Global warming discussion III

Status
Not open for further replies.

lomiller

Penultimate Amazing
lomiller
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
13,208
Continued from here.
Posted By: LashL



r-j said:
When Nature publishes a scientific paper by working climate scientist, you can usually be certain it's peer reviewed actual science.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with the paper it’s your understanding that is lacking.

In fact it says pretty much the opposite of what you seem to think it does. It’s arguing against there being any change in the long term trend.



r-j said:
It's why I ignore internet pundits and non scientist who keep trying to tell everyone that the warming has continued. Which is of course a complete lie.
Click to expand...
Curious statement, since the paper you base this on argues the warming is continuing...


r-j said:
Meanwhile, actual working scientist are busy figuring out why, rather than denying it has happened.
Click to expand...

Again, the issue here is your lack of understanding. Nothing in that paper disagrees with what I posted or supports what you posted.

r-j said:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/08/new-study-natural-cycles-in-the-pacific-ocean-are-key-to-surface-warming-%E2%80%9Chiatus%E2%80%9D/
Click to expand...

Internet pundit spotted!

In any case note how the web page puts “hiatus” in quotes? They do this to indicate that it’s being called a hiatus by others but they are not willing to refer to it as such themselves. The reason is simple. There are known cyclical 10-15 year periods or global temperatures above or below the underlying trend. To arrive at a statistically significant trend you need to pick a long enough period that this doesn’t skew your trend calculation, which means 20-30 years. Less than that, as is the case with the “hiatus” and you are not working with enough data to say the trend has changed.

The paper in Nature you linked to also point the finger at these know natural variation above/below the underlying trend.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
r-j said:
When Nature publishes a scientific paper by working climate scientist, you can usually be certain it's peer reviewed actual science.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html

It's why I ignore internet pundits and non scientist who keep trying to tell everyone that the warming has continued. Which is of course a complete lie.

Meanwhile, actual working scientist are busy figuring out why, rather than denying it has happened.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/201...ic-ocean-are-key-to-surface-warming-“hiatus”/

So actual working researchers used science and found that including the effect of the tropical Pacific explains the warming, and then no warming, better than only using changes caused by CO2 and other radiative forcings.

Science, it works better when you don't ignore reality, but study it instead.
Click to expand...

You and your jokes, r-j. You're incorrigible:D. Where were you when we discussed the first paper here (and much of your third link)? Macdoc was the first one in quoting that paper many months ago. Your second link within the quotation doesn't say what is supposedly quoted. In fact that quote is more of what we have already discussed here. So, again, where were you when that happen? I even have figures from that paper in my image albums.

The temperature trend is still upwards r-j, you can't change that with verbosity.
 
So, summary: again, r-j doesn't know what is he talking about.

A model uses upwelling and ocean heat ditching and emulate the "hiatus" -quotation marks because it pretty restraints a still upward trend- so it's basically a vote on favour of earth-system models, something I've been saying here for -I think- three years.
 
Haig said:
Sure, ..
Click to expand...
Oh dear, science by public opinion, Haig :eek:!
The opinion of climate scientists backed up by science is that global warming is affecting us adversely now.
The opinion of climate scientists backed up by science is that global warming will affect us more adversely in the next couple of decades.
 
It's funny when people try to spin something, that can't actually be spun. Nature publishes a scientific paper, and the global alarmists tell you it means the opposite of what it says.
Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations,
Click to expand...
It won't matter how you try to spin that, it's clear what they stated. In spite of,
the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century1, 2,
Click to expand...
The global temperature has not risen. Of course when they realize it's actually impossible to spin that to mean something else, they switch the goalpost. Not move them, completely change them out.
challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming.
Click to expand...
And there it is, in plain English. What's so amazing, is how the true denial comes out when faced with this.

It's really quite remarkable.
 
