Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog |
|
| Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 3:19 PM GMT on March 25, 2012 | +15 |
| Permalink | A A A |
|
I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles include ideas from the course. And no tuition!
|
Tropical Blogs
Tropical Weather Stickers®
 |
52 °F
Clear
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Get Free Weather Stickers® |
 |
Upload Your Photos |
 |
Weather™ API for Developers NEW! |
 |
Become a Site Member |
 |
Find us on Facebook |
 |
Follow us on Twitter |
| Copyright © 2013 Weather Underground, Inc. | About Us - Contact - Support - Employment - Press Releases - Terms of Service - Privacy Statement |
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index
Nice work.
Scientists are certainly free to look for possible causes of the current observed warming, and, in fact, they should, for that's how science works. Who knows: perhaps the bulk of AGWT is wrong, and the thousands of scientists who've been looking at it for decades have somehow missed a huge, glaring piece of the puzzle to which skeptics alone are privy. Or maybe it's something that nobody has considered, and it's just laying around waiting for someone to find and shout "Eureka!". If and when that ever happens, I'll be pushing for a front row seat to watch as the new theory is tested and tested and tested some more to see whether it stands up as the current theory does.
But I won't hold my breath; that current theory fits like the proverbial glove, so it would take something incredibly extraordinary--and at this point entirely and unforeseeably fantastical--to dethrone it.
In order of asking, "Yes." and "Yes." The second question is the more important. The Sun is an inadequate explanation because you are basing it on one measure -ACRIM, while ignoring PMOD and sunspots.** Even by ignoring such counter-evidence you can only account for "most" of the warming.
You then have to invoke a different mechanism for the observed stratospheric cooling. Again, based on a single paper that just came out within the last two weeks.
So you have used two mechanisms to explain observations that can more easily (and more accurately) be explained by one mechanism --increase of GHGs.
GHGs also explain one other observation that we haven't touched on yet and which your two mechanisms cannot explain the fact that most of the warming is occurring at night and in winter.
You would presumably need to invoke a third mechanism for that.
After that you would need to explain while all these climatic epicycle-like, ad-hoc mechanisms can so closely mimic what 97% of climatologists accept as the correct primary explanation for the warming --CO2 emissions.
Assuming you could do that, you would then have to explain why 100+ years of physics concerning the properties of CO2 are wrong.
This is why parsimony is an important concept. It is a highly useful tool for separating reality from cobbled-together nonsense.
**Take a close look at the bit by 2010 which was the warmest or one of the warmest years on record. That is clearly impossible if the Sun is the major cause of the current warming.
My sympathy on your lack of reading comprehension.
Get well soon! We're all pulling for you!
What did you prove in this post besides nothing?
I can't say I'm surprised where Temples gets his news from.
Anyway, I ran across this yesterday:
Global Warming Denialism 'Just Foolishness,' Scientist Peter Raven Says
"U.S. prestige falling as world has ‘pretty well given up’ on any American leadership facing climate change.
——-
One of the world’s most widely known and respected senior scientists tells ABC News that current denial about the basic daunting realities of manmade global warming is "just foolishness."
He also reports that the rest of the world has now "pretty well given up" on its hope for U.S. leadership in dealing with global climate change.
His assessment reinforces our findings at the recent global climate summit in Durban, South Africa, that the vigorous anti-climate science movement in the United States has significantly damaged American prestige among European leaders who are struggling to deal with the daunting impacts of global warming.
Peter Raven, co-inventor in 1964, along with biologist Paul R. Ehrlich, of the bedrock concept of co-evolution (see footnote below), has long been a trusted adviser of American presidents, many other heads of state and government, religious leaders including popes, and countless congressional, academic and scientific leaders in the United States and around the world.
A frequent world traveler for his work, Raven reconfirmed in an email from the international Planet Under Pressure conference in London what he first told Natures' Edge in 2010 in St. Louis.
When we asked, in the course of an interview on the
occasion of his retirement after four decades as head of the Missouri Botanical Gardens, what he thought about the increasing claims of some parties in the United States that the science and alarm about manmade global warming was "a hoax" or greatly overblown, he responded patiently, "Oh, it's just foolishness."
"It’s not a matter of conjecture anymore," he said. "Climate change is the most serious challenge probably that the human race has ever confronted."
Raven quickly summarized the virtually unanimous understanding of the world's climate scientists and other responsible experts about the great upheavals manmade global warming is now producing."
The article goes on to explain how fossil fuel-promoted denialism has achieved results that are nearly treasonous. I tend to agree with that. And I also firmly believe that those traitors will have to face some pretty harsh judgement down the road--and sooner rather than later.
No, you dismiss whatever theory comes to the surface other than the CO2 theory and then claim that it's CO2 causing the warming.
There are different variables that support different datasets, that's the problem. For example, the GCR dataset would support the ACRIM composite, since there was a sharp decrease in GCRs during the ACRIM Gap, indicitive that the TSI increased sharply during this timeframe, as seen in the ACRIM dataset and NIMBUS7/ERB satellites, hence, why there is a trend upward between the SC 21 and 22 minimas.
The IRMB dataset supports the notion that TSI also increased during this timeframe, though not to the extent that ACRIM shows it increasing.
In addition, we have had multiple studies now, indicate an increase in Solar Irradiance reaching the surface of different stations.
Part of this increase could be do to decreasing Cloud Cover with an increasingly active sun, as suggested by this paper, published last year.
Or this study, which finds a statistically significant increase in irradiance reaching the surface.
The GSSN dataset supports ACRIM during the ACRIM Gap, but does not show the increase between minimas as ACRIM does, hence, why this issue is far from being resolved.
I have linked two papers concerning GCRs and stratospheric cooling. I can provide many more, since the GCR and Ozone link is farely well established.
Thomas et. al 2005:
Quoting paper:
Based on cosmological rates, it is probable that at least once in the last gigayear the Earth has been irradiated by a gamma-ray burst (GRB) in our Galaxy from within 2 kpc. We have performed the first detailed computation of the effects on the Earth's atmosphere of one such impulsive event: A 10 s 100 kJ m-2 burst penetrates to the stratosphere causing globally averaged ozone depletion of 35%, with depletion reaching 55% at some latitudes. Significant depletion persists for over 5 years after the burst. A 50% decrease in ozone column density leads to approximately 3 times the normal UVB (280-315 nm; a wavelength band that ozone significantly absorbs and that living organisms are sensitive to) flux, and widespread extinctions are likely, based on extrapolation from sensitivity of modern organisms. Additional effects include a shot of nitrate fertilizer and NO2 opacity in the visible, providing a cooling perturbation to the climate over a similar timescale. These results lend support to the hypothesis that a GRB may have initiated the late Ordovician mass extinction (Melott et al.).
Pavlov et. al 2005
When Solar system passes through moderately dense interstellar clouds, Earth experiences a dramatic increase in the flux of the anomalous component of cosmic rays (ACRs) along with an increased flux of galactic cosmic rays. ACR flux across the Earth's orbit lasts as long as it takes to cross a moderately dense interstellar cloud, about 1 Myr years. A period of ∼1 Myr is long enough for Earth to experience at least one magnetic reversal allowing penetration of the cosmic rays deep into the atmosphere even at low latitudes. Such increased cosmic ray fluxes would enhance the abundance of stratospheric NOx ∼100 times between 20–40 km, which in turn would decrease the ozone column globally by at least 40% and in the polar regions up to 80%. Such ozone loss would last for the duration of the magnetic reversal and could trigger global extinctions.
