Just Temperature

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 3:19 PM GMT on March 25, 2012

Share this Blog
16
+

Just Temperature:

The U.S. has just experienced an intense heat event with many records falling in the eastern half of the U.S. Here is Chris Burt’s post on the historic event. There is an excellent discussion of this event and its relation to a warming climate by Andrew Freedman at Climate Central. (Global Warming May Have Fueled March Heat Odds) I have a talk to give next week, and I am sure that the heat will contribute to questions. A question that has been put to me frequently in the past weeks is that should we expect such high temperatures in the future?

Usually when I talk about evidence of a warming, I talk about coherent and convergent evidence. That is, one can’t just look at the global surface temperature data and state that the planet has warmed. But if you look at the surface temperature data along with many other sources of data, then one finds that the evidence of warming is overwhelming. If you add the impacts of this warming to ecosystems, for example, the observations that spring is coming earlier over most of the land area in the Northern Hemisphere, then the evidence becomes smothering. For me and many others this evidence of warming is convincing, but it relies on pulling together information from many sources, explaining their relationships, and presentation of the information. So as people have asked me about the heat in Michigan and Maine this past week, I have thought of what I could do with just temperature. Here is the thread that I put together.

The last month when the global mean monthly average was below the 20th century average was February 1985. Here is a picture of the difference from the 100 year average of temperature data from each February. It has been 324 months since there was a month below the global average temperature. (Not 324 Februarys, 324 consecutive months.) Looking at the graph, the Southern Hemisphere, which is dominated by the ocean, goes back into the 1970s. There have been Februarys in the Northern Hemisphere with little blips below average.



Figure 1: February monthly difference from a 20th century average of all Februarys. From the National Climatic Data Center.

The average in this figure is based on the entire 20th century. Therefore, if you look at the record during the 20th century, there is a balance between the warm and the cold months. This fact comes directly from the definition of calculating the differences from an average. There is a famous 1930s warm period. This warm period is present in the February time series, but compared with a later span centered around 1960, this period in not as intense. A prominent characteristic of the graph is that on the left, in the first part of the 20th century, it is cooler than the average and on the right, the here and now, it is warmer.

To go along with the February graph, I have placed the graph from August 2011. The main part of the story, that in 1900 it was cooler than in 2000 remains the same. Here, in the Northern Hemisphere summer, the 1930s warm period is more prominent and more global than in February. In is easy to conclude from this figure that the spatial extent and the temporal persistent of the current warming are both far larger than in the spurt of warmth of the 1930s.



Figure 2: August monthly difference from a 20th century average of all Augusts. From the National Climatic Data Center.


I started this article with the question is the current heat event in the U.S. what we can expect in the future? Taking this simple argument, looking at the average for the past, almost 30 years, it seems reasonable to expect it be warm. And given, the relentless increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we should expect it to be warmer in the future. To expect otherwise would be betting against the average.

Betting against the average – the next plot, Figure 3, is adapted from a 2009 paper by Jerry Meehl and a host of other authors. (Original Paper, Paper Discussion from NCAR ) What this figure shows, for the U.S., is the number of new record highs divided by the number of record lows – the ratio of highs to lows. In a simplistic, intuitive way, if the average temperature where staying the same, then one would expect the number of new record highs and the number of new record lows to be about the same. What is seen in the figure is as we go from the 1980s to the 1990s to the 2000s, there is trend of record highs out numbering record lows by a factor of 2 to 1. Comparing this with Figures 1 and 2, this evolution of new record highs outpacing new record lows occurs during the time when there has not been a month below the global 20th century average.



Figure 3: Adapted from Meehl et al. (2009) the ratio of U.S. record highs and record lows by decade.

The next figure I show is another version of the global difference figure. This one is calculated as differences from 1950 onwards in order to overlap with the data from the Climate Prediction Center that identify El Nino and La Nina Cycles. El Nino and La Nina are names given to frequently occurring patterns of variation that are concentrated in the tropical Pacific Ocean, but that change the average temperature of Earth for about a year. When there is an El Nino then the globe is warmer and when there is a La Nina the globe is cooler.



Figure 4: Global temperature differences with El Nino (warm) and La Nina (cool) years marked. From National Climatic Data Center.

Looking first at the La Nina years, 1985, the last year when the Earth was cooler that the 20th century average was a La Nina year. One could say that this was the last year when the variation associated with La Nina was strong enough to counter the warming trend enough for the Earth to appear “cool.” What is striking is that the La Nina years in the past three decades are systematically warming. This suggests that in the La Nina cool period, we are seeing a warmer and warmer background, average, temperature evolving.

The warm phase of this variation does not paint as easy a picture. The very strong 1997-1998 El Nino famously raised the Earth’s temperature to a point that many argue was the warmest year observed. The subsequent El Nino events are not as strong as the 1997-1998 El Nino, and each one has temperature maximum that flirts with the 1998 maximum. It is important to note that in 1998 the entire positive anomaly of temperature was not due to the presence of El Nino. The El Nino events take place on a background of increasing temperature, and each event is a burst towards new historic highs in temperature. It is useful to look back earlier in the graph, say 1970 and earlier, to get an idea of the size of variation that can be associated with El Nino and La Nina.

