Doug Proctor: Climate Change is caused by Clouds and Sunshine

Posted: February 13, 2012 by tallbloke in atmosphere, climate, Energy, Ocean dynamics

This paper pretty much refutes co2 driven global warming. We all owe a debt of thanks to Doug Proctor, who has put a huge amount of work into this paper over the last months. Some of the images have suffered in resizing, so download the pdf for reference too. It’s a long read, but then, you didn’t really expect the issue to be resolved with a couple of paragraphs and a plot done with Microsoft Paint did you? :)

Attribution of Variations in Maximum Temperature Records 1932 – 2010 Central United Kingdom, with Implications for Global Warming

D.Proctor, P.Geol.
Calgary, Alberta; December 30, 2011

Abstract

Previously sourced and plotted data for averaged annual maximum temperature and hours of bright sunshine covering the period 1932 to 2010 for the Central United Kingdom were analyzed. Changes in the two relative to a stable period (1962 – 1973) amounted to increases of 0.98C and 108 hours in 2010.

Three factors were found to be associated with all temperature changes:

  1. The duration of bright sunshine, such that C = 9.27E-3C X Sunshine hour – 0.10C. This factor was constant with time, but the changes in bright sunshine hours followed (with time) a quasi-sinusoidal pattern with indeterminate amplitude, but a peak-to-peak cycle of 62 years.
  2. A quasi-sinusoidal (with time) Pacific Decadal Oscillation-Atlantic Multidecadal Occillation-like variation, with a cycle length of 56 years and amplitude of 0.31C.
  3. A linear (with time), consistent increase of temperature, such that C = 9.53E-4 (Yr-1873) – 0.1425 C.

The majority of temperature change was due to the sunshine duration factor. The PDO-AMO-like varying factor contributed the second most significant portion of the temperature change record, sometimes adding and sometimes subtracting from the temperature changes associated with increased/decreased bright sunshine. The third factor was tied to the PDO-AMO-like factor as a long-term warming, but added only a minor amount, 0.095C/century.

The datum period 1962 – 1973 recorded a stable period of 1315.9 hours, i.e. a daytime cloudiness of 70.0%. From 1932 to 1948, and from 1980 to 2010, the Central United Kingdom experienced increased bright sunshine of about 42 and 108 hours, respectively. This is a bright sunshine increase of 3.2% gross and 0.96% net more sunshine for the earlier period, and 8.2% gross, and 2.5% net additional sunshine for the most recent period. Stated in the reverse, in the 1932-1948 periods when temperature rose 0.32C, there was 0.96% less cloudiness; in the 1980 – 2010 period, when the average maximum temperature rose 0.98C, 2.5% less cloudiness.

The PDO-AMO –like temperature changes did not match perfectly either the timing or amount of temperature change associated with heat release and storage for either the PDO or the AMO events as individual events. The changes appear more of a non-equal combination of both, though the combination was not determined within this study.

It is concluded that changes in the Central United Kingdom Maximum temperature history of the past 70 years is fundamentally a response to changes in the amount of sunshine (i.e., cloudiness) in association with rises and falls in temperature resulting from natural heat storage and release of the from the planet’s two largest oceans. The remaining, small portion of temperature rises seen in the Central UK may as well be attributed to land-use changes or inappropriate adjustments in the temperature records as it could to CO2-related changes in heat retention. Regardless of cause, this minor temperature rise, at 0.1C/century is of no consequence to the local biosphere.

Although the UK area studied is a small portion of an island mass with its own peculiar weather, the strong similarity in patterns, i.e. its climate patterns, to various GISTemp regional and whole-globe average temperature profiles suggests that the Central UK is a good proxy for what has happened across the planet and comes from common causes. Extended to 2060, it is proposed that an increase of cloudiness of about 2.5% and a decrease of temperature of about 1.0C will occur in the Central United Kingdom by 2040. Globally, cloudiness and temperature are expected to +1.7% and -0.70C, respectively.

Suggestions are offered as areas of similar study of the sunshine-PDO/AMO correlation and, hence, causation, of temperature variations of the near-past and probable near-future.

Introduction

The study of the recent phenomena called “Global Warming” is widely perceived as a study suitable only for experts in the atmospheric sciences. High-level computers and the ability to perform statistical gymnastics are said to be necessary to comprehend the temperature changes of the 20th century. That one, with a simple working background in the natural sciences and familiarity with scientific inquiries, can contribute to the ongoing debate, armed only with a keen eye, sharp pencil and the ability to recognize a forest regardless of the types of trees present (including bristlecone), is anathema to the current anti-CO2 narratives. Though the most fundamental, revolutionary explanations of the world came from such non-technological researchers as Aristotle, Galileo and Darwin, currently only government-funded, PhD, peer-reviewed researchers are believed to have worthwhile opinions on the most significant environmental and social issue in humanity’s history. This study was undertaken, in part, to confront that conceit.

On the technical level, the study sprang from a recent, 2011 blog post of Tallbloke’s Talkshop [http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/comparing-sunshine-hours-and-max-annual-temperature-in-the-uk/] In this post, a pair of profiles from the Central United Kingdom (1932 to 2010) meteorological database – the longest, most complete in the world – was presented. The annualized, maximum daily temperatures and the annualized, daily recorded number of bright sunshine hours were plotted against time. A 5-year running average had been added on each. The blog author noted that both the sunshine hours and maximum temperature profile showed similar cycles but the cycles were not quite synchronized; he speculated there might be something of interest to be found in its study. What follows is the result of following up on that speculation.