Shumilov et. al 2005
For example, model simulations show a significant CN concentration enhancement during the May 1990 GLEs of relatively "moderate" magnitude, when polar ozone "mini-holes" (OTC depletions up to 20%) have been observed, while no OTC variations and considerable aerosol enhancements were seen during more powerful GLEs (4 August 1972, 2 May 1998, 14 July 2000) (Reagan et al., 1981; Shumilov et al., 1995, 2003). Our results demonstrate that "moderate" GLEs may increase aerosol content significantly and cause ozone "mini-hole" creation.
Krivoultsky et. al 2002:
Galactic cosmic ray (GCR) fluxes measured by balloons in the troposphere and stratosphere at several points in Russia, and total ozone records have been used to detect cosmic signal by linear regression analysis. It was shown that the response of total ozone is in phase with decadal variations of GCR in contrast to the assumption about ozone destruction by GCR due to the nitrogen catalytic cycle intensification. Photochemical modelling was used to understand the situation. The results of calculations showed positive ozone response in the troposphere caused by additional production of NO by GCRs.
Ozone depletion causes stratospheric cooling. Stratospheric Cooling has been observed.
May I ask you, if GHGs were driving stratospheric cooling, why have the temperatures up there flatlined since 1995, while GHGs have gone up, reducing the amount of OLR reaching the stratosphere?
Note that major spikes and dips in stratospheric temperature occur with major volcanic eruptions. It is a known fact that volcanism contributes to ozone depletion if there is a lot of it, which supports the notion that Ozone depletion has been at least partially causing stratospheric cooling. You cannot use stratospheric cooling to try and claim that the ACRIM composite is wrong.
A similar solution being right is not always the case. As I've said, the climate system is chaotic, which leads me to believe that more than one factor is at work here.
Urbanization has a lot to do with why the diurnal temperature has decreased in the poorer quality weather stations.
Fall et. al 2011 found that the best sited weather stations have no diurnal trend. There is a warming over the last 30 years on these datasets (but no change in diurnal temperatures). However, it is much more pronounced on the poorer sited datasets, and there is a decrease in the diurnal temperature range, leading me to believe that urbanization has played a significant role in the diurnal temperature decrease with the poorer quality stations.
Note that CRN 1 and 2 are the best sited stations, whereas CRN 5 are the poorest sited weather stations.
So this paper INDIRECTLY supports the ACRIM composite, because if the diurnal temperature has not gone up on the better sited datasets over the last 30 and 100 years. However, temperatures have gone up, so the sun is a possible candidate for that warming. CO2? Not so much.
Roy Spencer also has a recent and interesting post on urbanization and the TREND in temperatures. This confirms Michaels et. al 2007.
See above.
That's a misrepresentation coming from your part.
I believe you are refering to Doran and Zimmerman 2009, correct?
Unfortunately, their wording is pretty bad for a crucial question that AGW Proponents have taken and danced around with many times now.
It says "human activity." Not greenhouse gas emissions.
However, I argue that neither of these conclusions can be drawn from the survey. For example, one issue that is much discussed in the public debate is the role of greenhouse gas emissions in global warming. Perhaps there is not much debate about this issue among scientists, but this cannot be concluded from the survey, in which nothing is said about such emissions. In the second question of their survey, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman refer only to “human activity.”
Human activity can play a significant role on Climate Change. Look at the role of urbanization, for example, that accelerates the temperature trend on the datasets.
Look at Land use changes, such as deforestation, and even reforestation that change the energy flows of that regional climate.
These are all changes due to "human activity" and they are significant. Perhaps some of these variables are what the scientists meant when they were selecting "yes" for question two, which had to do if human activity plays a significant role in Climate Changes.
In addition, they did not agree to the statement that "Human activity is responsible for most of the warming observed" simply a significant portion. This could vary with what the scientists percieve "significant" to be.
The feature article “Examining the scientific consensus on climate change,” by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (see Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009), while interesting, has a primary flaw that calls their interpretation into question. In their opening sentence, the authors state that on the basis of polling data, “47% [of Americans] think climate scientists agree… that human activities are a major cause of that [global] warming….” They then described the two-question survey they had posed to a large group of Earth scientists and scientifically literate (I presume) people in related fields. While the polled group is important, in any poll the questions are critical. My point revolves around their question 2, to wit, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Note that the opening sentence of their article uses the phrase “major cause” in reporting the results of the polling, while the poll itself used the phrase “significant contributing factor.” There is a large difference between these two phrases.
No, because I have explained many times now, that what I am arguing does not mean that CO2 will have no effect on temperatures.
Another misrepresentation?
2010, 2005 and 1998 finished so closely together that the differenes between them are not statistically significant, consistent with no warming over the last 10 or so years.
Wait for the oceans to fully equilibriate to the new level of TSI. Then you will see some cooling down the road, in conjunction with the PDO and AMO switching to their negative states. What the Ozone layer does over the coming years is up for grabs. If it recovers significantly, we will see even more cooling over the next 30 years or so.
"Part of this increase could be do to decreasing Cloud Cover with an increasingly active sun, as suggested by this paper, published last year."
"If Cloud Cover increases over the next 30 years or so (which it should due to the negative states of the PDO and AMO) but if it increases even more, due to an external factor such as solar activity,"
So are you saying the sun increases or decreases cloud cover?
At least a 'serious' post about global warming as opposed to the 'you are a poopy head' stuff that these comments consist of so much, although you still use the truly debinked urban heat effect stuff.
I used to follow the models in depth but I slacked off as there are too many assumptions. The incoming v. outgoing radiation figures you quote are interesting, but I thought they had been pretty well debunked already, am I wrong? (I couldn't tell you but I had read one article and skimmed afew more way back when about putting clouds into the equation.)
The other thing is that global warming was a theory that existed in many ways before the event. I give it more credence for that reason than explanations after the event, though logically it shouldn't matter.
Finally, can you summarize your position? I understand you to be saying:
CO2 only matters if there are no clouds and then not much.
Clouds are increasing (temporarily) due to the negative states of the PDO and AMO so global warming due to CO2 (if it exists) should be held in check for a while?
So... unless CO2 directly increases cloud cover, then the effects of C02 are unchecked?
The reason I gave up studying the models was that the models had too many assumptions and interplaying factors for me to trust them. Once the large scale effects of global warming became obvious then I believed the theory. I guess I missed it but are you saying that the signs of global warming such as the melting ice caps are due to deforestration but not CO2?
sorry to be a bit scattered in my response but I am in a rush.
"3. Conclusion
[12] We have compared the SATIRE-S model of the TSI variations with the measurements by the ACRIM-1 and ACRIM-2 experiments, in order to bridge the so-called ACRIM gap (July 1989 to October 1991), as proposed by Scafetta and Willson [2009]. This gap is the source of the on-going debate about the presence of the secular variation in solar irradiance between the minima of cycle 22 and 23. The SATIRE-S model calculates the TSI variations from the continuously evolving distribution of the solar surface magnetic field obtained from NSO/KP magnetograms and continuum images [Wenzler et al., 2009] covering the period 1974–2003. In contrast to the SATIRE-T model by Krivovaet al. [2007] employed by Scafetta and Willson [2009], in this model variations on all covered time scales are modelled in a self-consistent way, with no additional assumptions regarding the long term trend. Also the accuracy of the SATIRE-S model is significantly higher than that of the SATIRE-T model since it uses direct measurements of the solar photospheric magnetic flux rather than its modelled evolution. Thus it is best suited for such a test.