Haig said:
Just to add to that last post this PDF ..
Click to expand...
What a really stupid PDF, Haig.
For example,
* these authors idiotically think that every one of 11,958 papers climate science stated an opinion on AGW :jaw-dropp.
There were 69 (if I recall correctly) in the Cook et al (2013) paper that took a position on AGW. 64 of these explicitly stated that AGW caused more than 50% of recent warming. That is 97%.
* they mention a pubic opinion poll conducted by PEW!
* they stupidly confuse the IPCC AGW estimate that AGW caused at least 90% of the warming with the opinions of climate scientists that AGW exists.

This is the science, Haig:
97% CONSENSUS? YES! SUPPORTED BY SERVERAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES
Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.
Click to expand...

ETA: What are the Friends of Science, Haig?
Actual climate science deniers who believe that "the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change" despite the simple fact that it has warmed in the past 35 years while the Sun has been constant in output.
And possibly petroleum industry shills - founded by members of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists and "industry donors were passed on to the Science Education Fund set up by Barry Cooper, which in turn supported the activities of the Friends of Science".
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
When Nature publishes a scientific paper by working climate scientist, you can usually be certain it's peer reviewed actual science.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html

It's why I ignore internet pundits and non scientist who keep trying to tell everyone that the warming has continued. Which is of course a complete lie.

Meanwhile, actual working scientist are busy figuring out why, rather than denying it has happened.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/08/new-study-natural-cycles-in-the-pacific-ocean-are-key-to-surface-warming-%E2%80%9Chiatus%E2%80%9D/

So actual working researchers used science and found that including the effect of the tropical Pacific explains the warming, and then no warming, better than only using changes caused by CO2 and other radiative forcings.

Science, it works better when you don't ignore reality, but study it instead.
Click to expand...

" Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase."
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Why focus on the failed wild claims a very small minority of AGW alarmists have made?
Click to expand...
Are you calling Hansen an alarmist? His 1986 predictions are not even close at this point.

Red Baron Farms said:
Why not focus instead on the successful predictions made by the vast majority in climate science?
Click to expand...
Just post a link to the list of them. Then we can focus on them.
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
"Below are just a few things caused by man-made Global Warming Climate Change Global Climate Disruption Excessive Climate Change Research Funding."

The big self parodying “climate change blame” list

Seems climate alarmists want it all-ways :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not at all, scientific understanding evolves in accordance to the dictates of evidence, it is not graven in stone by the fiery finger of the almighty.

The first posted issue is a perfect example of this: the first reference is to a 2006 paper in which some flawed data was included in the research and the data led the researchers to believe that there was a greening of some regions of the Amazon basin during drought conditions in 2005. The second reference is to a 2010 paper which re-examined the work (peer-review at its finest, in action) of the 2006 paper found the flawed data ("Here, we report that the previous results of large-scale greening of the Amazon, obtained from an earlier version of satellite-derived vegetation greenness data - Collection 4 (C4) Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), are irreproducible, with both this earlier version as well as the improved, current version (C5), owing to inclusion of atmosphere-corrupted data in those results.") and presented findings that represent understandings once the flawed data is removed from consideration. This isn't a contradiction in the science, this is the self-correcting mechanisms of peer-review and research duplication that are integral parts of the scientific methodology.

The rest of the issues listed at the Bozo site page are mere variations of this theme by people who seem more familiar with, and fixated upon, ideological purity issues than any understanding of, or experience in, rigorous science methodology.
 
Haig said:
97% Climate Consensus ‘Most Nonsensical, Stupid Number in the World’
Click to expand...
The ignorance of thinking that an astronaut is a climate scientist, Haig :p!
Practically by definition, anyone speaking at a Heartland conference is a climate science denier. Looks like the usual "warmist" propaganda with some really insane highlighting on that web page. A couple of idiotic statements:
* people are not the climate! A level of 4,000 ppm is bad for people in a Apollo capsule. A level of 400 ppm is bad for people in the climate.
* Cannot get it right that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening
Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.
Click to expand...
 
r-j said:
Are you calling Hansen an alarmist? His 1986 predictions are not even close at this point.
Just post a link to the list of them. Then we can focus on them.
Click to expand...

oh really? and your evidence is?
 
Pixel42 said:
I don't think global warming will pose a serious threat in my lifetime (I'm 60). I'm not an AGW denier.
Click to expand...