Methodology

The fundamental data captured from the referenced blog post is shown in Figure 1. “Maximum Temperature” refers to the grouped, annual average of the greatest temperature reached for each day. “Sunshine hours” has been defined as:

Average number of hours of bright sunshine each day in a calendar month or year, calculated over the period of record. Hours of bright sunshine is measured from midnight to midnight … bright sunshine has generally been recorded with a Campbell-Stokes recorder. This device only measures the duration of “bright” sunshine, which is less than the amount of “visible “sunshine. (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/cdo/about/definitionsother.shtml)

When overlaid, the Maximum Temperature profile (Fig. 1a), shows strong pattern similarity to the GISTemp temperature anomaly profile for the Northern Latitudes (Fig. 2). The Central UK data, in pattern sense at least, is thus a reasonable proxy for regional (if not more) temperature profiles. What is learned from a study of the specific central United Kingdom data, therefore, is considered probably applicable to that of the general global data.

Figure 3 is an overlay of both sunshine hours (Fig. 1a) and maximum temperatures of the Central UK (Fig. 1b) area on a common time-axis. Both show a relatively stable period of about 1962 to 1973. This period, in which sunshine hours were about 1315.9 hours, and the average maximum temperature, 11.87*C, was selected as a reference datum for comparison purposed. It is noted that the reference datum of 1315.9 hours represents only 30.02% of potential bright sunshine hours per year, indicating, in other words, that the Central United Kingdom is cloudy 70% of the time (Combined with an average annual average temperature of less than 12*C, the two points explain why so many UK citizens take their annual holidays in southern Spain.)

The differences between the datum and the five-year running value of each parameter were measured on an enlarged version of Figure 3 (Fig. 16: pencil-and-ruler methods are crude compared to computer-held data points, but they appear to have been sufficient). Time intervals of 5 years were used initially, but additional points were measured as required to better plot the changes. These variations, i.e. “temperature anomalies” as known within standard global warming analyses, were dropped into an Excel spreadsheet and plotted (Fig. 4).

At first appearance the pattern appears rough, though within it a linear trend of increasing temperature with sunshine hours is apparent. When the dates of data points are added, however, it is clear that the pattern is not rough at all (Fig. 4d).

From 1932 until about 1948, temperatures and sunshine hours both increased, after which, until 1968, they decreased. The pattern is semi-elliptical, with a clear axial trend. This semi-ellipse describes a period of time here called “Cycle A”. From 1968 to 2010 both temperature and sunshine hours increase again, though in greater amounts, in a way similar to the first part of Cycle A. This second time period, referred here as “Cycle B”, can be fitted on the same axial trend line as Cycle A if the year 2010 is viewed – as it appears to be – the point of maximum sunshine-hours and maximum temperature of the cycle, analogous to the 1932 to 1948 period.

Two points are to be noted. The first is that Cycle A, shown in its (hypothesized) entirety, is not a true ellipse: the first part, the warming & more sunshine portion, is not a mirror image of the second part, the cooling & less sunshine part. The second point is that a negative temperature of -0.08C results from an extension of the axial trend line backward to the point of zero sunshine hours. Intuitively this does not make sense: when there are no additional hours of sunshine, the temperature should be equal to the datum, not less than the datum. This situation is considered an artefact of either the (crude) measurement method with small divergences from the datum, an overly aggressive smoothing function of the 5-year running average algorithm, or spurious adjustments in the base data. (The problem requires “b” values of – 0.10C and – 0.14C to be added to two mathematical relationships of the general y = mx + b type found in this study. Regardless of the cause, the situation/error does not detract from the general conclusions made later.)

Analyses

It is intuitive that, should the number of sunshine hours increase, maximum temperatures reached during that time would increase. It is also intuitive the effect on the temperature would be the same in a more-hours and less-hours scenario, though in an opposite way. The pattern would be the same “up” and “down”: there would be only one line (or curve). The pattern of Cycle A does not show this, however. Either the maximum temperature achieved is not a consistent function of the number of sunshine hours as the value of sunshine changes, i.e. the insolation power changes in time, or there is at least one other factor other than sunshine duration responsible for the maximum temperature recorded in the Central UK. It is well established that the top of atmosphere (TOA) solar insolation has been virtually constant on an annual basis for hundreds of years. Other factors than this must have been/are involved to create the Cycle A (and presumably the beginning of Cycle B) pattern.

Figure 5 shows a series of models considered from first principles to show the result of both linear and non-linear patterns that might be involved in the identified Maximum Temperature and Sunshine Hours cycle(s). Only one combination results in a pattern similar to Cycle A (and the beginning of Cycle B). Shown in Figure 6, two factors, one linear, the other non-linear, but stepping out of phase with each other over time, i.e. at times both warm, and at others, one warms while one cools, appear to be in play.

(A combination of several linear patterns creates one linear pattern; the same is true of multiple non-linear/sinusoidal patterns. For the purposes of satisfying the principle of Occam’s Razor, continued analyses followed from looking for one linear and one non-linear factor. As it turned out, this was appropriate.)

Breakdown of Factors

Measurements of the axial trend line seen initially in Figure 4c and deviations from the trend line (Fig. 7/7b) at each data point are plotted in Figures 7c and 7d.

The linear factor:

Crude measurements account for the scatter in 7C, the trend has been corrected as an idealized trend line with a relationship of:

T = 9.27E-3 (Hrs) – 0.10 C*

This reveals that a certain amount of the temperature changes recorded is completely related to the number of sunshine hours received – a not unexpected connection. Not all of the total temperature record is attributable to increases and decreases in sunshine hours, however.