[13] The constructed ‘mixed’ ACRIM-1 – WSK09 – ACRIM-2 composite does not show an increase in the TSI from 1986 to 1996, in contrast to the ACRIM composite. Independently of the value of the model’s free parameter, a slight decrease is found. The magnitude of this decrease cannot be estimated very accurately from such an analysis (and therefore such a ‘mixed’ composite should not be considered as a replacement of real measurements), but it lies between approximately 0.15 and 0.7 W m2 (0.011– 0.05%) for different values of the model’s single free parameter. Note that irradiance changes due to non-magnetic effects, if any, cannot be revealed by either SATIRE-S used here nor by SATIRE-T employed by Scafetta and Willson [2009]."
No, it is not resolved. However, ACRIM is probably less accurate.
That's wonderful! Unfortunately, there is no real trend in GCRs so your proposed explanation falls flat as that no-trend. :)
Source
No, it doesn't. Blog posts don't confirm scientific papers. Particularly three-day-old blog posts. Are you sure Spencer wasn't engaging in an early April Fools joke?
In any event, all of these refute Michaels:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Schmidt_ 3.pdf
http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-uhi.p df
ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Arti cles/Hansen%20Global%20surface%20Temps%202011.pdf
Sloppy wording on my part to some degree. Certainly, BC, land use and other human activities have an effect. However, CO2 emissions are the biggest player by far. Still, I apologize for not being clearer.
I would have had to have made a first misrepresentation before I can be accused of "another." What's odd is that you yourself apparently want to misrepresent me. This time I was clear. I said, "2010 which was the warmest or one of the warmest years on record." You even quoted it.
Tell you what, let's drop the misrepresentation crap. Let us assume that we are both discussing in good faith and that we will occasionally make mistakes. Such mistakes can easily be pointed out without assuming a motive. Deal?
That is simply wrong. Climate is most definitely not chaotic. Not even weather is truly chaotic, though it exhibits some chaotic properties. But there are limits to the amount of chaos in weather. We know that it will not be 300°C tomorrow; we know that there will not 700 mph winds.
What's interesting is that that explanation for the current warming was made decades before the warming was observed. Various projections were made about the rate of the warming, some with very good accuracy. Such explanations and accuracy would be impossible if climate was chaotic.
So summing up: You've really just reiterated what you've said before and addressed none of the logical concerns such as parsimony, aside from saying "It's complicated."
Nearly everything in science is complicated. That is why people spend many years in school just to learn one specialty and spend their lives in one subdivision of that specialty. I'm very much inclined to listen to such people, particularly when they nearly all agree on something like the fact that humans are primarily responsible for the current warming.
On your side of the ledger we have a fair amount grasping at straws (or the ragged ends of straws), few if any real predictions, projections, or explanations. Your explanation is overly complex and can't explain its own inconsistencies.
Have you ever asked yourself why the Moon isn't warming if the Sun is the cause? The Moon is at the same distance from the Sun as the Earth. It should be warming. Why isn't it? Why aren't *all* the planets warming if the Sun is warming?
No, I'm afraid the Sun just doesn't cut it as an explanation of the current warming. Had you made that argument in the 1930s you would have been right, if that's any consolation. :)
Hi.
That's because I'm referencing two different periods of time.
During the past 30 years the sun was active. It seems that the sun is going to be less active in the future. Since this is the case, Cloud Cover will probably increase, as I referenced in the papers I posted, whether through Solar activity directly, or through GCRs.
It's unfortunate that many on my side are rude, insulting, and often unscientific. Take Steve Goddard for example.
He's jumping in joy because the Arctic Sea Ice extent is approaching the normal line.
While the spring has seen noticeably larger jumps towards normal in recent years, it is unclear whether these jumps towards normal are indicative of a new trend beginning or not.
I would likely guess that Arctic Sea Ice Extent should increase in the next 30 years because of the PDO and AMO flipping to cold. Look at the Pacfic Extent of the Arctic for example. The Bering Sea Ice Extent was one of the largest recorded in the satellite era, probably because the PDO turned negative.
There is probably some lag time, so expect a few years worth of lag time before these indicies have an effect on the Sea Ice Extent.
The Urban Heat Island effect has been well established, because darker colors convert more light into heat. A city has more paved areas, so the city overall would be warmer than a suburban area.
By saying the UHI is imaginary, you are saying that the properties of the color black have somehow changed.
Are you talking about the GCMs or regional models?
The problem with the term "Global Warming" is that is has now come to mean "human-caused Global Warming." Global Warming, the rise in temperature over the past 150 years is real, and is confirmed by weather stations and by multiple different types of temperature proxies.
CO2 has about the same effect on temperature, regardless of whatever cloud cover is doing to temperature. Cloud feedbacks to CO2, the temperature change causing Cloud changes are what need to be looked at, to see if the climate is sensitive to humanity's Greenhouse Gas emissions or not.
I think that at the very least, temperatures should flatline for another 20-30 years or so.
It's due to many things, CO2 has a minor effect, but I think it all comes down to the sun and the feedbacks from the sun that are causing Global Warming.
This is simply just my interpretation of the data.
Well, hell! You could've simply said that in the first post and I probably would have ignored you.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion...no matter how wrong it is. ;^P
And this paper supports my conclusion that there is still a debate going on in the scientific community over this issue.
It's pretty much come down to whose model to bridge TSI over the ACRIM Gap in conjunction with which satellite to use during the ACRIM Gap is better.
I aspire to get my Ph.D in atmospheric science, and if I do, I will try and resolve thi discrepency, to make this uncertainty less uncertain.
I have shown in my peer reviewed papers that I posted (which you did not quote) that TSI is increasing at the surface of weather stations on Earth. This is consistent with the ACRIM dataset.
I have also shown that the diurnal temperatures have not changed over the last 100 and 30 years in the best sited weather stations while temperatures have gone up, also consistent with ACRIM's TSI increasing, since it is a good candidate for the warming over this timeframe, since increased TSI does not create a change in the diurnal temperature range.
You have conveniently decided not to quote any of this, which is the most relevant aspect to my post (which is what you claimed you quoted). Why haven't you adressed these issues above?
Where's the statistical analysis that supports your claim of no trend over the last 50 years? Eyeballing the graph shows that GCRs reached a record low in 1992.
The statistical analysis by Lu 2009 shows that there is a relationship between GCRs and Ozone Depletion seems to be legitimate.
There is a year's lag time between the GCR flux and the Ozone Depletion, but it's evident.
Quoting paper:
For instance, the largest ozone holes were observed in 1987
and 1998, respectively, corresponding to the CR intensity
maxima observed in 1986 and 1997. Although atmospheric
dynamics and meteorological conditions could influence
the CR effect and lead to large fluctuations of the O3 hole
from year to year, a long-term trend of the polar O3 loss
(hole) is predictable. It is interesting to examine these
predictions.