Such seems to be a subjective issue largely related as much to personal interpretation of the terms as it is to the issues of perception of personal climate impacts.

For instance, I'm of a similar, but slightly more advanced age, and I feel that the threat of a dramatically altered climate due to human activities has existed since at least Arrhenius's time. Likewise, I feel that the threat that we will not be able to reverse these human behavior trends before they begin generating harmful and expensive impacts began being realized in the last couple of decades. Climate change impacts are both imminent and emergent problems.

The poll response is easy enough to understand, ask the same question with regards to how threatened people feel by the current state of their health and consumption habits and give the options of "not concerned" "scared for my life" and it would not surprise me to see a lot of technically obese, out of shape, smokers and drinkers who would casually check the "not concerned" option.
 
This is the "Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong" climate myth. The model predictions were a bit too high because he used the climate sensitivity as known in 1988. Well Duh! What else could he use.
His scenario A can be ignored because the exponential growth of emissions assumed in it did not happen.
What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?
Although Hansen's projected global temperature increase has been higher than the actual global warming, this is because his climate model used a high climate sensitivity parameter. Had he used the currently accepted value of approximately 3°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, Hansen would have correctly projected the ensuing global warming.
...
As you can see, Hansen's projections showed slightly more warming than reality, but clearly they were neither off by a factor of 4, nor were they "an astounding failure" by any reasonably honest assessment. Yet a common reaction to Hansen's 1988 projections is "he overestimated the rate of warming, therefore Hansen was wrong."
Click to expand...

I hope that you can see this r-j.
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
Such seems to be a subjective issue largely related as much to personal interpretation of the terms as it is to the issues of perception of personal climate impacts.
Click to expand...
I agree.
From my subjective point of view (50's, living in a sea-side city, temperate zone) I certainly expect to see AGW effects in my lifetime, e.g. higher sea levels leading to more flooding. We already have a reputation for high winds and I expect a higher frequency of storms as the decades go by. We have relatively hot summers - I expect more frequent hot summers in the next 20 years or so.
 
r-j said:
It's funny when people try to spin something, that can't actually be spun. Nature publishes a scientific paper, and the global alarmists tell you it means the opposite of what it says.
Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I think that even a person like you can grasp that our planet has oceans, so there's no reason for this year to be warmer than last year just because CO2 went up 2 ppmv. It's not a linear system, you know. The paper you cited itself is dealing with an strategic upwelling of cold waters that may even overcompensate the increasing forcing of greenhouse gases. The fact is that the upwelling of cold waters implies the downwelling of warm waters, so sooner or later the cold water will cease to be cold. That is what the paper discuss, but as always you didn't read it, you didn't understand it and you felt that some isolated quotations lend weight to your imaginary case of you talking science and giving a lesson of epistemology to the "peasants" here -and of course you addressed as always the same person because you know he is kind and always tries to reason with you, so your fantasy of having a point can stand a little while more-.
 
r-j said:
Just post a link to the list of them. Then we can focus on them.
Click to expand...
Ok, r-j: Let us start with every paper cited by the IPCC :rolleyes:!
Seriously though let us focus on
Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, 1988: Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res., 93, 9341-9364, doi:10.1029/JD093iD08p09341
and then go through the hundreds? of climate papers with predictions from 1988 on.
 
r-j said:
Are you calling Hansen an alarmist? His 1986 predictions are not even close at this point...
Click to expand...

Which paper did Hansen write in 1986, and what predictions did it make that you are referring to?

The only paper I see from Hansen in 1986 is one he co-authored about the atmospheric science on the Galileo mission.

"Atmospheric Science on the Galileo Mission"
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1986/1986_Hunten_etal_1.pdf
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
Nothing wrong with the paper it’s your understanding that is lacking.

In fact it says pretty much the opposite of what you seem to think it does. It’s arguing against there being any change in the long term trend.
Click to expand...



r-j said:
It's funny when people try to spin something, that can't actually be spun.
Click to expand...
It really is...