The nonlinear factor &minor associated linear warming factors:

The portion of the temperature changes here discussed is that of the raw temperature change less that of the axial trend. The difference, plotted in Figures 7d and 8a, displays a quasi-sinusoidal pattern of temperature changes with time. Both Cycle A and, for the first portion present of Cycle B, show the same pattern but have different amplitudes. However, a consideration was made that only one quasi-sinusoidal factor attached to a linear temperature rise would account for the revealed pattern. This linear relationship (Figure 4d) was measured and calculated as an idealized function as:

T = 9.53E-4 (Yr – 1871) – 0.1425 C* (Fig. 8b), amounting to 0.095C/century.

With the linear function removed, Figure 8c shows the resultant de-trended, quasi-sinusoidal temperature pattern. The pattern has a peak-to-peak cycle length of 56 years and an amplitude of 0.31C. (A simple extension forward and backward from the nearest portion of the cycle was used to extend the graph backward and forward to 1860 and 2060, respectively, as discussed further in this report.)

The sunshine-temperature trend-line

As noted, although the relationship between the number of sunshine hours experienced and the maximum temperature reached (Fig. 7c and 9/9a) is clear, how this relationship shows in the records is also a function of the way the changes of bright sunshine amount occurs through time (Fig. 9d). Plotting the converted sunshine-induced heat against time (Fig. 9c) reveals another quasi-sinusoidal pattern, one similar to, but offset in time from, that of the first quasi-sinusoidal temperature variable discussed above. Peak-to-peak cycle time, at 62 years, is 11% longer from the other (of 56) and the “highs” and “lows” are somewhat different.

(Using the same concept of projecting forward and back as used for the non-sunshine related temperature changes, Figure 9d shows both data and expectations from principle over the period 1860 to 2060. The rationale for doing so is that whatever the cause, human or natural though it may be, it is likely that the pattern 50 years either way is not very different from what it was closest to those times. This is, in fact, the basis of the IPCC/Global Warming “scenarios”, except that the IPCC considers what happened pre-1970 was “natural”, and what happened(s) post-1970 principally of human origin. Orthodox climate interpretations are based on this idea; here the same principles are applied.)

Reconstructing the Central United Kingdom Maximum Temperature Record

The preceding suggests the maximum temperature profile for the central United Kingdom between 1932 and 1948, and by extension from 1948 to 2010, could be attributed to

  1. a heating proportional to the amount of bright sunshine received, the amount of bright sunshine changing through time in a quasi-sinusoidal manner with a cycle time of 62 years,
  2. a quasi-sinusoidal heating and cooling with a 56 year peak-to-peak frequency, and
  3. a minor, long-term, consistent heating of about 0.10C/century.

These three factors were isolated from the temperature/sunshine records, idealized and expressed separately (Fig. 10). To determine whether the deconstruction/idealization process introduced errors, the isolated portions were re-integrated and compared to the original data profile (Fig. 11). The fit is good.

The fit of original and reconstructed profiles is good does not, of course, show more than that the mathematical deconstruction was internally consistent. A way to check that the hypotheses behind the deconstruction are correct (or at least consistent with observation) is to extend the observed data backward to a period in which data not included in the study can be used as a comparison. Such data for the Central UK area was not available to this author at the time of writing, but data for the Northern Latitudes, for which the Central UK data was considered a good proxy, was available.

In Figure 12 the reconstructed temperature data with extensions is overlain on GISTemp profiles of the Northern and other Latitudes groupings, as well as the Global Meteorological Land Stations [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/. ]The period 1860 to 1932 for all profiles matches reasonably well with both reconstruction and hindcast extensions. The prior period of Southern Latitudes also matches reasonably well (though the modern period of 1960 – 2000 does not).

The hypotheses that

1) the three identified patterns are sufficient to explain the temperature rise of the Central UK (and other regions), and

2) that the recent past can be used to hindcast the further past,

both appear confirmed.

The Non-Linear Factors

The attribution of much of the temperature rise in the Central UK to increased amounts of sunshine requires little explanation. Each time the sun “moves from behind” clouds and we, the air and the environment around us warms, is observable proof that temperatures rise with more sunshine. The mathematical relationship between added sunshine and increased temperature, as shown to be consistent and linear, fits in with general observations that the top of atmosphere (i.e. TOA) solar insolation has not changed over the last 150 years. The quasi-sinusoidal temperature portion of the record and the quasi-sinusoidal variation in time of the number of sunshine hours require further explanation.

The explanation offered here is recognized as not directly providing the causations: the patterns show up because, in the natural world, the same patterns show up elsewhere, have done so for centuries, and are unrelated to man or his activities in the world. These are the patterns are those of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (Fig. 13 & 14) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation) . The PDO and AMO cycles are sufficiently studied and understood, however, that attribution of part of the Central UK temperature profile to the mechanisms of the PDO-AMO cycles is legitimately more of an explanation than a rationalization.

The PDO and the AMO reflect periodic release and storage of oceanic heat with cycles of 20 or 30 years for the Pacific Ocean, and 60 years for the Atlantic. Each of the oceanic basins shows a warming and cooling pattern with a similar, one-half or one-third cycle period of the observed quasi-sinusoidal temperature factor (Fig. 14a, b & c). Neither one nor the other, however, quite matches time-wise the highs and lows of the reconstructed Central UK record (Fig. 14d, e & g). A non-proportional combination of the PDO and AMO, although not done here, appear likely to fit the reconstructed record enough to suggest that the observed heating pattern in the Central UK is derived from the oceanic heating and cooling cycles. It is also noteworthy that the Southern Latitude profile, an area dominated by the Southern Ocean/Antarctica, matches the UK record least: if the oceans are responsible for much of the Central UK temperature patterns, the Atlantic, and then the Pacific, would reasonably be considered more of an influence than the Southern.