Nor do blog posts refute scientific papers such as Scafetta 2011, which you attempted to refute with a SkepticalScience blog post. Since you referenced blog posts, I assumed it was okay to reference my blog posts. Spencer is an actual qualified climate scientist, unlike John Cook et. al at SkepticalScience.
So can you explain why more urbanized weather stations have a higher temperature trend rate than less-urbanized weather stations do?
That's definitely debatable.
Your first misrepresentation was that you said "97% of climatologists accept as the correct primary explanation for the warming --CO2 emissions."
When the actual question highlighted human activity as a significant factor, two totally different things.
It's understandable that you made a silly error when doing so, but try to be more careful in the future. :)
That time, I read it wrong. Apologies!
You're confusing what I mean by "chaotic" I'm saying a lot of things are occuring in the climate system at once.
If the climate is not chaotic, explain the year to year energy fluxes as measured by CERES?
We don't have adequate temperature data for the Moon, Mars, Venus etc. to draw proper conclusions on anything there.
Well yes, every scientist has their own interpretation of the data (I'm not a scientist) but that's what scientists do.
I would have ignored you if you had adressed the uncertainties with the PMOD dataset first! :P
*Which is seen in the Ozone data a year later*
The 2007-2008 season would be no different, except that year the final four SEC tournament was interrupted by a weather event in downtown Atlanta that had never happened before in the history of the grand old city.
In case you've forgotten, pay close attention to what you're about to see and hear.
What you appear to be dismissing is the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that man's activities have dumped tons/ day of CO2 into the atmosphere and that physical observations have shown that the global climate is warming.
What you have failed to do is to disprove the Laws of Physics, invalidate Chemistry and prove that man's activities do not emit any CO2, or any other greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere beyond our own exhaling.
You have also failed to show that improper land management and deforestation have added to the problems of our adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
What you have failed to do is to prove the extraction, refinement, transport and burning of fossil fuels has not added any CO2, or any other greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.
You may very well show that there are variables that apply as to how much and how fast any global warming will take place due to our releasing tons/day of greenhouse gases into the environment. Until you can disprove the Laws of Physics, the basics of Chemistry and that we emit tons/day of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere then all you have accomplished is to show that you know circular debating points and without any evidence provided that supports your circular thinking.
I have been reading your posts and I am certainly delighted to see that your posts are thought provoking and not just a simple, "Where is the warming?" and providing a link to a long debunked piece of junk science. What you have done is fail to produce any evidence that invalidates the AGWT. You have not provided a single theory that shows more promise in its ability to explain what is being observed than has the AGWT. ... Actually, what you have done is to use more words than most to enter into a debate using nothing more than a pattern of circular thinking. You are certainly welcome to inject as many, "What ifs", "How about this?" and "We do not know everything!" into the debate. When you do so, you are only making an attempt to distract from what we do know. Distract, not add, is key to the debates. Until you have done so you have only made yourself into a minor entertainment value for the dog that watches as you chase your own tail.
I strongly suspect that when we have our next extended,strong El Nino in conjunction with an extended, strong solar activity that we will see an stronger, faster warming of the climate. I also strongly suspect that you will make the claim that we would see such warming of the climate under these conditions. While you would be correct in this statement I can only imagine what you will say when the warming we will observe is above what we would expect to observe without factoring in the amount of greenhouse gases we have emitted into the atmosphere over the past 150 years. Will the dog be still as entertained by you chasing your own tail or will the dog simply abandon such mild entertainments to seek a cooler observation point?
Bring us a better climate theory than is the AGWT or invalidate the AGWT or turn the Laws of Physics upside down or show that Chemistry is junk science or show us that man does not emit a registrable and detrimental amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere or persist in your entertainment value for the dogs that observe your activities. I have given you several options to choose from. Which will you choose to use?
I can't quote posts at the moment because of Oracle de Atlantis' post, but your premise is totally off.
I am highlighting the uncertainties in the AGW argument, because there are actually uncertainties, and the science is not as settled as some claim it to be. Because of these uncertainties, I am a skeptic, since there is nothing definite, but I have my own theories to explain these uncertainties, and possibly show evidence that supports the less looked at option for the uncertain point.
You and Birthmark both say that I am arguing that Greenhouse Gases don't exist and CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas, but you both are totally wrong in your premise.
CO2 contributes, it's just not a large contributor.
We will see what happens over the coming years. We just had a large MJO wave move through Octant 7, removing Oceanic Heat Content through convection and transferring it into the atmosphere. Therefore, the March 2012 Global Temp anomaly on UAH/RSS should probably be positive, and the next El Nino should not have as much of a spike in Global temperatures as the previous El Ninos. A -PDO also supports more and stronger La Ninas in the future, so expect the Ninos to be weaker, and less impactful than the La Ninas.
I was wondering how long it would take before the ad-hominem attacks would start coming out. It didn't take very long.
If you ignore every single other factor imaginable, I guess you could say that warming will take shape over the next 30 years.
The Arctic Sea Ice should gradually get larger because of the PDO/AMO reversing to their negative states.
Your PIOMAS graph that you have posted everywhere on Dr. Master's blog is not an actual observation, FYI and the preliminary Cryosat images may indicate that PIOMAS is running on the low side of things.
Yep. My money is on PMOD for the reasons stated in Kirvova's conclusion above.
All kidding aside, good luck to you with that. I hope you succeed...and come back here to tell us what changed your mind.
Because they are irrelevant trivia in a discussion of whether the Sun is the primary cause of the current warming. (I can almost smell your incredulity at that statement, but bear with me.)
A couple of your sources are a bit dicey, too. But since it's trivia, I'll let it pass. Just remember, that just because something appears in peer-reviewed literature, that doesn't make it right.
Feel free to look for a trend. Let me know if you find anything that's remotely significant statistically.
In the meantime, read and enjoy:
Lockwood (2007)
Benestad and Schmidt (2009)
And a little NASA, 'cause it's always fun!
You are misremembering. I provided three links in rebuttal to Scafetta. The first was to a scientific paper that directly contradicted Scafetta. The other two (which did go to SkS) were to demonstrate that Scafetta is less than reliable. It should be noted that those SkS posts both contained links to published science. The first link contained just one further link; the second contained at least seven or eight.
No, because it happens to be untrue. Spencer's perception is probably addled by eating too many cherries. (He uses a self-selected subset of one data set --cherrypicking at its finest.) This issue has been looked at time and again. There simply isn't a UHI problem.
That is called "weather." Give it a little time. It will change.
(I took the more formal definition of "chaos." English. Whaddya gonna do?)
That's not necessarily true. We know the albedo for all of the planets. We know how much energy they get from the Sun. Therefore, we can calculate their temperatures --not precisely but in a way that's useful. We have many, many years of observations for some these planets. If I was going to look for a solar cause, I'd dig through planetary observation data such as photographs, spectrograms, photometric data, and perhaps written observations --particularly for the Moon, Venus, and Mars.
That is why I say wrangling over ACRIM or PMOD is trivia. A way to resolve whether the Sun is the primary cause of the current warming is obtainable.
One last thing that eliminates the Sun, though. The fact is that the poles are warming much faster than the tropics. That is exactly the opposite of what would be expected if the Sun was the cause.