The paper is quite clear about what it is and isn't saying. it clearly does not support your representation of it no matter how you try to spin it.


Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.
Click to expand...
 
aleCcowaN said:
I think that even a person like you can grasp that our planet has oceans, so there's no reason for this year to be warmer than last year just because CO2 went up 2 ppmv. It's not a linear system, you know. The paper you cited itself is dealing with an strategic upwelling of cold waters that may even overcompensate the increasing forcing of greenhouse gases...
Click to expand...

A large part of the problem is that he seems stuck only reading abstracts, which can give mistaken impressions about what research was actually done and what the conclusions of that research actually report.

For instance, the following excerpts from within the paper more clearly discuss the research done and the results the authors noted from that research:

...A quantitative method is necessary to evaluate the relative importance of these mechanisms. Adding to the confusion that, amid the
global warming hiatus, record heat waves hit Russia (2010 summer) and US (July 2012), and Arctic sea ice reached record lows (Extended Data Fig. 1). Attributing these regional climate changes requires a dynamic approach. Here we use an advanced climate model that takes radiative forcing and tropical Pacific sea surface temperature (SST) as input. The simulated global-mean temperature is in excellent agreement with observations, showing that the decadal cooling of the tropical Pacific causes the current hiatus. Our dynamic-model based attribution has a distinct advantage over the empirical
approach2,5 by revealing seasonal and regional aspects of the hiatus.

Three sets of experiments were performed based on the Geophysical Fluid
Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) coupled model version 2.1 (CM2.1) (ref. 8). The
historical (HIST) experiment is forced with observed atmospheric composition changes and the solar cycle. In Pacific Ocean-Global Atmosphere (POGA) experiments, SST anomalies in the equatorial eastern Pacific (8.2% of the Earth surface) follow the observed evolution (see Methods). In POGA-H, the radiative forcing is identical to HIST, while in the POGA control experiment (POGA-C) it is fixed at 1990 value. Outside the equatorial eastern Pacific, the atmosphere and ocean are fully coupled and free to evolve...

...All the climate models project a tropical Pacific warming in response to increased greenhouse gas concentrations. We conclude that the recent cooling of the tropical Pacific and hence the current hiatus are likely due to natural internal variability rather than a forced response. As such, the hiatus is temporary, and global warming will return when the tropical Pacific swings back to a warm state. Similar hiatus events may occur in the future and are difficult to predict at multi-year leads due to limited predictability of tropical Pacific SST. We showed that when taking place, such events are accompanied by characteristic regional patterns including an intensified Walker circulation, weakened Aleutian low and prolonged droughts in the southern US.
Click to expand...

So they ran some modified climate models and found that if they tweaked them just so, and carefully filtered the data they input they could replicate conditions that fit their understanding of the so-called hiatus.
 
Good - irked me to no end to see a known climate troll authorong the previous thread....even if it was luck of the draw

••

This was from 1981 and undershot the actual gain..

Tglobal_giss_verification.jpg


Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection
Filed under: Climate modelling Climate Science Greenhouse gases Instrumental Record — group @ 2 April 2012

Guest commentary from Geert Jan van Oldenborgh and Rein Haarsma, KNMI

Sometimes it helps to take a step back from the everyday pressures of research (falling ill helps). It was in this way we stumbled across Hansen et al (1981) (pdf). In 1981 the first author of this post was in his first year at university and the other just entered the KNMI after finishing his masters. Global warming was not yet an issue at the KNMI where the focus was much more on climate variability, which explains why the article of Hansen et al. was unnoticed at that time by the second author. It turns out to be a very interesting read.

They got 10 pages in Science, which is a lot, but in it they cover radiation balance, 1D and 3D modelling, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds, ice- and vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; the uncertainties of aerosol forcings; and ocean heat uptake. Obviously climate science was a mature field even then: the concepts and conclusions have not changed all that much. Hansen et al clearly indicate what was well known (all of which still stands today) and what was uncertain.

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-temperature-projection/#sthash.pyd1ya4U.dpuf
Click to expand...
 