By invoking the PDO and the AMO as an explanation for the temperature changes, the mechanisms by this occurs have not, of course, been explained, but the source of the mechanisms is said to be found. As well, the PDO and AMO events are well known and studied. Whatever the causes for the PDO/AMO events, they are invoked here as the primary cause of the patterns showing up in the Central UK temperature record.

At the same time, the quasi-sinusoidal variation of sunshine hours has no intuitive foundation in the PDO/AMO cycles. It is possible that the amount of sunshine hours, i.e. cloudiness, is influenced by but not created by, those factors that induce such patterns in the global oceans. The cause for change of cloudiness, not its expression, lies elsewhere.

The three factors as revealed in this study – cloudiness, PDO-AMO heat release and storage, and a minor long-term heating factor – appear sufficient to explain local, regional and global heating and cooling patterns without recourse to the CO2-villain of the Global Warming story. CO2 growth has been approximately linear for the last 50 years (Fig. 15, http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/), a pattern that matches none of those determined here. Further, if these natural, cycling factors are the principal determinants of temperatures, then the forecast (Fig. 10d) is for a planet cooling in the years ahead. For the Central UK, this entails a drop in maximum temperatures of approximately 0.96C by 2040, with an increase in cloudiness of about 2.5% – a return to the conditions of 1970. Comparing the changes of the Central UK to that of the world, it appears the global change would be a drop of about 0.7C, and an increase in cloudiness of about 1.8% (by a quantitative comparison of specific temperature changes of the Central UK and the globe).

The amount of CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere each day. Based on observations made here of the previous 80 years, however, both regional and global temperatures are not expected to have any discernible, let alone catastrophic, impact in the near future.

Summary & Conclusions:

The Maximum Temperatures of the Central United Kingdom area are entirely determined by

a) the amount of sunshine received, i.e. changes in cloudiness,

b) a cycling input and output of heat related to changes in energy storage and release of the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean, and

c) a very minor, long-term increase in overall temperatures.

The amount of sunshine received has a cyclic pattern similar to, but not in lockstep with, the oceanic heating and cooling cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

The very minor, long-term increase in temperatures, at 0.1C/century may be related to anthropogenically produced CO2, but other factors, including artefacts of data manipulation and adjustments might be equally considered. Regardless, the amount of heating not attributable to additional sunshine or oceanic influences is minor to the point of invisibility.

CO2 as a threat to the biosphere is hereby repudiated. Nature, not man, is in charge of the current global, regional and local climate.

The coming period of 2010 to 2040 is predicted by the factors discussed here to be a time of local and global cooling and, without being dramatic, cloudiness. Temperatures are expected to drop by 0.7 to 1.0C during this period, and the amount of cloud cover increase between 1.5% and 2.5%.

In addition to determining that CO2 is not responsible for the warming of the world over the last century, the results of this study also demonstrate that “citizen-scientists” do, indeed, have the abilities to determine and reasonably comment upon matters of scientific, if not social, concern.

End Comment:

Political pollsters such as Gallup are able to create accurate pictures of the voting public because they recognize that a careful study of a small subset of the population gives a practical understanding of the positions of the whole population. If surveying everyone were necessary, the work would never be done. This analysis of the Central United Kingdom temperature, time and sunshine hours is obviously limited, but as only one individual, if representative of the nation, may consistently reflect the behaviour of the voting nation, so this study, in theory, may accurately reflect what is happening in the global temperature events of the near-past and near-future. Additional such studies obviously should be done, however.

It is suggested that a number of subsets, rather than large, merged data, be subjected to the analysis done here, i.e. at a national, rather than global/subglobal level. The reason is that the more data is averaged, the more significant patterns offset in time rather than cause, may confuse the general pattern. Plus, any diverse group of information, when combined and averaged, gives up “universals” as a mathematical construct without necessarily revealing anything about actual patterns within the data reflective of the universals. For example, the “global” temperature may have no more meaning than an average height of 5’ 6” to describe a room filled half with giants and half with dwarfs. In this example, a description of the separate characteristics of the height –enhanced and height-challenged would be more useful. The same may apply to the world’s climate.

The Central United Kingdom has, by the data reviewed, a non-bright sunshine history of 70%; Constable and Turner showed us in the 19th century that much of this was due to sustained low and middle altitude clouds. A bright sunshine and maximum temperature dataset from, say, the Arctic, where upper clouds are more prevalent would be interesting. One from a seasonally cloudy area, like Vancouver or San Francisco, where the Pacific Decadal Oscillation would be more significant, would be also informative. Australia, with its boom-and-bust cycle of flooding and droughts, would be another good candidate.

Again: if globally distributed CO2 changes the dynamics of the atmosphere, the results are everywhere. The small will reflect the large. If the small doesn’t reflect the large, then the “large” is an artefact, not an observation.

Comments
  1. Joe's World says:

    TB,

    No salt density changes required.
    Even though salt density effects solar reflection and absorption of ocean heat and also effects the evaporation and precipitation cycles.

    http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~ltalley/sio219/curryetal_nature2003.pdf

  2. Stephen Wilde says:

    Pretty much what I would expect to see if a warming world pushes the jets poleward to leave the UK more often and longer affected by the subtropical high pressure cells.

  3. tallbloke says:

    Well there you go Stephen, someone put a huge effort into helping to validate your theory. I’ll thank him again on your behalf shall I? :)

  4. Stephen Wilde says:

    Well that’s the thing about a sound theory. All sorts of disparate information should come to the fore and be consistent with it.

    My main concern is finding something that is inconsistent with it.