LOL
No one doubts the uncertainties of the AGWT. Without the uncertainties scientist would be able to tell you exactly what the global climate will be like in 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, 2070 and so forth. Since there are uncertainties, "unknowns" as you may prefer to use, scientist are able to use models that will show probabilities of what the global, or even regional, climate will be. Scientist will express their degree of confidence in these probabilities by assigning a percentage of likelyhood that these probabilities will be observed as true.
Since you have not shown any repeatable tests that would give evidence that the AGWT is invalid, you simply have not shown anything that would undermine the AGWT. So, given this, my premise is preciously on point. You continuously show that there are variables that are not fully understood, yet you have not shown that the AGWT is invalid. You have engaged in using circular debating points and without any scientific reason for doing so. When you are able to bring forth testable, repeatable evidence that the AGWT is an invalid theory, then you will not only have my profound, "Thank you!", but you will also have gained riches and recognition beyond your greatest fantasies. The dog will simply become bored with watching you since you no longer provide it any entertainment value. ... So, if you will, explain to me how my premiss is off.
No one, that I have seen here, has ever said that you believe greenhouse gases do not exist. What I have implied is that you simply do not seem to recognize the amount of greenhouse gases that man emits, how many of the natural sinks man has interfered with, and of the degree of impact that this will have on our global climate. You try to circumvent all of this by simply pointing out that we do not yet know all of the variables associated with our climate. Fine, but you must almost also show that what we do know is invalid.
What brings you to the determination that CO2 is not a large contributor? You do not even attempt to quantify this statement. I can assume that since the subject is concerning climate change that you suggest that CO2 is not a large contributor towards any climate change. I will even grant you that CO2 is but the primer for further, more extreme climate change. What I cannot assume is that you have any evidence to support your claim that CO2 is not a large contributor. Show us the evidence that you have that will support your claim. Certainly you have taken in consideration of "tipping points" and "the domino effect", have you not? ... Should you be suggesting that I believe that the amount of CO2 in atmosphere is the only factor that will drive our climate, then your premiss is off. CO2 is one primer. We have not fully realized what it will detonate. ... Although, we do have an idea.
When you say, "We will see what happens over the coming years." you are, yet again, engaging in circular thinking. This is precisely what others, that do not want to take actions now, will say as nothing more than a delaying tactic towards acting on what we do know now. I also did not even try to suggest that the next strong El Nino alone would cause a spike in global temperatures. I specifically suggested that the next strong, extended El Nino, in conjunction with a strong, extended solar cycle, will probably bring about a warming beyond what we would otherwise believe it would be. I should have also added that this warming would be stronger and faster than what would be expected without factoring in the AGWT. My omission to do so allows me a certain degree of leniency with your response to this. Since I feel that you should have caught the jest of what I was saying, I am not certain as to how much leniency I should allow you. You do, however, deserve a degree of leniency from me, on this point. How much value you will place on this is up to you.
I will imagine that all that post, or lurk, on this blog have seen enough attempts by those that would use circular thinking to no longer be fooled by such circular thinking. I know that I no longer am fooled by such circular thinking and that was an accomplishment, of sorts, in of itself.
Really? That's all you got. Well, since your handle is Neapolitan, couldn't I use your logic and erroneously assume you are inclined to a warm bias, being that the word "Neapolitan" is a native of the city Naples, Florida?
I signed up four minutes ago exactly, with the hope of contributing something positive to the discussion. But I just could not help myself on addressing your comment to snowlover first.
That's all for now. I'll be around.
.
And how can you forecast with significant accuracy when the feedbacks of the climate system, primarily the Cloud Feedbacks are even more uncertain than what's actually causing Climate Change to occur over the last 30 years?
What are you trying to argue here? I have shown many papers that document natural forcings in the Climate System. That doesn't mean that AGW suddenly becomes invalid. A slight part of it is due to anthropogenic causes, it's AGW... if you're trying to argue AGW as being most of the warming that occured over the last 30 years, then you need to account for why these uncertainties can not possibly be causing the warming.
And what evidence are you using to come to that conclusion? How can the diurnal temperature has remained the same in the best kept weather stations all throughout the United States if man is the cause of the warming? How can you ignore papers that show an increase in TSI reaching Earth's surface, indicating that the ACRIM dataset may be in fact valid, and 70% of the warming we have seen over the last 30 years is due to TSI alone? How can you ignore that we don't even know what TSI has done over the last 30 years when you come to that conclusion?
I have posted many papers that suggest that the sun and its feedbacks are the drivers of the current climate change, not CO2. The sun is the most likely driver in my opinion. You have yet to post a study using ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS that shows CO2 as being the main driver of the Climate over the past 30 years.
The sensitivity is what will determine if we reach any "tipping points" and from what I've read, climate sensitivity to Greenhouse Gases appears to be very low, hence another reason why CO2 is a minor factor for climate change.
One problem, I have no idea if you are right or not, because the next El Nino has not occured yet, which is why I said "we'll see."
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/10/01/206810/h ansen-extreme-events-2010-2012-record-high-global- temperature/?mobile=nc
Where to begin?
"And how can you forecast with significant accuracy when the feedbacks of the climate system, primarily the Cloud Feedbacks are even more uncertain than what's actually causing Climate Change to occur over the last 30 years?
Obviously I do not know what I said. Refresh my memory, if you will. When did I attempt to forecast anything with significant accuracy? When did I say that CO2 is the only driver to our climate? I remember saying that there is still some uncertainty concerning the climate. This does not negate what we do know about the climate. ... We have had clouds for more than just 30 years. What we have not had is a rising anthropogenic increase in CO2, to the level that we have seen over the past 30 years. Do you think that there may be a connection between this and the increased warming we have seen over the past 30 years? No, way! That would be impossible, right? Clouds, on the other hand, explains everything, doesn't it?
"What are you trying to argue here? I have shown many papers that document natural forcings in the Climate System. That doesn't mean that AGW suddenly becomes invalid. A slight part of it is due to anthropogenic causes, it's AGW... if you're trying to argue AGW as being most of the warming that occured over the last 30 years, then you need to account for why these uncertainties can not possibly be causing the warming."
I hate to answer a question with a question, but when did anyone, specifically me, say that there were no natural forces involved with a climate change? Who doubts that there would be many papers concerning the natural causes for a climate change? I certainly would not contest this. Since, as you said, this does not invalidate the AGWT, then why is this significant to the conversation? Unless, of course, you are suggesting that any warming we have experienced is due strictly to natural causes. Is this what you are suggesting? Should this be the case, then it is your responsibility, not mine, to show the warming has been due to natural causes and not AGW. The reasoning behind my saying that AGWT accounts for the warming, and I did not, as opposed to natural causes creating the warming, is simply because we have not observed any natural causes to account for the warming that has been observed. Are you able to supply this evidence? Should you not be able to do so, then you will need to suggest something else to explain the warming we have observed. I have a suggestion for you. Try factoring the AGWT, since it fits.
"And what evidence are you using to come to that conclusion? How can the diurnal temperature has remained the same in the best kept weather stations all throughout the United States if man is the cause of the warming? How can you ignore papers that show an increase in TSI reaching Earth's surface, indicating that the ACRIM dataset may be in fact valid, and 70% of the warming we have seen over the last 30 years is due to TSI alone? How can you ignore that we don't even know what TSI has done over the last 30 years when you come to that conclusion?"
The evidence that I use to come this conclusion is your inate behavior of suggesting that natural causes could account for most of, if not all of, the warming climate we have been observing. You have made every attempt to explain the warming short of using AGW. Should you be able to provide the evidence that AGW has had minimal play in the warming we are observing, then I am listening.
