as a proxy.

I haven't misrepresented anything. Why are you misrepresenting what I have said?

You are correct, someone else must have said something incorrect about Shaviv's theory,
But the fact remains that Skeptical science used a graph of Carbon-14 to show the sunlight reaching the ground, before 1950, and then switched to other style measurements.
As for Shaviv's theory I have no idea if it is viable, but cosmic rays do affect cloud formation, so it could account for some of the observed warming.
If it did, it would have to be taken off the total attributed to CO2.

 

[Buzz]

You are correct, someone else must have said something incorrect about Shaviv's theory,
But the fact remains that Skeptical science used a graph of Carbon-14 to show the sunlight reaching the ground, before 1950, and then switched to other style measurements.
As for Shaviv's theory I have no idea if it is viable, but cosmic rays do affect cloud formation, so it could account for some of the observed warming.
If it did, it would have to be taken off the total attributed to CO2.

Carbon-14 levels are not affected by sunlight reaching the ground. It is changed up in the atmosphere. And most of the legitimate studies of cosmic rays affecting clouds says the effect is so small as to be unimportant.

 

[longview]

Carbon-14 levels are not affected by sunlight reaching the ground. It is changed up in the atmosphere. And most of the legitimate studies of cosmic rays affecting clouds says the effect is so small as to be unimportant.

I was not the one who attempted to show Carbon-14 levels as a proxy for solar activity, that was Skeptical Science.
Also we know so little about how clouds interact with radiation, we do not even know if they are a net positive or negative feedback.
The 3C of uncertainty (1.5 to 4.5C), is mostly from how clouds will interact with radiation.

 

[Buzz]

I was not the one who attempted to show Carbon-14 levels as a proxy for solar activity, that was Skeptical Science.

You are the one who brought it up.

 

[longview]

You are the one who brought it up.

I was only pointing out the statements by an AGW advocate site.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Third warmest October on record globally and warmest on record in Europe.

October 2020 Sees Earth Endure Third-Hottest October on Record, Arctic Witness Slowest Known Sea-Ice Growth | The Weather Channel

Even in India, October 2020 remained the third-warmest October on record, with an average maximum temperature of 32°C. - Articles from The Weather Channel | weather.com

weather.com