    Anyway, it is a sound piece of work by Doug and useful for all sorts of other reasons apart from anything that might be relevant to me.

  5. Vuk says:

    The CET is controlled by two components:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETsw.htm

    Summers have been flat for nearly 300 years (1700- 1995) with exception of minor oscillations, but no warming trend, the summers are warmed by sunshine and cooled by clouds.
    Winters are opposite, winter clouds stop temperatures falling while clear skies allow night temperatures to fall drastically, more then offsetting any sunshine hours which are naturally greatly reduced anyway, due to the seasonal factor (short days long nights).
    Spring & Autumn are near as good the average of the above two, so the CET annual trend (0.25C / century) is the same as the winter trend in the above mentioned 300 year period.
    Therefore one could conclude it is rise in cloudiness in the winter months that contributed to the CET rise during the 300 years of its records.

  6. Stephen Wilde says:

    Anyone care to try to reconcile the apparent inconsistency between the data from Vuk and that from Doug ?

    Increased warmth from more clouds in winter or

    Increased warmth from less clouds in summer ?

    When the jets shift poleward we get more sunshine in summer from the subtropical highs but the warming effect would be ameliorated by more frequent oceanic winds and more nighttime radiation under clearer skies .Poleward jets are associated with a more zonal flow so less frequent warm continental air flows across UK.

    In winter due to more west and southwesterly winds off the Atlantic and less continental air flows the nights would be significantly warmer.

    Does that square the circle ?

    More sunshine in summer without a significant warming BUT more clouds in winter with a significant warming and both effects from more poleward jets.

    Both seta of data can be accommodated by the same scenario.

  7. peter azlac says:

    An illuminating paper. Have you taken into account the fact that CET is not a continuous record but made up of changing stations: There have been 15 stations that have contributed to CET over the whole series with seven since 1958, the last two changes in 2004 (Stonyhurst for Ringway) and 2007 (Pershore for Malvern). This means that two of the four stations are now close together in Lancs and Pershore is a growing village area with thus a high UHI. Note also that these stations lie in different UK climate zones – NW England is more cloudy and colder than the central Oxford area. One of the main and more accurate stations – Rothamsted only joined in 1958 even though its data goes back much further (120 year total) and shows a more pronounced climate cycle.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/regional/

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/ukmapavge.html

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/ukmapavge.html

    Also other comments on CET and its contributing stations:

    http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/004438.html

    http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/751/500/

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

    http://www.rothamsted.bbsrc.ac.uk/aen/ecn/AirTemp.htm

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol4/v4n20/cutting.htm

    CET has also been subject to a substantial UHI effect of up to 1.5 C – that is why they switched stations from Manchester Ringway – a major airport!

    Secondly, the UK summer weather is linked to AMO but winter weather to NAO. The AMO is linked to the Arctic gyre of arounf 10-11 years duration that makes up the difference between your 52 and 60 odd year cycles!

    http://research.eeescience.utoledo.edu/lees/papers_PDF/Atkinson_2005_AFM.pdf

    None of this detracts from your paper but, if you have not already allowed for it, may help refine it.

  8. Vuk says:

    Steven
    Agree about jet-stream, but disagree about causes for its moves, particularly in the winter when there is very little or no insolation in the polar regions where the jet originates.
    I don’t think that the sunspots have much if any effect on the summer temperatures either, two hottest Julys on the record
    July 1976 (at SSN minimum) ——– SSN =13.5, CET = 18.7
    July 1983(3 yrs past SSN max) —– SSN =72.0, CET = 19.5
    The CET in the winter (until 1995) was under strict control of the NAO
    See: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htm
    The winter NAO on the other hand depends on the amount of heat released in the subpolar gyre source of the Icelandic Low due to down-welling of warm waters, rising heat deflects position of the polar jet stream.
    In the summer time Icelandic Low moves further north into Nordic Seas after the ice retreat (see illustration in the above link).
    Sudden divergence in 1995 may be interpreted by various authors by all sorts of reasons, I am inclined to associate it with point in time when the Siberian magnetic intensity for the first time became stronger than the Hudson Bay one (first graph in http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm ).
    This is not to say that sun doesn’t play its bit, it does, the NAO is tracking the NAP ( see graph in the above link) which again has a link to the solar activity

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP-SSN.htm

    which moves the Earth’s field, but not with the sunspots but the geomagnetic storms

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm

    Unless a sunspot releases a powerful flair or a CME which in turn re-connects to Earth’s magnetosphere it has little if no effect.
    Finally the path of the jet-stream over the Pacific is controlled by the Aleutian Low caused by up-welling of cold waters, which is opposite to the Icelandic Low’s down-welling process.

  9. Vuk says:

    Tb
    get your telescope out, it says that all those planets would be clearly visible on the same night.

    Posmatrače neba krajem februara očekuje prava poslastica, jer će imati priliku da u jednoj noći golim okom vide Merkur, Veneru, Jupiter, Saturn i Mars, što je veoma rijedak fenomen.
    Jedna ili više ovih planeta su obični skrivene iza sunca pa ne mogu da se vide u jednoj noći. Očekuje se da će svih pet biti vidljivo između 22. i 24. februara.

  10. Stephen Wilde says:

    Hello Vuk,

    I note your suggestions and on short timescales they may well be correct but I tend to look at the longer term such as MWP to LIA and LIA to date and thus far I prefer the idea that solar variability on those timescales alters the jetstream tracks by interfering with the polar vortices.

    It is still all to play for though and we will only resolve it by watching things as they develop.