"The sensitivity is what will determine if we reach any "tipping points" and from what I've read, climate sensitivity to Greenhouse Gases appears to be very low, hence another reason why CO2 is a minor factor for climate change.
Are you now suggesting that we have not reached any tipping points? Perhaps we need to clarify something. What do you consider to be a tipping point?
Is it not the reality that if we stopped emitting CO2 today then the climate would continue to warm until sequestration has caught up with the excess CO2 in the atmosphere now? The best evidence is that this would take around 2-3 decades and the climate would continue to warm until then. Guess what. We have not stopped emitting CO2 into the atmosphere and, in fact, have increased the rate of doing so.
Is it the fact that methane is now escaping from the frozen tundra and from the sea floor?
Is it the Arctic sea ice having less volume now and that by all appearances now the Arctic will soon be ice free during the summer months? What do you think will happen once the Arctic is ice free during the summers? I suggest that we have not seen anything yet, once this happens.
Should these not be tipping points for you, then what is that you would consider a tipping point?
We have more than one problem here. I never said the next El Nino will cause a faster and more pronounced warming to our climate. Although, that is possible. What I suggested was that the next strong, extended El Nino, in conjunction with a strong, extended solar activity, will possibly bring a faster and more pronounced warming than we have seen so far. We will have to wait and see if this comes to be, but waiting to see is what you seem to stress concerning AGW. An opft used delay tactic to not respond with the evidence and knowledge we do know now. "Let's just wait another 20 years and see what there is to see then." It is always wait another 20 years and conditions have worsened each time we wait another 20 years. Sooner or later, you must look at the obvious. Do I need to repeat the obvious again?
Should we have evidence in how a fire starts, should we wait until we know all the ways a fire will start before we try to prevent fires? No way! We should wait until we know all the ways that start a fire before we try to prevent fires! ... If you do not mind, I will take preventive measures against fires in my home now with the knowledge we have now. I will add to these preventative measures as more ways are learned. You may wait to prevent fires at your home until you have learned all the ways that start fires. Wait! In the case of climate change, do we not all share the same home?
So because CO2 has risen and because temperatures have risen over the last 30 years, that means that CO2 is the cause?
That is really sloppy reasoning.
Natural Forcings are responsible for most of the warming over the last 30 years. CO2 definitely has contributed some, but natural forcings definitely are in control.
You can't simply ignore a factor like increasing TSI at the surface, Rookie. Or the fact that diurnal temperatures have not increased, while temperature anomalies have gone up in the best sited stations. If you have to ignore such factors to come to the conclusion that "AGW fits" there are some seriously wrong things going on with that theory already.
A large positive feedback that offsets other large positive feedbacks.
That's determined by the sensitivity of the Climate, which from what I've researched and read, appears to be much less sensitive than the IPCC suggests.
Methane levels have significantly leveled off from the rate that they were increasing in 1984. Methane does not last as long in the atmosphere as Carbon Dioxide does (only about 10 years).
What's your evidence that the decrease in Sea Ice Extent over the last 30 years is due to AGW?
What's your evidence that most of the decrease in Sea Ice Extent isn't due to variability with the AMO?
Quoting Paper:
Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.
Like I said, we'll see if you are right or not. I'm willing to bet that you are not right. If we see temperatures increasing over the next 20-30 years and all natural forcings point the opposite direction, we'll have our answer. Until then, uncertainties still remain, and they still need to be addressed.
Now, I try to wade through your piles of info, and have to tell you that I have a very difficult time keeping a straight face while doing so because of the nonsense you so frequently drop in. It's almost as though you're awkwardly attempting some subliminal Jedi mind trick kind of thing. Do you truly believe that interpersing scientific observations with falsehood one liners is going to make folks subcionciously say, "I don't understand what he's saying, but he must be right!"? Here, allow me to line up a few samples from your last few comments:
--"There is no "smoking gun" that most of Global Warming is anthropogenic."
False.
--"Natural Forcings are responsible for most of the warming over the last 30 years. CO2 definitely has contributed some, but natural forcings definitely are in control."
False.
--"That's determined by the sensitivity of the Climate, which from what I've researched and read, appears to be much less sensitive than the IPCC suggests"
False.
--"Methane levels have significantly leveled off from the rate that they were increasing in 1984."
False.
--"A slight part of it is due to anthropogenic causes, it's AGW... if you're trying to argue AGW as being most of the warming that occured over the last 30 years, then you need to account for why these uncertainties can not possibly be causing the warming."
False.
--"How can the diurnal temperature has remained the same in the best kept weather stations all throughout the United States if man is the cause of the warming?"
False.
...and on and on and on. Many of us can sit here and take the time to answer each of these again, but they've all been answered numerous times in both peer-reviewed literature and in fora like this one. So my question is: does your denialism come from a simple (and amply demonstrated) lack of scientific understanding? Or is it intentional, driven by ideology or something worse?
I'm not going to argue with you for the moment. I understood from what I remember reading from a few years ago that you are wrong about the radiation and the clouds but I am not going to do the research to back that up, I simply don't have the time or the interest really. I beleive global warming is caused by CO2 and I would need to see much stronger arguments than yours to change my belief.
However, it also comes down to the argument about action or not: are you simply making an academic point? Or are you arguing against action to combat CO2?
The argument is that changing to renewable energy is good for the environment regardless of CO2 and is good for America and that therefore whether global warming is caused by deforestation, solar cycles or whatnot isntead of CO2, we should get rid of oil et al and use renewables.
What is your opinion on that?
In 2009, Scafetta claimed the ACRIM composite was independently confirmed by the SATIRE model. This is a model of TSI created by Krivova and Solanki. In response, Krivova and Solanki published this paper.
From the paper:
...”it is important to use the appropriate SATIRE-based reconstruction , which we do here, employing a reconstruction based on magnetograms. The accuracy of this model on months to years timescales is significantly higher than that of a model developed for long-term reconstructions used by the ACRIM team for such an analysis. The constructed ‘mixed’ ACRIM — SATIRE composite shows no increase in the TSI from 1986 to 1996, in contrast to the ACRIM TSI composite.”
Other independent studies:
Lee et al. (1995) compares the ERBS satellite data with the Nimbus HF data and found the HF data drifted significantly over the period of the ACRIM gap while the ERBS data shows a slight cooling.
Krivova & Solanki (2003) compares TSI to UV levels. UV levels fluctuate more than TSI - a trend would be more visible. As UV correlates closely with TSI, Krivova concludes PMOD is more accurate and there has been little secular trend in TSI over the past few decades.
A reconstruction of TSI using sunspot numbers Krivova et al. (2007) found the minimum of cycle 23 was lower than the minimum of cycle 22, in contrast to the ACRIM composite.
Frohlich (2005) compared the results of all three composites – PMOD, ACRIM and IRMB - to a proxy reconstruction of TSI based on magnetograms observed at the Kitt Peak solar observatory. The PMOD composite correlates with the magnetogram-reconstructed TSI with common variance 0.83, significantly better than ACRIM (0.62) or IRMB (0.63).