Returning again to the question posed in the beginning, can we expect to regularly see such warm temperatures going forward? Yes, it makes sense that we will see more and more record high temperatures. To not expect that is to bet against the emerging observed trend of warmer and warmer temperatures that is a metric of the warming climate.

I will finish this just temperature story with a map of the Plant Hardiness Zones. Here is the official version from the US Department of Agriculture with an service that lets you pick out your zip code. I show a map of Michigan. In 1990 the green zones, 6, were down around the Ohio River in southern Ohio. This is a measure of not only warming, but also of the definitive changes in the onset of spring. The Washington Post has an excellent graphic that shows the changes between 1990 and 2012.



Figure 5: Plant hardiness zones in Michigan for 2012. From US Department of Agriculture.

We have just experienced in the U.S. a record extreme heat event. This raises the natural questions of climate, weather, and climate change. I have linked a couple of excellent discussions of these issues in the opening paragraph. What I have done in my article is to focus simply on temperature. I have laid out a thread that starts from the globe and the remarkable observation that we have not seen a month below the 20th century global average in more than 25 years. This I followed with the observation that we are in a time when we are setting more than twice as many record highs as record lows. After that I discussed the role of one of the most prominent forms of planetary temperature variations, El Nino and La Nina. The compelling point from this graph was that in the past 30 years during the cool phase, La Nina, the planet shows a warming trend. Finally, I introduce the plant hardiness zones, which show warmer winters, and can be translated to earlier springs. So the question that has been posed to me last week, can we expect such high temperatures in the future? Yes. If we use our experience and observations for the basis of decision making, then the rational answer is yes. We will see more records. We will see an earlier spring. We will see warmer times.


r


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 182 - 132

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Quoting Snowlover123:
Some1hastobetherookie...

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.


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.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
Quoting Snowlover123:


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

LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5282
Quoting Snowlover123:


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.

Yep. My money is on PMOD for the reasons stated in Kirvova's conclusion above.

Quoting Snowlover123:
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.

All kidding aside, good luck to you with that. I hope you succeed...and come back here to tell us what changed your mind.

Quoting Snowlover123:
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?

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.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Where's the statistical analysis that supports your claim of no trend over the last 50 years?

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!

Quoting Snowlover123:
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.

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.

Quoting Snowlover123:
So can you explain why more urbanized weather stations have a higher temperature trend rate than less-urbanized weather stations do?

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.

Quoting Snowlover123:
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?

That is called "weather." Give it a little time. It will change.

(I took the more formal definition of "chaos." English. Whaddya gonna do?)


Quoting Snowlover123:
We don't have adequate temperature data for the Moon, Mars, Venus etc. to draw proper conclusions on anything there.




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.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5282
Quoting Neapolitan:
Given your handle--snowlover--it's easy to see how your longing for icy precipitation could be clouding your judgement. But, your profound wishful thinking aside, total global ice volume is shrinking year after year. The planet is not cooling, nor is it about to. Normal variations in solar insolation have only a small effect on global temperatures when compared to GHGs. CO2 and other GHGs are the only mechanism that's been found that fits the current observed warming. Willie Soon's persistent cloud theory of cooling is a well-debunked myth, and is in fact no longer even seriously discussed among climate scientists. And, as much as some might wish it were otherwise, the verdict is clear, and getting clearer: the planet is warming, it's because of us, and it's gonna get a lot worse before it starts getting better.


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.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Given your handle--snowlover--it's easy to see how your longing for icy precipitation could be clouding your judgement. But, your profound wishful thinking aside, total global ice volume is shrinking year after year. The planet is not cooling, nor is it about to. Normal variations in solar insolation have only a small effect on global temperatures when compared to GHGs. CO2 and other GHGs are the only mechanism that's been found that fits the current observed warming. Willie Soon's persistent cloud theory of cooling is a well-debunked myth, and is in fact no longer even seriously discussed among climate scientists. And, as much as some might wish it were otherwise, the verdict is clear, and getting clearer: the planet is warming, it's because of us, and it's gonna get a lot worse before it starts getting better.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13304
Some1hastobetherookie...

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.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Oracle de Atlantis, can you put the URL link embedded in some of your words instead of putting the actual link on the text block? It's messing up the blog format.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


No, you dismiss whatever theory comes to the surface other than the CO2 theory and then claim that it's CO2 causing the warming.



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?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
Sports fans across the nation this year have carefully calibrated their picks for tonight's NCAA basketball championship. They've filled in their brackets and eagerly await tonight's finale.

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.



Rare as it was, something even rarer preceded it. A curious weather forecast was made, beginning on opening day of the NCAA 2007-2008 basketball season, which was Nov. 5, 2007.

In this pictorial forecast, the writer oddly begins by picking a moment in Atlanta's history that is perhaps the worst in the city's memory.

Here, P. 24 on Nov. 5, 2007 is what he publishes.

... We rode out of Atlanta by the Decatur road, filled by the marching troops and wagons of the Fourteenth Corps; and reaching the hill, just outside of the old rebel works, we naturally paused to look back upon the scenes of our past battles. We stood upon the very ground whereon was fought the bloody battle of July 22d, and could see the copse of wood where McPherson fell. Behind us lay Atlanta, smouldering and in ruins, the black smoke rising high in air, and hanging like a pall over the ruined city.