  11. Vuk says:

    …..Secondly, the UK summer weather is linked to AMO……
    I think it would be more correct to say:
    ‘it is likely that the AMO and the CET are controlled by the same mechanism’.
    Reason:
    We have good data for the AMO and the CET since 1940, and those show that the AMO often lags the CET, so it is questionable whether the CET is influenced by the AMO:

  12. Doug proctor says:

    Thanks for your comments!

    I did not consider WHEN the change in cloudiness occurred, just that the number of bright sunshine hours accounted for much of the alleged heating. The fit seems good enough to suspect that the UHIE and other adjustments are reasonable – although the warmists may be tweaking in their benefit when the choice is there, I don’t think there is any reason to think that much of the work has not been competently done and legitmate.

    The sinusoidal variation in additional temperatures outside those attributed to additional bright (warming) sunshine has an appearance of an AMO/PDO effect. This is not to say that the Pacific Ocean heats Central England, but that the temperature variations of the PDO are time-correlatable to either similarly initiated events affecting the Central UK or a splash-over effect, i.e. what happens in the Pacific ripples through the atmosphere to (at least) the UK.

    What intrigues me about the apparent relationship I found is how simple it is to check elsewhere. Those with computer graphing abilities can quickly plot up other max temperature and bright sunshine “anomalies” relative to some common quiet period, and see if the same things happen. If it does, it is a technique for looking for what is actually straightout sunshine and what is possibly non-sunshine, CO2 or otherwise.

    The bright sunshine hours should also be a simple check on variations in cloud cover. We do not need to know what the W/m2 is at any place by this review, only the percentage variation if we are to discuss changes in cloudiness. Of course it is possible to estimate W/m2 given a few more bits of data, but “bright sunshine” is only a quasi-objective condition.

    If I knew how to find those two data sets – max temperatues and bright sunshine hours – I would do more on this. Some of us are better at analyzing things rather than collecting them.

    Thanks again for the opportunity for presenting my work. The more each of us can establish for ourselves, and then get vetted, the more of us who can reasonably counter the warmist appeal to authority: we become, at least on a point or two, the authority.

  13. AusieDan says:

    The main thing to consider is whether the change in cloudiness is cyclical or directional.
    Unfortunately, making that decision too early biases the analysis in one direction or the other.

    The IPCC favour a thirty year linear trend which appears to have taken their forecasts, not only too high, but has lead them to the completely wrong conclusion.
    Unfortunately, again, we need multi, multi century longitudional high quality data to make sense of this and that we do not have.

    Another option is to go for cross sectional, multi planet data, based upon good theoretical, analysis of the underlying maths and physics. That is where the N&Z Unified Theory shines.

  14. Doug proctor says:
    February 14, 2012 at 12:18 am

    If I knew how to find those two data sets – max temperatues and bright sunshine hours – I would do more on this. Some of us are better at analyzing things rather than collecting them.

    The solar energy community have been monitoring real time ground level solar isolation for about 30 years, to monitor efficiency of their systems. I bet there is someone in the UK that has daily isolation numbers on a hourly basis or better resolution. The trick is to find them.

    Note that the burning sunshine recorders (Campbell-Stokes-Heliograph) date back to the 1870’s.

    http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/docs/2009-08/slides/5WePM/Stoffel.pdf

    http://catalogx.ensmp.fr/Files/ESRA11res.pdf

    THE EUROPEAN SOLAR RADIATION ATLAS
    Vol. 1: Fundamentals and maps
    K. Scharmer and J. Greif
    Les Presses de l’École des Mines
    Paris, 2000

    Larry

  15. Ned Nikolov says:

    The findings by Proctor and Geol are in full agreement by with our Unified Theory of Climate. As we describe it in our paper, cloud cover or the cloud albedo is the driver causing short-term (decadal to centennial) changes in climate :

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/unified_theory_of_climate_poster_nikolov_zeller.pdf

    We also maintain that the entire warming over the past 360 years was due to a 1.2% reduction in global cloud albedo. These cloud changes were induced by a rising solar magnetic activity… We believe that the past decade marked the peak of this secular solar activity increase, and that the Sun is now switching to a quieter mode, which will result in an an increased cloud cover and a pronounced cooling trend over the next 5-10 years…

  16. Wayne Job says:

    I have always found the brolly to be more useful in keeping one cool than in keeping one dry.
    Oddly I have found that we do not melt our dissolve when we get wet, but the sun is a killer if we have no protection. It surprises me not that our planet responds to extra sunshine by putting up brolly’s to protect life, for if this feed back did not exist, neither would life. If positive feed backs existed and were not quelled, life would never have started on our little blue ball.

    Those people posting here with their imput to science are seekers of truth this is good but please do not get confused by the complexity of the leaves on a tree, when you are looking at a forest.

    The Earth has a wonderful way of looking after itself, those here are starting to figure out how it does it. Thank You.

  17. Ulric Lyons says:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/

    The larger rises in temp`s in the last 100yrs and since 1985 are in Spring and Autumn. Summer sunshine hours is very flat, as is Dec temp`s.

  18. peter azlac says:

    Following the comment by Vukcevic on geomagnetic effects you may find that a more useful temperature series than CET is that of the 216 year record from Armagh in NI that dates from 1795 as this is a single continuous source – probably the oldest anywhere!

    http://climate.arm.ac.uk/calibrated.html

    http://climate.arm.ac.uk/calibrated/airtemp/Met-Data-Vol6.pdf

    This was used by Wilson and Hathaway in 2006 to show a link between solar cycles as delineated by the aa geomagnetic values available since 1844.