Trakar said:
A large part of the problem is that he seems stuck only reading abstracts, which can give mistaken impressions about what research was actually done and what the conclusions of that research actually report.
Click to expand...

I would say that is more a problem of tiny data buffers typical of people without education beyond K-12: the user can't retain 4 chunks of information at the same time and reflect on them. Add to that epistemological hedonism and you have a two-part chunk of information that seems to fit his rhetorical wishes ("Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century**") adorned with a praise about what he found -said in a peculiar language mimicking scientific jargon- ("When Nature publishes a scientific paper by working climate scientist, you can usually be certain it's peer reviewed actual science" -yes, many paper with peer reviewed mathematics-) and the usual attack to whom he considers to be the weak in the flock ("It's why I ignore internet pundits and non scientist who keep trying to tell everyone that the warming has continued. Which is of course a complete lie." sheep quotation "Meanwhile, actual working scientist are busy figuring out why, rather than denying it has happened.")

But obviously he catastrophically fails with his original phrase, because of the ** part and the real meaning, unknown to him. The ** part is two papers in support of the phrase. Here are both abstracts (bolding added):

We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.
Click to expand...
Numerous websites, blogs and articles in the media have claimed that the climate is no longer warming, and is now cooling. Here we show that periods of no trend or even cooling of the globally averaged surface air temperature are found in the last 34 years of the observed record, and in climate model simulations of the 20th and 21st century forced with increasing greenhouse gases. We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming.
Click to expand...
The real meaning of "Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century" that r-j can't grasp is that the red part refers to temperature variations in a sub-period being not strong enough to rule out natural variability.

Trakar said:
So they ran some modified climate models and found that if they tweaked them just so, and carefully filtered the data they input they could replicate conditions that fit their understanding of the so-called hiatus.
Click to expand...

Take a look and you'll find they tweak coupled models, not earth system models. If I could have a system with 140 Tby of memory to keep state and a proportional RAM memory to make it run smoothly -and time to spare-, I would run one of a few earth system myself -the code is freely available-. Sometimes it's interesting just analysing one of hundreds of modules in it, like the permafrost's which corresponds to a discussion between us about the declining of atmospheric CO2 in a no-emissions scenario that we have to continue.
 
aleCcowaN said:
Trakar said:
So they ran some modified climate models and found that if they tweaked them just so, and carefully filtered the data they input they could replicate conditions that fit their understanding of the so-called hiatus.
Click to expand...

Take a look and you'll find they tweak coupled models, not earth system models. If I could have a system with 140 Tby of memory to keep state and a proportional RAM memory to make it run smoothly -and time to spare-, I would run one of a few earth system myself -the code is freely available-. Sometimes it's interesting just analysing one of hundreds of modules in it, like the permafrost's which corresponds to a discussion between us about the declining of atmospheric CO2 in a no-emissions scenario that we have to continue.
Click to expand...

Yeah that did come out a lot more condensed and flippant than I intended,...and thank-you for the reminder, there were some follow-on questions that I wanted to ask you in our little side discussion. I'll look back over my notes and try to get something up today or tomorrow, now that we're in a new thread it'd be good to get that discussion continued here. Being an election year (midterms) here in the states I do tend to get side-tracked a lot between summer and November.
 
Oorah

macdoc said:
Good - irked me to no end to see a known climate troll authorong the previous thread....even if it was luck of the draw
Click to expand...

LOL, and Batvette is known for his activities and behavior on multiple sites,...yeah, it kind of bothered me as well. :)

LOMILLER will represent!
Three cheers for the new thread!
Oorah!
Oorah!
Oorah!
 