%u2013 William T. Sherman, Memoirs of General William Tecumseh Sherman, Chapter 21


What is important to note, besides the terrible picture the general is painting, is the vantage point Sherman is observing this scene from, because the weather forecaster who cited this verse from General Sherman's book, will use the exact same vantage point on Nov. 20, 2007 to paint an oddly similar picture, of a peril about to befall the city on a unique day, where four red balls are about to be tossed into the air. The only difference is, this destruction won't be man-made.

So having carefully set the scene, by previously referencing General Sherman's vantage point as a backdrop, he then publishes his graphic weather forecast P. 47, which when added to that video clip you saw above ... gives you the what(inverted triangle TVS,) the where(the exact building it will hit,) but most importantly even when(final four basketball tournament) this historic weather event will take place.



Adding to the mystery, this weather forecaster didn't follow basketball at the time. So he would have had no idea the final four SEC tournament would be held in downtown Atlanta, when that inverted triangle(TVS) struck the Georgia Dome, the Centennial Tower, and a certain TV Stations's headquarters, better known as CNN.



Here is the opposite side of the vantage point used by both General Sherman, and the forecaster, on the day of the disaster.



So as we reflect on the four year anniversary of what happened in Atlanta on this important day in basketball, let U.S. not forget that someone is watching the game we are playing with the most important ball of all, and She never likes losing a season.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


Eyeballing the graph shows that GCRs reached a record low in 1992


*Which is seen in the Ozone data a year later*
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:


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


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
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:
I certainly don't have time to wade through all that crap, but I'll reply to what's relevant. Scafetta simply isn't credible. Krivova et al. pretty well put paid to him on this topic.

"


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.

Quoting Birthmark:

No, it is not resolved. However, ACRIM is probably less accurate.


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?

Quoting Birthmark:

That's wonderful! Unfortunately, there is no real trend in GCRs so your proposed explanation falls flat as that no-trend.


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.


Quoting Birthmark:

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?


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?



Quoting Birthmark:

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.


That's definitely debatable.

Quoting Birthmark:


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.


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. :)


Quoting Birthmark:

This time I was clear. I said, "2010 which was the warmest or one of the warmest years on record." You even quoted it.


That time, I read it wrong. Apologies!

Quoting Birthmark:

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.


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?



Quoting Birthmark:

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?



We don't have adequate temperature data for the Moon, Mars, Venus etc. to draw proper conclusions on anything there.



Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:
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
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5282
Quoting greentortuloni:


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.


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.

Quoting greentortuloni:

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?


Are you talking about the GCMs or regional models?


Quoting greentortuloni:

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.


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.

Quoting greentortuloni:

CO2 only matters if there are no clouds and then not much.


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.

Quoting greentortuloni:

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?


I think that at the very least, temperatures should flatline for another 20-30 years or so.

Quoting greentortuloni:

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?


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.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting greentortuloni:
Just to be clear, because I don't have time to read the background papers, your post above says these two things:

"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?


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.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
I certainly don't have time to wade through all that crap, but I'll reply to what's relevant. Scafetta simply isn't credible. Krivova et al. pretty well put paid to him on this topic.

"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]."

Quoting Snowlover123:
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.

No, it is not resolved. However, ACRIM is probably less accurate.

Quoting Snowlover123:
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.

That's wonderful! Unfortunately, there is no real trend in GCRs so your proposed explanation falls flat as that no-trend. :)

Source

Quoting Snowlover123:
Roy Spencer also has a recent and interesting post on urbanization and the TREND in temperatures. This confirms Michaels et. al 2007.

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

Quoting Snowlover123:
It says "human activity." Not greenhouse gas emissions.


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.

Quoting Snowlover123:
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.

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?

Quoting Snowlover123:
As I've said, the climate system is chaotic, which leads me to believe that more than one factor is at work here.

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. :)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5282
Quoting Snowlover123:
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, or cosmic rays, then the book is shut at least for the next 30 years for any warming.



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.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Just to be clear, because I don't have time to read the background papers, your post above says these two things:

"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?
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
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, or cosmic rays, then the book is shut at least for the next 30 years for any warming.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:


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


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.

Quoting Birthmark:

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.


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.


Quoting Birthmark:

So you have used two mechanisms to explain observations that can more easily (and more accurately) be explained by one mechanism --increase of GHGs.


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.

Quoting Birthmark:

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.


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.



Quoting Birthmark:

You would presumably need to invoke a third mechanism for that.


See above.


Quoting Birthmark:

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.


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.

Quoting Birthmark:

Assuming you could do that, you would then have to explain why 100+ years of physics concerning the properties of CO2 are wrong.


No, because I have explained many times now, that what I am arguing does not mean that CO2 will have no effect on temperatures.



Quoting Birthmark:

**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.


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.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Neapolitan:
What did I "prove"? Why, nothing; proofs are for mathematics and weaponry. What I did do, however, was show that your comment--the one to which I was responding--was invalid due to the inclusion of one glaring falsehood. I also explained that no alternate denialist theory has yet been offered to explain the current observed warming. In other words, it's CO2. That's all.