    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/papers/wilsorm/WilsonHathaway2006c.pdf

    They found a 9+ year cycle that could be linked to the Arctic Gyre as other studies have linked this series to the NAO in a similar manner as CET but with a delay versus Upsala series. Note that CET shows a greater correlation with the Meteo data for N England and Scotland than Central England where half its stations are – so cloud cover and sunshine hours are different. I know as I grew up in Lancashire and its not the land of cotton weaving for nothing!.

    http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/445.pdf

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/24055/

    Note that there is good evidence that some of the warming noted by Wilson and Hathaway for Armagh at the end of the last century is linked to a UHI effect as the town has encroached on the Observatory.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/26/uhi-study-of-the-uk-armagh-observatory/

  19. [...] are trying to avoid the same fate. The science is settled rattled. Oh noes, climate change is caused by clouds and sunshine. Poets hardest [...]

  20. tchannon says:

    peter azlac,
    “the 216 year record from Armagh in NI that dates from 1795 as this is a single continuous source – probably the oldest anywhere!”

    I don’t think so. A chunk is missing (from memory, until 1844), made up from another station (docs there explain part of the story). It seems common for very old records to be in fragments unearthed from stations in roughly the same location, things move. Joining the data is unsafe even if a casual bridge exists.

    The whole logbook has been scanned and is online. A very interesting place, with good staff who are helpful. http://climate.arm.ac.uk/main.html

    Without the entire documentation for a site including the accounts it is not safe to assume too much. Armagh does have enough ancillary information to show how subtle effects come from site, equipment and management change. For example the rundown state of the place, been through wartime. Landscaping and gardening figure too.

    The longest, well, difficult to say. There is no good long data. Berlin is one, something is around, http://www.gpsl.net/climate/data/berlin-temperature-text.pdf
    The whole thing from 1601 is in GHCN

  21. peter azlac says:

    tecnon:

    I am not sure where you get your information from but Armagh is a continuous record at the same site though buildings have changed and there is undoubtedly some UHI effect:

    http://climate.arm.ac.uk/publications.html

    Papers in the next reference also examine the link between solar activity and temperature using the Armagh series.

    http://climate.arm.ac.uk/publications/IAJ-1951-1-8.pdf

    Butler, C.J. and Johnston, D.J. 1994.
    Solar activity and climate change – new evidence from Northern Ireland,
    The Irish Scientist No. 2, 14.
    Butler, C.J. and Johnston, D.J. 1996.
    A Provisional Long Mean Air Temperature Series for Armagh Observatory,
    J. Atmosph. and Terrestrial Phys. 58, 1657
    Full Paper – PDF
    Butler, C.J. 1996.
    A two-century comparison of Sunspot Cycle Length and Temperature – the Evidence from Northern Ireland
    in `The Global Warming Debate’, Report of the European Science and Environment Forum, ESEF, 215
    Bromage, B.J.I. and Butler, C.J. 1996.
    Climate Change in Mid-latitude Western Europe over the past Two Centuries – possible links to Solar Activity (preliminary results),
    proc. 16th NSO/Sacramento Peak International Summer Workshop “Solar Drivers of Interplanetary and Terrestrial Disturbances”, October 1995 ASP Conf. Ser. 95, 472
    Abstract
    This reference also includes a paper on the possible UHI effect from site changes.
    Given these papers and the one by Wilson and Hathaway I would accept results based on Armagh over those of CET any time. This does not detract from the Proctor paper since fortunately in manufacturing the CET data (compiling from multiple changing sources over time) they have produced a series that is validated by the Armagh results – even if it differs from the Meteo data for the same area!
    As to other stations, Berlin may be older but if you think Armagh was affected by WWII (which I doubt since it would have been an important station for the Navy for Atlantic convoys) then how do you think Berlin survived the bombing? There are also others like De Welt Holland but this is also a compilation of a number of stations and has a UHI effect. Prague is good but was moved to the airport so not continuous. Upsala is older but also has been reconstructed. Frank Lanser at Hidethedecline has analyzed these and other European long run stations in some detail and also accepts Armagh as a good record.

  22. tchannon says:

    I do my own work. This includes feeding back corrections. I’ve spent many hours on Armagh information.

    “Daily air temperature measurements have been
    made at Armagh Observatory (longitude 6o38.9 ‘ W,
    latitude 54°21.2 ‘ N, altitude 64 m) from 1795 to the
    present day, excluding a period of nine years, from
    1825 to 1833, for which no data have so far been
    found.”
    Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Vol. 58, No. 15, pp. 1657-1672, 1996
    C. J. Butler and D. J. Johnston

    And here, see for yourself, no logbooks.

    http://climate.arm.ac.uk/scans/

    There is other stuff but that will do.

  23. peter azlac says:

    tchannon

    Sorry for getting your name wrong. So there is an apparent eight year gap in a long record? How important is that compared to the fragmented records of GISS, NCDC, BEST and CRU and the multiple changes in stations used to compile CET? If one wants to use a record to represent Central England then the only long term accurate record is from the Rothamsted Agricultural Research Station:

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol4/v4n20/cutting.htm

    “Lawes and Sir Henry Gilbert began to look more comprehensively at plant growth, including a focus on the thermal environment of the crops. Accordingly, they began to carefully measure daily air temperatures in 1878 with thermometers very similar to those in use today. Observations of daily maximum and minimum temperatures, along with a variety of other climate elements, continue to this day every morning at 9 a.m.
    Over the entire 121-year record, there are no missing data, giving Rothamsted the distinction of having one of the longest continuous sets of weather recordings in the world. And because Rothamsted has been a center of agricultural research over the past 150 years, the landscape around the meteorological station has remained relatively unchanged over the past century and a half.