Comparison of the three composites with a reconstruction of TSI from Kitt-Peak magnetograms
(by Wenzler 2005)
Conclusion:
”The close agreement with the reconstruction from Kitt-Peak magnetograms by Wenzler (2005), and with the 3-component proxy model supports the PMOD composite as the most reliable representation of the solar irradiance variability for the last 25 years.”
FYI, in 2006, Scafetta using the ACRIM trend and concludes in his paper:
"since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone"
The study “Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion” by Professor Qing-Bin Lu is worthless.
Quote Neil Harris of the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit in Cambridge, UK:
”showing a statistical correlation is not enough to prove the validity of the cosmic-ray mechanism since there could be other causal factors varying throughout the solar cycle. In any case, Lu is wrong to compare cosmic ray intensity against total ozone because measurements of the latter depend on the movement of ozone around the atmosphere as well as the actual disappearance of ozone.”
In september 2008, Qing-Bin Lu predicted that the Antarctic ozone hole would be the biggest ever that year. Unfortunately for Lu, the hole was merely about average for the decade – a result that wasn't too supportive for his theory.
Compare it with the large ozone hole in.2006
When it comes to PDO and AMO so are these just natural oscillations and example of internal variability, not an external radiative forcing. They just move heat around from oceans to air and vice-versa and have not the ability to either create or retain heat. Therefore they're not capable of causing a long-term warming trend, just short-term temperature variations.
As long as you take your information from anti-scientific blogs such as this, this and this you will have a hard time getting a Ph.D. in atmospheric science.
Here is some information about Roy Spencer
...and stop filling Dr. Roods blog with already debunked papers. Learn some basic physics instead.
That's ironic, because you've just demonstrated you don't know the weakest form of debating.
From Wikipedia...
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it
Is that not what you just did by suggesting that I am a skeptic of AGW because I "like wintry precipitation?"
And what is this "smoking gun?" What's the evidence to support it?
Evidence?
Good grief, I guess I have to post this graph again...
Evidence to support that these discrepencies have magically been resolved overnight?
How is it false? That's the conclusion Fall et. al 2011 concluded in their paper for the best sited weather stations.
A better question would be, where does your inability to read a graph come from? Why do you not have the ability to support evidence for your claims? Why can you not read what is stated so clearly in the Fall et. al 2011?
It's obvious who is losing here. And it's not me. I did not start the personal, ad-hominem, attacks.
All I have to do is look out at the black walnut tree in my backyard that is leafing out in the first week of April to know that things have changed around here.
Or to recognize that this past winter in central Virginia while an outlier is part of the new warmer climate. It was not unlike some of the more vigorous winters on the southeastern tip of Louisiana during the 1950's and 60's.
I wish it weren't so, but things are a'changin', 'round here, big time.
Maybe you'll get the message in the summer if the temps get to 25 degrees above normal. Maybe.
You're starting to lose me. If this graph of mathane is your idea of methane that is leveling off, then I disagree.
This is a serious subject and while the slope may be less, declaring that this graph makes a point methane is argumentative at best.
I don't agree with everything Nea has to say, or any of the others for that matter, but keep it real or you'll come across as just another denialist nutcase.
A lot of the nastiness towards myself by specific members on this board I think has largely to do with their idea that I'm somehow preventing action on reducing CO2 emissions.
I am all for reducing CO2 emissions. I am all for switching to Green Energy like Solar Energy. I agree that we MUST get rid of fossil fuels AS FAST as possible.
Denialists who say that it's too expensive to switch to solar energy haven't lived in a place where pollution is already having its ill-effects on the environment.
Perhaps it is not reading comprehension that you suffer from, in general. Perhaps you just cannot comprehend what I write. I shall try to keep it simple, for you.
"So because CO2 has risen and because temperatures have risen over the last 30 years, that means that CO2 is the cause?"
That would be sloppy reasoning, if that is what I said. You were making a case for clouds as being a factor, perhaps the primary factor, in the warming over the past 30 years. I merely stated that we have had clouds for, well much longer than 30 years. What we have not had is the rise to the degree of CO2 over the past 30 years that we do have. Now, if you wish to say that this a claim that the warming over the past 30 years is because of the CO2, then you are free to say so. I was more directly stating that we have always had clouds and without the warming/cooling effect on our current climate that you seem to imply that it has. In other words, why do you place so much emphasis on the clouds and ignore the rising CO2 levels? You nearly claim that the CO2 had no impact at all on our climate. It's the clouds, right? ... Keep it simple. What has changed over the past 30 years? The clouds, or the amount of atmospheric CO2? Does this make a claim that one is responsible for the warming and not the other? No, but one of the keys to troubleshooting a system is asking, "What was the last thing that has changed?".
"Natural Forcings are responsible for most of the warming over the last 30 years. CO2 definitely has contributed some, but natural forcings definitely are in control."
Now this is an example of direct claim. A claim without any supporting evidence for the claim. Do you wish to provide such evidence now?
"You can't simply ignore a factor like increasing TSI at the surface, Rookie. Or the fact that diurnal temperatures have not increased, while temperature anomalies have gone up in the best sited stations. If you have to ignore such factors to come to the conclusion that "AGW fits" there are some seriously wrong things going on with that theory already."
I do not ignore natural forcing and I do look for other causes than AGW. Only a fool would suggest that natural variations, minus man's efforts, has no play in the climate. Equally, only a fool would suggest that AGW is a minor player beyond the natural causes for climate change. Something initiated the climate change. Ask yourself, what has changed in the environment to account for the climate change? Was there a super volcano? Was there a more pronounced increase in volcanic activities? Has there been a sudden increase in the movement of tectonic plates? Has there been more prolonged and intense solar activity? Has there been a meteor/asteroid strike that would alter our climate? Has Earth tilted on its axis? Has Earth's orbit around the sun changed? .. What has changed, Snowlover123, that would initiate a change in the climate? KISS. Why do you so quickly try to omit the one change we are certain of when it comes to finding the initiator of a climate change? Why do you so quickly dismiss CO2? Simply because it fits your purpose?
"A large positive feedback that offsets other large positive feedbacks."
Fine. Name one large positive feedback that has offset the other large positive feedbacks. All observations has shown that the climate is still warming. Where is the offsetting feedback that should have canceled out the warming? Is this another, "Well, give it another 20 years and we shall see?" answer?
"That's determined by the sensitivity of the Climate, which from what I've researched and read, appears to be much less sensitive than the IPCC suggests."
Do you mind sharing your reading choices with us? ... When you have finished reading this sentence you will have read that water consists of a combination of mercury and silicon atoms. Do you wish to cite this as evidence of such? If not, do you resort to selective reading choices that most fits what you want to believe?
"Methane levels have significantly leveled off from the rate that they were increasing in 1984. Methane does not last as long in the atmosphere as Carbon Dioxide does (only about 10 years)."
Correct! I am jumping for joy! Do you also know that when methane breaks down that CO2 is one of the components produced? Are you aware that CO2 has decades of staying power in the atmosphere? Time for a little more reading, perhaps?
Your graphic shows methane levels for two regional zones. Do you suggest that this is true globally? Are you also aware that the graphic ends mid 2009? Would you like to extend this beyond mid 2009?
National Science Foundation
Oops! Now what? Has a tipping point been reached?
"What's your evidence that the decrease in Sea Ice Extent over the last 30 years is due to AGW?"