No, you dismiss whatever theory comes to the surface other than the CO2 theory and then claim that it's CO2 causing the warming.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:
What did you prove in this post besides nothing?
What did I "prove"? Why, nothing; proofs are for mathematics and weaponry. What I did do, however, was show that your comment--the one to which I was responding--was invalid due to the inclusion of one glaring falsehood. I also explained that no alternate denialist theory has yet been offered to explain the current observed warming. In other words, it's CO2. That's all.

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.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13304
I looked up "Lew Rockwell" that Temples sourced in comment #110. First off google search for +"Lew Rockwell" +anti-semitism yields 146,000 hits. That's a lot of smoke. Then there are scads of articles concerning whether he wrote the racist Ron Paul newsletters. This being one.

I can't say I'm surprised where Temples gets his news from.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Obviously, we--or, at least, scientists who do this stuff for a living--do "know what the sun has been doing over the last 30 years". So that's a false statement, which, logically-speaking, invalidates your entire premise.

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.


What did you prove in this post besides nothing?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting NavarreMark:


So you are admitting you are a Nazi?

My sympathy on your lack of reading comprehension.

Get well soon! We're all pulling for you!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5282
Quoting Snowlover123:
The differences are inadequate? One can explain most of the warming being due to the sun while the other can not at all means that it's inadequate?


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.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5282
Quoting Snowlover123:
Being that we don't know what the sun has been doing over the last 30 years, we should probably take all of these studies with a grain of salt.

Obviously, we--or, at least, scientists who do this stuff for a living--do "know what the sun has been doing over the last 30 years". So that's a false statement, which, logically-speaking, invalidates your entire premise.

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.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13304
Quoting Xandra:

As you can see in the image below, the major difference between the two composites is the handling of data between 1989 and 1991. There is a gap and to fill the gap, both composites use the HF data but in different ways.


Right, which is what I had explained in my previous post. The different satellites on the different datasets to bridge the ACRIM Gap is what is causing this discrepency between the TSI composites.

Quoting Xandra:
There are no scientists who question the sun's influence on climate, they know that the sun has a strong influence but in the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend while the global temperature has continued to rise. The sun and climate have been going in opposite directions as you can see in the image below.


Really?

How did you come to that rock solid conclusion, when we are not certain what TSI even DID during this timeframe, with the composites being in a substantial disagreement over the last 30 years?

Quoting Xandra:

The papers by Scafetta & West (2008) and Scafetta & Willson (2009), have been debunked by Benestad & Schmidt (2009) and Krivova et al. (2009).


Benestad and Schmidt 2009? Would you like me to explain why this study does not hold up to scrutiny?

BTW the rest of your studies (which you veratim copied from Skeptical Science) simply use the PMOD dataset to come to that conclusion, which is not 100% certain that it is right. If they were using the ACRIM dataset, they would have come to a different conclusion.

Being that we don't know what the sun has been doing over the last 30 years, we should probably take all of these studies with a grain of salt.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

But it didn't happen this time. (50% is NOT "mostly


Yeah, I realized this was not the case actually when I just finished submitting my prior post. What's a real pain in the you know where is that I can't edit my posts and then submit the newly editted post.

Quoting Birthmark:
Nor does their need to be one since the differences are inadequate to the task you have set them.


The differences are inadequate? One can explain most of the warming being due to the sun while the other can not at all means that it's inadequate?

Quoting Birthmark:

I would like nothing better. You need not do it immediately since it is getting late here.


Here are some quoted sections of the article on Skeptical Science in italics, and my response to them.


A 2-sigma envelope would cover about 95% of the observations, and if the observations lay outside that larger region it would be substantial cause for concern. Thus it would be a more appropriate choice for Scafetta's green envelope.


Why not include a 6 sigma range, so we can claim that the IPCC was correct even with a negative trend in temperatures over the next few decades?

Second, while the IPCC envelope (Scafetta's green) is based on annual data, in his widget Scafetta plots monthly data, which has greater variability and thus is much more likely to fall outside of the envelope.

If the IPCC were correct with their overall mean temperature predictions, then the monthly temperature variability would be higher and lower than the IPCC range, but making it still consistent with the IPCC predictions.

We don't observe that.

Third, Scafetta has used HadCRUT3 data, which has a known cool bias and which will shortly be replaced by HadCRUT4.


Yeah, throw out the temperature data because it doesn't fit the predetermined conclusions of rapid warming in the near future due to mankind.


Fourth, although the widget itself only shows post-2000 data, Scafetta has used a 1900-2000 baseline. Here is Dr. Scafetta's reply to that:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/scafet tas-solar-lunar-cycle-forecast-vs-global-temperatu re/#comment-890590

The base line for the temperature record and the average IPCC simulation is exactly the same. The period used for the baseline is 1900-2000 because the model simulation starts in 1900 and it is supposed to reconstruct the temperature during the 20th century. Thus it needs to be optimized against the temperature by using as common baseline the period 1900-2000.

No baseline errors are in the graph.
By using as baseline the period 1960-1990, the GCM simulation will need to be shifted down by just 0.022 C. This is not a big deal. In any case, it is more appropriate to use the 1900-2000 baseline as I did.