    Figure 1 shows the mean annual temperatures from Rothamsted —remarkably similar to temperature time series presented for the entire globe. Warming occurs from 1878 to 1950, cooling from 1950 through the 1980s; the most recent decade has been dominated by high temperatures. The coldest year by far occurred in 1879, while the warmest year on record occurred in 1997.

    Figure 1. Mean annual temperatures at Rothamsted, 1878 to 1998.
    Over the entire 121-year record, Rothamsted warmed by 0.71°C (1.28°F). The results from the agricultural experiment station are similar to the temperature trends reported recently from other nonurban sites in Europe. Suggested causes of this significant rise in temperature have included a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age; natural fluctuations in the ocean-atmospheric system; an increase in solar output; and of course, the exponential rise in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.

    Compare this to the others in the CET series:

    http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/004438.html

  24. peter azlac says:

    Doug Proctor says:

    “If I knew how to find those two data sets – max temperatues and bright sunshine hours – I would do more on this. Some of us are better at analyzing things rather than collecting them.”

    Following on from my earlier comments, Rothamsted has long term accurate records of temperature and sunshine hours, the latter from 1892. They can be downloaded at:

    http://www.era.rothamsted.ac.uk/index.php?area=home&page=index...

  25. Toby says:

    F*’£’s Sake!

    Isnt’ there one of these “it’s the PDO!” thingys every year, and they all run into the sand.

    If I construct a model for the average temperature of my garden that is independent of CO2, does that disprove global warming?

  26. tallbloke says:

    The co2 driven climate hypothesis insists that a slight change in air temperature can rapidly (over a few decades) change the bulk temperature of the ocean. The ocean is much more massive than the atmosphere and water has a far higher heat capacity than air. A brief visit to the tables engineers use to look up relative heat capacities would have saved us all a lot of time and money. Or they could have used the simple observation that near surface marine air temperatures lag sea surface temperatures by several months.

    The bulk ocean temperature drives the air temperature, not the other way round. The tail does not wag the dog.

    Furthermore, it is evident that changes in overall cloud albedo reflect changes in solar activity, and amplify the effect of those changes, as shown by Nir Shaviv’s JGR paper on using the oceans as a calorimeter. http://sciencebits.com/calorimeter
    Whether or not the causal mechanism is along the lines proposed by Svensmark or Wilde doesn’t matter too much right now. What does matter is that the observed reality is attended to.

    It seems more likely that the ocean can’t cool as quickly as the sun heats it unless its average bulk temperature rises to around 275K (2C), thus enabling its surface to evaporate and radiate at a rate which enables it to be in equilibrium with the surface insolation. therefore any putative warming effect of additional greenhouse gases becomes moot, because their primary role must be to cool the planet, not warm it.

    At this stage it becomes obvious that the C20th warming was a result of less cloud and a more active sun, as evidenced by the much closer correlation between sunshine hours and surface temperature, than that between co2 levels and temperature.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/doug-proctor-climate-change-is-caused-by-clouds-and-sunshine/

    No speculations about the second law are needed to follow the simple logic of this argument. The main reason it will be ignored is because humans can be taxed for emitting co2, whereas the sun can’t be taxed for shining a little more brightly.

  27. Stephen Wilde says:

    Just trying out my smartphone to do this post but it’s pretty laborious :)

    The interesting thing is that one gets less clouds when the sun is active and more when it is inactive which is contrary to AGW theory. In fact it is counterintuitive to me as well because one would expect a more powerful sun to cause more vapour to rise from the oceans but it clearly isn’t that simple.

    I think that suggesting cosmic rays is too simple too unless one can link that to latitudinal climate zone shifting via an effect on the polar vortices similar to that which I suggested here:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645

    “How The Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”.

    The most puzzling thing is that to get the climate zones shifting poleward one needs a stratosphere that is cooling differentially towards the poles so as to lift the troposphere there and allow the climate zones to slide poleward beneath it.

    That is puzzling because the whole of climate science is based on a more active sun warming the entire atmospheric column including the stratosphere.

    However we do have the clear observation that the stratosphere did cool when the sun was active and has now stopped cooling and may be warming a little with the less active sun.

    So, I’m pretty sure that climate science is wrong and that an active sun naturally leads to a cooling stratosphere and mesosphere.

    Only by reversing the sign of the solar impact on those layers can we explain the actual observations and as a side effect that also removes the proposed effects on stratospheric temperatures from CO2 and also damages the CFC hypothesis.

    The issue then is whether cosmic rays cause the observed cloudiness consequences as per Svensmark or whether the cause is as I suggest in my above linked article.

    Thanks to tallbloke for referring to my suggestion in the same sentence as that of Svensmark. That is a step forward for me because his cosmic ray idea is already well known whereas my latitudinal shifting idea is very new.

  28. [...] Proctor: A geologist on s…Roger Clague on Stephen Wilde: The Myth of…Stephen Wilde on Doug Proctor: Climate Change i…tallbloke on Doug Proctor: Climate Change i…Vuk on X-class, nice try, missedtallbloke on [...]

  29. E.M.Smith says:

    Nicely done. Just very nicely done.

    FWIW, I think the missing bit in how the sun shifts clouds is that the UV level plunges when the sun goes dimmer (and TSI stays more flat as the IR-Visible increase a bit). So it’s the differential impact of UV on atmospheric height (that is now shortened during lower UV) and on air flow / clouds. IMHO.

    Then there’s the cosmic ray connection…

  30. [...] more closely to surface temperature anomalies than co2 is. The latest was Doug Proctor’s excellent study on the issue. My earlier post on Willie Soon’s far east study is worth a look too. Tim C has [...]

  31. [...] complimentary phenomenon of decreasing cloud cover is increased sunshine hours. Willie Soon and Doug Proctor have been on the case [...]