Sea ice extent? The sea ice extent is variable from year to year and is largely due to winds and currents moving the ice around and temperature. Why not take a look at the sea ice volume? You know, surface area and thickness combined. We have seen an increase in the loss of volume and there is no other theory that explains this better than the AGWT. There are other forces at play, but these forces are more easily exercised once the ice has thinned. Winds, currents and warmer waters have a much greater impact on thin, broken ice than it does on thick, packed ice. Mass and friction being what it is.
"What's your evidence that most of the decrease in Sea Ice Extent isn't due to variability with the AMO?
I could cheat and simply ask for your evidence that the variability in sea ice extent is not caused by AGW. But, that it tit for tat, isn't it? First, I never said that sea ice extent was effected by factors other than AGW. In fact, I never mentioned sea ice extent at all to you, until this response to your post. I am actually less concerned about sea ice extent than I am with the total volume of sea ice. This winter we have seen sea ice extent reach near normal conditions, but with a caveat. Last summer's sea ice melt left both the north and south passages open. Do you have any suggestions about how thick this ice is going to be this summer. A single year of ice growth compared to decades, if not centuries, of multi seasonal ice? ... Read post #10 of this blog. ... Sea ice extent! How do you compare a lake frozen over with one inch of ice as opposed to the same lake with 12 inches of ice? Wow! We have the same amount of ice as last year! ... Do we?
You are using every trick you can think of to explain the observations of the climate that have been made and these observations show a warming climate. Everything you suggest has already been noted and taken into consideration by climatologist. Yet, the observations made cannot be fully explained until you also factor in the human element.
Here is what you fail to to do:
1. Rewrite the Laws of Physics.
2. Change basic Chemistry.
3. Show that man's activities have not introduced any greenhouse gases, at a rate of tons/day, into the atmosphere.
4. Show that natural causes can account for all the observed warming.
5. Eliminate CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
6. Show that adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has no effect on the climate.
Until you have done these things, you have only engaged in circular thinking. "Yes, but...", "What if?" and "Well there are other considerations." do not change the facts. They are questions to be considered, have been considered and have been shown to not be enough of a forcing of the climate, until you also factor in AGW. You have failed to eliminate AGW as part of the warming climate. Even though you may suggest that it is a small part, it is remains a large enough part to change our climate. Without AGW there is no reason to believe that our climate would not still be in some state of equilibrium since we have not seen any abnormalities to the natural processes that would explain the warming that is being observed. Is this not all correct and, if not, are you able to bring forth the evidence that would negate any of these?
Have heart. You are still keeping the dog entertained. At least, for now.
And they got that result because their SATIRE model was callibrated to the PMOD dataset. They then claimed that this somehow disproved the analysis in Scafetta and Willson 2009.
If it was calibrated to the ACRIM dataset, the paper would have had a different conclusion.
When Scafetta and Willson 2009 used Kirvova's Magnetic Proxy model to bridge the ACRIM Gap to see which one is more reliable, they came to the conclusion that it matches up more with the ERB/NIMBUS7 data, not the ACRIM data.
From the paper:
The relative difference between Nimbus7/ERB and
KBS07 during the ACRIM gap (Figure 2a) changed by
0.023 % (+0.31 W/m2) across the gap, significantly less
than the 0.063 % (0.86 W/m2) assessed by Fro¨hlich in the
PMOD composite. Additionally there is a virtually insignificant
ERB-KBS07 TSI difference of 0.006 % (+0.08 W/m2)
for the one year intervals before and after the 29th of
September 1989, the date of Fro¨hlich’s proposed Nimbus7/
ERB ‘glitch’. Clearly Fro¨hlich’s step function sensitivity
shift of 0.034 % (±0.47 W/m2) that day is not supported by
the KBS07 proxy model.[19] We can apply the KBS07 model as an independent
test of ERBS/ERBE uncorrected degradation during the
ACRIM gap [Willson, 1997; Willson and Mordvinov,
2003]. The ERBE-KBS07 ratio changes by 0.034 %
(0.47 W/m2) between the pre- and post ACRIM gap
comparisons (Figure 2b). This is approximately equal to the trend difference between ACRIM and PMOD compositesduring solar cycles 21–23, within computational
certainty, and clearly supports the contention of uncorrected
ERBE degradation during the ACRIM gap.
[20] The ERB and ERBE comparisons with KBS07
provide strong, independent evidence contradicting the
claims of Lee et al. [1995], Fro¨hlich [2004, 2006] and
Fro¨hlich and Lean [1998] that (1) ERBS/ERBE is the most
reliable comparison database during the ACRIM gap; (2) that
Nimbus7/ERB experienced a large increase of sensitivity
during the ACRIM-Gap and (3) that Lean’s proxy reconstruction
can faithfully reconstruct the TSI.
So why has Kirvova's Magnetic Proxy model had more of a discrepency with ERBE/ERBS instead of NIMBUS7/ERB? Also note that when KBS07 is filled in for the ACRIM Gap, the PMOD dataset suddenly displays a secular trend, like ACRIM, at approximately at a 0.05% increase per minimas, indicating this proxy is more in line with the ACRIM dataset than the PMOD dataset, and that the NIMBUS7/ERB data is more reliable than the ERBE/ERBS data because of a smaller discrepency between NIMBUS7/ERB and KBS07 than ERBE/ERBS.
No, they didn't "comapre TSI to UV levels" since we have not been measuring UV levels during the timeframe that TSI increased between minimas as a whole. They used a reconstruction, their SATIRE model, which had already been callibrated to the PMOD dataset beforehand, and since they find that " UV correlates closely with TSI" then they claim that since PMOD shows TSI not going up between minimas over the last 30 years, then the UV irradiance is not going up, therefore refuting ACRIM.
Circular reasoning at its finest.
Scafetta and Willson 2009 showed that when you apply this magnetic flux proxy model to the ACRIM Gap, where there is not certain data, you get an increase in TSI in both the ACRIM and PMOD datasets.
Why?
And I could say that there could be something wrong with PMOD, because it is the only composite to actually agree significantly more with this proxy than ACRIM and IRMB, having a correlation coefficient of 0.83 since two proxies are in a disagreement with it. (The same two composites that show an increase in TSI between minimas.)
And this is not according to the ACRIM composite, but three TSI proxies, so therefore you may want to revise your original post.
Scafetta and West 2008, using the ACRIM composite came to the conclusion that nearly up to 70% of the warming could be solar induced over the last 50 years, if the ACRIM dataset is to be used.
We estimate that the Sun
could account for as much as 69% of the
increase in Earth’s average temperature,
depending on the TSI reconstruction
used.5
It could also be due to the fact that his lag time could be slightly off.
Wrong.
The PDO and the AMO are indicies of Global Weather patterns across the globe. When they go negative, there is a tiny shift up in Global Cloud Cover, reflecting sunlight and cooling the Globe off slightly.
This is in fact a radiative forcing, but these oceanic cycles are oscillations, so you were only half wrong.
Spencer 2008
That's telling.
The images whose URLs did come from blogs were present in the very peer reviewed papers that I had linked you to.
Therefore your attempt at a "diss" failed to epic proportions, and you have only embaressed yourself by revealing to everyone that you didn't even bother to open the links to the peer reviewed papers, or else you would have seen the images present in the peer reviewed papers.
Learn how to click on a link with your mouse first before you accuse anyone of not knowing "basic physics."
Viewing: 151 - 201
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index