That was a pretty weak attempt at a rebuttal from Skeptical Science.

PMOD doesn't have to and ACRIM cannot since it would warm the stratosphere...which isn't happening.

Quoting Birthmark:

PMOD doesn't have to and ACRIM cannot since it would warm the stratosphere...which isn't happening.


Again, you're assuming that the climate system is a non-chaotic system, which it is not :-). The Climate system is extremely chaotic with feedbacks, forcings, and non-radiative forcings all having a significant influence on the Climate system.

There are many many things that change the temperature on the Earth. It does not have to just be one thing that changes the Climate on Earth.

Professor Qing-Bing Lu has come to a similar conclusion to that of Dr. Kilifarska's paper.

He claims that the recent stratospheric cooling is caused by GCRs, but is also accelerated by anthropogenic CFCs in the atmosphere. He believes that we are going to go into a cooling trend in the next 50 years, because of what CFCs and GCRs are projected to do over this timeframe.

What is REALLY interesting, is that he finds that there is a really nice correlation with the Antarctic polar ozone hole and GCRs. Thus indicating that stratospheric ozone depletion might actually be mostly natural with part anthropogenic.

Quoting Birthmark:

Um, if that were the case then that means that CO2 isn't a GHG...which means that there is a lot of work that has to be redone not just in climatology but in physics. You see, the problem is GHG's do just fine explaining the temperatures of other planets --planets without O3. So we'd be left having
to explain why CO2 is a GHG on Mars, for example, but not on Earth. I'm afraid your prime candidate is a DOA.


This means CO2 is no longer a GHG? Where do I say that? Just because it may not be the driver of stratospheric cooling and lower trophospheric warming, doesn't mean that it has no effect.

Quoting Birthmark:

Let me add in closing for the night, that parsimony is a fairly important concept in science. You are proposing two mechanisms to explain the warming of the troposphere and the cooling of the stratosphere; I am proposing one.


And what are you insinuating that this signifies? The climate system is not a simple one. It's not going to take one explaination to fit the remaining pieces of the puzzle together.






Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:

Yes, that's the PMOD dataset that I'm talking about that shows a flat line over the last 30 years.

The ACRIM Gap is where the ACRIM I satellite switched to the ACRIM II satellite, and there was a period in time where the ACRIM satellites were not measuring TSI. These timeframe begins in the middle of 1989 and ends in the middle of 1991.

Willson and Scafetta 2009 found that Lean and Frolich made inappropriate adjustments to the PMOD dataset, which caused the slope of the TSI to be flat, in conjunction with the selecton of ERBE/ERBS data to bridge the ACRIM Gap. They also found that the anthropogenic component of recent climate change has been significantly overestimated, and the natural solar component has been significantly understated.

This study has gotten 40 citations.

Scafetta and West 2008 found that nearly up to 70% of the recent warming can be attributed to the sun, if you use the ACRIM dataset.

This study has gotten 45 citations.

The Willson and Morvdinov 2003 study has gotten 160 citations so far, meaning that the scientific community believes this paper to be legitimate and worth citing.

So before we can come up with an imaginary consensus on Climate Change, let's actually find what TSI was doing over the last 30 years, first.

As you can see in the image below, the major difference between the two composites is the handling of data between 1989 and 1991. There is a gap and to fill the gap, both composites use the HF data but in different ways. Independent tests indicate the PMOD composite is the more accurate TSI reconstruction.


PMOD TSI composite (top) versus the ACRIM TSI composite (bottom). Coloured lines give the daily values with the black solid lines giving the 81 day mean

There are no scientists who question the sun's influence on climate, they know that the sun has a strong influence but in the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend while the global temperature has continued to rise. The sun and climate have been going in opposite directions as you can see in the image below.



The papers by Scafetta & West (2008) and Scafetta & Willson (2009), have been debunked by Benestad & Schmidt (2009) and Krivova et al. (2009).

Other studies on solar influence on climate:

Huber and Knutti 2011: ”Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950."

Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."

Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."

Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2σ confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."

Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."

Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."

Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."

Foukal 2006: "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."

Usoskin 2005: "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

Solanki 2004: "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".

Haigh 2003: "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."

Stott 2003: "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."

Lean 1999: "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."

Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."


The study by Solanki (2004), has gotten 187 citations so far, meaning that the scientific community believes this paper to be legitimate and worth citing. ;)


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Paging Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts. Paging Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts. Please pick up the white courtesy phone; Mother Nature would like to ask you a question.

sea level

sea level
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13304
Quoting iceagecoming:
The warming and cooling are gonna happen, and unless you have the energy source and capability to manipulate the thermostat and other cosmic (comets, asteroids, long duration cycles)or volcanic influences (Pinatubo)it is very unlikely anything is going to stop that process, which is not AGW.

I guess that's one way to ignore reality, facts, observations, and sound conclusions. Enjoy!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5282
The "programming" is deeply embedded in someone.


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125711
Quoting Neapolitan:
Maybe you've found the key! Arctic Sea ice continues to get lower and lower in extent, area, and volume with each passing year, but not because it's melting; it's simply because of winds distributing it around the globe! That's it! It's kinda like when a kid who doesn't want to eat his peas merely scatters them about the plate to make it appear as though there's less of them! And that explains why we're now seeing icebergs everywhere, even in tropical locations, like that large one found in the Bahamas just a week ago!