Idiocracy Trying to Dictate Science

Three Major Mistakes the House Science Committee Chairman Made in the Wall Street Journal - http://blog.ucsusa.org/three-major-...-chairman-made-in-the-wall-street-journal-567
  • Transparency is a good thing overall, and efforts to be clearer about the analysis relied upon by the government (including Congress!) in making policy must be vigorously pursued. But the “Secret Science Reform Act” is all about attacking and stymieing the EPA and other regulatory agencies, not transparency...
  • Mr. Smith states flatly that the data EPA uses on the benefits of the recent EPA proposed rule on CO2 emissions from power plants are “secret”. That just isn’t so. The National Climate Assessment, which the EPA relied heavily upon, and which the Chairman has dismissed out of hand apparently without a reading, synthesizes what we know about the impacts in the US of ongoing global warming, including public health impacts...
  • Mr. Smith asserts that most of the research the EPA relies on is funded by the EPA and then reviewed by scientists also funded by the EPA. But again, that is simply untrue. There is a huge amount of research going on concerning climate change and relatively little is funded by the EPA, as the Chairman should know since it is reported to Congress. And the major reviews such as the National Climate Assessment were not EPA funded, nor were the National Academy of Sciences studies. Reviewers come from all across the country and indeed the world, and most are not primarily funded by EPA.
Click to expand...

Makes about as much sense as asking a bartender why your wife doesn't love you any more.
 
Reality Check said:
Actual climate science deniers who believe that "the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change" despite the simple fact that it has warmed in the past 35 years while the Sun has been constant in output.
Click to expand...

That's not correct RC, actually the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has been trending down since around when the Pause/Hiatus started. Just a coincidence? ;)

Looks like we are heading to the TSI levels of the LIA as the Sun descends into a Grand Solar Minimum

Other recent studies support this ...

David Evans devises solar model to tame climate chaos


BIG NEWS VIII: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling. There are three big drops in solar radiation in the 400 years of records. The first, in the 1600s, led to the Maunder Minimum, the coldest time in the last 400 years. The second in Napoleon’s time, led to the Dalton Minimum, the second coldest time in the last 400 years. The third started in 2004, but hasn’t led to cooling...yet. The notch-delay theory says that the fall in TSI signals a fall in force X which acts after a delay, which seems to be 11 years. So the fall will occur in 2004 + 11 = 2015. But the delay is tied to the solar cycle length, currently 13 years, so the cooling is more likely to start in 2004 + 13 = 2017. The cooling will be at least 0.2°C, maybe 0.5°C, enough to undo global warming back to the 1950s. The carbon dioxide and ND solar theories have been in agreement over the least century due to generally rising carbon dioxide and solar radiation, but now they sharply diverge. Only one of them can be correct, and soon we’ll know which one. Here's the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade. If the criterion does not occur then the ND solar theory is rubbish and should be thrown away. If it does occur then the carbon dioxide theory is rubbish, and should be thrown away.
Click to expand...

So RC what do you say to the notch filler? suggesting "This means there must be a delay — probably around 11 years. This not only fitted with the length of the solar dynamo cycle, but also with previous independent work suggesting a lag of ten years or a correlation with the solar activity of the previous cycle. The synopsis then is that solar irradiance (TSI) is a leading indicator of some other effect coming from the Sun after a delay of 11 years or so."
 
Haig said:
That's not correct RC, actually the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has been trending down since around when the Pause/Hiatus started. Just a coincidence? ;)

Looks like we are heading to the TSI levels of the LIA as the Sun descends into a Grand Solar Minimum

Other recent studies support this ...

David Evans devises solar model to tame climate chaos




So RC what do you say to the notch filler? suggesting "This means there must be a delay — probably around 11 years. This not only fitted with the length of the solar dynamo cycle, but also with previous independent work suggesting a lag of ten years or a correlation with the solar activity of the previous cycle. The synopsis then is that solar irradiance (TSI) is a leading indicator of some other effect coming from the Sun after a delay of 11 years or so."
Click to expand...

TSI is going down since the 1960 according to your graph. didn0t prevent the planet from warming.

and a grand solar minimum has little impact

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50361/abstract
 
Mr. Smith states flatly that the data EPA uses on the benefits of the recent EPA proposed rule on CO2 emissions from power plants are “secret”. That just isn’t so. The National Climate Assessment, which the EPA relied heavily upon, and which the Chairman has dismissed out of hand apparently without a reading, synthesizes what we know about the impacts in the US of ongoing global warming, including public health impacts..
Click to expand...