Oh, wait...

So far as the rest of your lengthy bit, I need you to please clarify something for me: are you attempting to use evidence of past rapid sea level rise to dismiss the possibility that it could happen again?



Nope, my contention has been and always will be, use the long term empirical data to predict future climate events.







The warming and cooling are gonna happen, and unless you have the energy source and capability to manipulate the thermostat and other cosmic (comets, asteroids, long duration cycles)or volcanic influences (Pinatubo)it is very unlikely anything is going to stop that process, which is not AGW.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1034
Quoting iceagecoming:


You stole my thunder, it won't matter anyway, it's a right wing conspiracy funded by big oil and evil capitalist's, right warmista's!

And for NEO; I sent this to you last week, slipped your mind?

Interestingly Antarctica sea ice extent is currently slightly above average, as it has been for some time.

Levels of Arctic sea ice are not just dependent on temperature levels, but local weather conditions play a huge part too.

The much publicised 2007 minimum Arctic ice level was in large part due to the prevailing wind, which blew more ice into the Atlantic - as opposed to anything directly linked to global temperatures, as widely reported in the media at the time.

In fact The Met Office issued a press release to that end, saying the loss of sea ice that year had been wrongly attributed to global warming.



And of course:



By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: April 15, 2009

Evidence from fossil coral reefs in Mexico underlines the potential for a sudden jump in sea levels because of global warming, scientists report in a new study.
Dot Earth

Andrew C. Revkin blogs about climate and sustainability. Among Climate Scientists, a Dispute Over ‘Tipping Points’ (March 29, 2009)

The study, being published Thursday in the journal Nature, suggests that a sudden rise of 6.5 feet to 10 feet occurred within a span of 50 to 100 years about 121,000 years ago, at the end of the last warm interval between ice ages.

“The potential for sustained rapid ice loss and catastrophic sea-level rise in the near future is confirmed by our discovery of sea-level instability” in that period, the authors write.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/science/earth/1 6coral.html


So either the Ancient Aliens were cooking the ice packs 121,000 yrs back or we have a natural cause unrelated to modern mans miniscule inputs in the past 150 years. Which is it gonna be? I can't wait to hear this one, however, I expect.
(Cricket's (sound of))







"Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
"'Tis some visitor," I muttered, "tapping at my chamber door
Only this, and nothing more." EAP

P.S> Sorry NY, I was too lazy to track down that NEO post.
Maybe you've found the key! Arctic Sea ice continues to get lower and lower in extent, area, and volume with each passing year, but not because it's melting; it's simply because of winds distributing it around the globe! That's it! It's kinda like when a kid who doesn't want to eat his peas merely scatters them about the plate to make it appear as though there's less of them! And that explains why we're now seeing icebergs everywhere, even in tropical locations, like that large one found in the Bahamas just a week ago!

Oh, wait...

So far as the rest of your lengthy bit, I need you to please clarify something for me: are you attempting to use evidence of past rapid sea level rise to dismiss the possibility that it could happen again?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13304
Quoting iceagecoming:



The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

by
Ayn Rand,
Peter Schwartz (Other),
Peter Schwartz (Introduction)





Overview

In the tumultuous late 60s and early 70s, a social movement known as the "New Left" emerged as a major cultural influence, especially on the youth of America. It was a movement that embraced "flower-power" and psychedelic "consciousness-expansion," that lionized Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro and launched the Black Panthers and the Theater of the Absurd. In Return Of The Primitive (originally published in 1971 as The New Left), Ayn Rand, bestselling novelist and originator of the theory of Objectivism, identified the intellectual roots of this movement. She urged people to repudiate its mindless nihilism and to uphold, instead, a philosophy of reason, individualism, capitalism, and technological progress. Editor Peter Schwartz, in this new, expanded version of The New Left, has reorganized Rand's essays and added some of his own in order to underscore the continuing relevance of her analysis of that period. He examines such current ideologies as feminism, environmentalism and multiculturalism and argues that the same primitive, tribalist, "anti-industrial" mentality which animated the New Left a generation ago is shaping society today.


You really need to research Ayn Rand and her theories if you want to make points about her. Also, research her personal life and views on religion: the latter two things don't matter in terms of her philosophy but considering the criticisms of Al Gore and right wing religious bias against global warming, she seems the worng person to point to as a reference.

In terms of tribalism, your above quote is perhaps relevant, although femimism is far from a united block (I think a fundamental tenet of feminism is that there are as many flavors of feminism as there are feminists), evnironmentalism is similarly fractured and only unites on given issues. Multiculturalism seems an odd choice for a tribalist shaping of society but I guess that is being used in the 'stop the melting pot' sense.

Mostly, though, in terms of tribalism, the right wing of America, starting with Newt Gingrich and his ilk, is in my ivew the most severe examples of division and divisivness. What used to be a Grand Ole Party has become the 'anti-science'(tribe of the ignorant), 'ani-freedom'(tribe of the fascists),hate filled party of hypocrisy(tribe of the rich who don't want to earn money ie compete fairly). While they may have used to stand for principles, today they stand for power, empowerment of hate filled 'tribes' in order to gain power as the representative of those tribes and pretty much hypocrisy and hate. They seek to blame someone to gain respect they don't deserve in comparison.

Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting Snowlover123:


I was figuring that you would use mostly blog posts to try and refute peer reviewed papers. It's happened many times before.

But it didn't happen this time. (50% is NOT "mostly").

Quoting Snowlover123:
Your first paper is interesting because it's an actual peer reviewed paper.

All I can say is that your paper indicates that there is no consensus on what TSI has done over the last 30 years.

Nor does their need to be one since the differences are inadequate to the task you have set them.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Your third link, the Scafetta widget problems link is utter trash. I can explain why it is if you would like.

I would like nothing better. You need not do it immediately since it is getting late here.

Quoting Snowlover123:
The problem is ACRIM can explain most of the warming over the last 30 years, wheras PMOD can not, as seen by my papers I have posted, which is why this discrepency needs to be resolved.

PMOD doesn't have to and ACRIM cannot since it would warm the stratosphere...which isn't happening.

Quoting Snowlover123:
By the way, just because the stratosphere is cooling, doesn't mean GHGs are causing the warming, since there are many factors that can influence the stratospheric temperatures, such as ozone depletion.

In fact, a new paper recently shows that Ozone depletion caused by Galactic Cosmic Rays can be responsible for up to 75% of temperature changes over the past 80 years can be explained by Ozone depletion caused by GCRs, making it a prime candidate for the stratospheric cooling we have seen.


A prime candidate? Who says? LOL

Um, if that were the case then that means that CO2 isn't a GHG...which means that there is a lot of work that has to be redone not just in climatology but in physics. You see, the problem is GHG's do just fine explaining the temperatures of other planets --planets without O3. So we'd be left having
to explain why CO2 is a GHG on Mars, for example, but not on Earth. I'm afraid your prime candidate is a DOA.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Quoting paper:

The strong sensitivity of the Earth's radiation balance to variations in the lower stratospheric ozone%u2014reported previously%u2014is analysed here by the use of non-linear statistical methods. Our non-linear model of the land air temperature (T)%u2014driven by the measured Arosa total ozone (TOZ)%u2014explains 75% of total variability of Earth's T variations during the period 1926%u20132011. We have analysed also the factors which could influence the TOZ variability and found that the strongest impact belongs to the multi-decadal variations of galactic cosmic rays. Constructing a statistical model of the ozone variability, we have been able to predict the tendency in the land air T evolution till the end of the current decade. Results show that Earth is facing a weak cooling of the surface T by 0.05%u20130.25 K (depending on the ozone model) until the end of the current solar cycle. A new mechanism for O3 influence on climate is proposed.



I daresay they do need a new mechanism. They also need to find an increase in GCR. LOL

EDIT: Let me add in closing for the night, that parsimony is a fairly important concept in science. You are proposing two mechanisms to explain the warming of the troposphere and the cooling of the stratosphere; I am proposing one. I know which way Occam would bet. I suspect that you do, too. ;)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5282
Quoting iceagecoming:


What has that got to do with Climate Change??
Or dare I ask?
TWO way street, Bub.

Um, I was responding to someone else's post. ;)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5282
Quoting Birthmark:

Buffett is now Obama's puppet-master? What, has Soros got the day off...again?


What has that got to do with Climate Change??
Or dare I ask?
TWO way street, Bub.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1034
Quoting Birthmark:

Scafetta is wrong consistently. The differences between the ACRIM and PMOD are utterly insufficient to explain the current warming. NOTE: There are three different links contained in my first sentence.

Thinking about it only briefly proves he's wrong beyond all doubt. The stratosphere is cooling -which eliminates the possibility of the Sun being the source of the warming. Such cooling is a fingerprint of greenhouse gas.



I was figuring that you would use mostly blog posts to try and refute peer reviewed papers. It's happened many times before.

Your first paper is interesting because it's an actual peer reviewed paper.

All I can say is that your paper indicates that there is no consensus on what TSI has done over the last 30 years.

Your third link, the Scafetta widget problems link is utter trash. I can explain why it is if you would like.

The problem is ACRIM can explain most of the warming over the last 30 years, wheras PMOD can not, as seen by my papers I have posted, which is why this discrepency needs to be resolved.

By the way, just because the stratosphere is cooling, doesn't mean GHGs are causing the warming, since there are many factors that can influence the stratospheric temperatures, such as ozone depletion.

In fact, a new paper recently shows that Ozone depletion caused by Galactic Cosmic Rays can be responsible for up to 75% of temperature changes over the past 80 years can be explained by Ozone depletion caused by GCRs, making it a prime candidate for the stratospheric cooling we have seen.

Quoting paper:

The strong sensitivity of the Earth's radiation balance to variations in the lower stratospheric ozone—reported previously—is analysed here by the use of non-linear statistical methods. Our non-linear model of the land air temperature (T)—driven by the measured Arosa total ozone (TOZ)—explains 75% of total variability of Earth's T variations during the period 1926–2011. We have analysed also the factors which could influence the TOZ variability and found that the strongest impact belongs to the multi-decadal variations of galactic cosmic rays. Constructing a statistical model of the ozone variability, we have been able to predict the tendency in the land air T evolution till the end of the current decade. Results show that Earth is facing a weak cooling of the surface T by 0.05–0.25 K (depending on the ozone model) until the end of the current solar cycle. A new mechanism for O3 influence on climate is proposed.


Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting nymore:


Thanks for the op/ed page

Sorry I should not bother you since you are probably still mourning your god Keith Olbermann getting axed yet again and again and again.

Maybe he can hook up with goofy Glenn Beck on the internet.


You stole my thunder, it won't matter anyway, it's a right wing conspiracy funded by big oil and evil capitalist's, right warmista's!

And for NEO; I sent this to you last week, slipped your mind?

Interestingly Antarctica sea ice extent is currently slightly above average, as it has been for some time.

Levels of Arctic sea ice are not just dependent on temperature levels, but local weather conditions play a huge part too.

The much publicised 2007 minimum Arctic ice level was in large part due to the prevailing wind, which blew more ice into the Atlantic - as opposed to anything directly linked to global temperatures, as widely reported in the media at the time.

In fact The Met Office issued a press release to that end, saying the loss of sea ice that year had been wrongly attributed to global warming.



And of course:



By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: April 15, 2009

Evidence from fossil coral reefs in Mexico underlines the potential for a sudden jump in sea levels because of global warming, scientists report in a new study.
Dot Earth

Andrew C. Revkin blogs about climate and sustainability. Among Climate Scientists, a Dispute Over ‘Tipping Points’ (March 29, 2009)

The study, being published Thursday in the journal Nature, suggests that a sudden rise of 6.5 feet to 10 feet occurred within a span of 50 to 100 years about 121,000 years ago, at the end of the last warm interval between ice ages.

“The potential for sustained rapid ice loss and catastrophic sea-level rise in the near future is confirmed by our discovery of sea-level instability” in that period, the authors write.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/science/earth/1 6coral.html


So either the Ancient Aliens were cooking the ice packs 121,000 yrs back or we have a natural cause unrelated to modern mans miniscule inputs in the past 150 years. Which is it gonna be? I can't wait to hear this one, however, I expect.
(Cricket's (sound of))







"Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
"'Tis some visitor," I muttered, "tapping at my chamber door
Only this, and nothing more." EAP

P.S> Sorry NY, I was too lazy to track down that NEO post.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1034
Quoting iceagecoming:
March 30, 2012, 4:48 pm
Current TV Dismisses Keith Olbermann


What has that to do with the topic of Professor Rood's post, AGW, or Climate Change?

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5282
Quoting Snowlover123:


Here is the link to Scafetta 2009:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.4319

Scafetta is wrong consistently. The differences between the ACRIM and PMOD are utterly insufficient to explain the current warming. NOTE: There are three different links contained in my first sentence.

Thinking about it only briefly proves he's wrong beyond all doubt. The stratosphere is cooling -which eliminates the possibility of the Sun being the source of the warming. Such cooling is a fingerprint of greenhouse gas.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5282
March 30, 2012, 4:48 pm
Current TV Dismisses Keith Olbermann
By BRIAN STELTER
Keith Olbermann during the Jan. 5 episode of "Countdown" on Current TV.Current TVKeith Olbermann during the Jan. 5 episode of “Countdown” on Current TV.

10:06 p.m. | Updated For nearly a year now, Al Gore and Joel Hyatt have been building their liberal cable news channel, Current TV, with the mercurial television anchorman Keith Olbermann at its center.

This week, the center collapsed.

Current said on Friday afternoon that it had fired Mr. Olbermann — one of the nation’s most prominent progressive speakers — just a year into his five-year, $50 million contract. It was the culmination of months of murky disputes between Mr. Olbermann and the channel that he was supposed to save from the throes of ratings oblivion.

Yet as inevitable as it might have seemed to some in the television business who know the long history of antipathy between Mr. Olbermann and his employers, it was nonetheless shocking to his fans, to his detractors and to staff members at Current when the announcement was made.

Forty-five minutes afterward, in a stream of Twitter messages, Mr. Olbermann threatened to take legal action against the channel and said its claims about him were untrue. In part because of the prospect of litigation, executives at Current declined to comment on the firing on Friday. But they immediately named as his replacement Eliot Spitzer, the former governor of New York, who took over Mr. Olbermann’s 8 p.m. time slot on Friday night.

By replacing Mr. Olbermann, Mr. Spitzer is getting a second shot at an 8 p.m. talk show; in 2010, two years after he resigned the governorship after he admitted having patronized a prostitution ring, he led a short-lived show on CNN. It was canceled in mid-2011.

In a letter posted on Current’s Web site, Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt wrote, “We are confident that our viewers will be able to count on Governor Spitzer to deliver critical information on a daily basis.”

With those words — “on a daily basis” — the founders of Current hinted at one of the reasons for Mr. Olbermann’s termination.



Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1034
Quoting Snowlover123:


Scafetta 2009 finds that 66% of the variance in the late 20th Century can be explained by the sun alone, using the ACRIM and other TSI datasets other than PMOD


Here is the link to Scafetta 2009:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.4319
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699

Viewing: 182 - 132

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.