If the facts don't accord with your fantasy, then just ignore the facts. :(
 
Haig said:
That's not correct RC, actually the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has been trending down since around when the Pause/Hiatus started. Just a coincidence? ;)

Looks like we are heading to the TSI levels of the LIA as the Sun descends into a Grand Solar Minimum

Other recent studies support this ...

David Evans devises solar model to tame climate chaos




So RC what do you say to the notch filler? suggesting "This means there must be a delay — probably around 11 years. This not only fitted with the length of the solar dynamo cycle, but also with previous independent work suggesting a lag of ten years or a correlation with the solar activity of the previous cycle. The synopsis then is that solar irradiance (TSI) is a leading indicator of some other effect coming from the Sun after a delay of 11 years or so."
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
Haig said:
That's not correct RC, actually the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has been trending down since around when the Pause/Hiatus started. Just a coincidence? ;)
Click to expand...

Before showing that piece of crap, Haig, were you aware that today's Total Solar Irradiance is about 1317 W/m2 when it happens that last January 1st it was about 1408 W/m2? Were you also aware that despite that fact the planet warmed more than 7°F during the same period?

It looks you're coming back for your daily hard landing, what is common when an epistemological hedonism on steroids makes you stray from reality.

By the way, are you going to apologize with the forums.randi.org community for throwing Mörner's crap here? So far you haven't commented on that.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
:dl:
Click to expand...

The TSI variability of 0.1% isn't the full picture ... solar magnetics AND extreme ultraviolet (EUV) vary much much more than that !!!

Terrestrial ground temperature variations in relation to solar magnetic variability, including the present Schwabe cycle
The effect of the present solar low activity cycle (#24), in addition to the recent Phase Transition results in a reduced value of ΔTsun during the past decade. That component may be responsible for the slower rise of the temperature that occurred after about 2000.
Click to expand...
.

Also consider this from NASA ...

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate
Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.
Click to expand...
 
aleCcowaN said:
the planet warmed more than 7°F during the same period?
Click to expand...
Got a source for that "fact" :rolleyes:

aleCcowaN said:
By the way, are you going to apologize with the forums.randi.org community for throwing Mörner's crap here? So far you haven't commented on that.
Click to expand...
Nothing to apologize for my man.

Since when have the warmest crowd been perfect in the material they push out? and apologized for their now routine ad homs never mind their mistakes? What's that I hear you say ... never? ... when Hell freezes over ... well funny you should say that because it's going to be getting quite a bit colder soon Little Ice Age type of thing and that is a much more worrying prospect than global warming was ... like during the Medieval Warm Period

The Sun defines the climate and it will soon become obvious to even the most stubborn AGW believer very very soon.
 
aleCcowaN said:
Yes, of course. And? What did you think? that that wasn't known or considered? :rolleyes:

I'd like to know what crazy idea did you have about "strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere".
Click to expand...
.
Well the science actually if you look at recent papers ..

S0 News July 9, 2014 | Solar Flare, External Forcing

TODAY'S FEATURED LINKS:
India Climate:
West Pacific Warming and Solar:
Cosmic Rays & CLimate:
Censorship:
Cosmic Ray Volcano:

see the links to these papers below the video just click on "show more"
 
Haig said:
Got a source for that "fact" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Of course, it's public and obvious and redundant and everywhere. The problem is why don't you know it. Already explained in the previous thread(s)

Haig said:
Nothing to apologize for my man.

Since when have the warmest crowd been perfect in the material they push out? and apologized for their now routine ad homs never mind their mistakes? What's that I hear you say ... never? ... when Hell freezes over ... well funny you should say that because it's going to be getting quite a bit colder soon Little Ice Age type of thing and that is a much more worrying prospect than global warming was ... like during the Medieval Warm Period

The Sun defines the climate and it will soon become obvious to even the most stubborn AGW believer very very soon.
Click to expand...

What a load of tosh! You are like any other chap making prophecies for the near future. You can't explain the most ridiculous assertions in them and you keep silent every time you're caught in your constant blunders.

Tell me, yes or no and why?

  • Today's Total Solar Irradiance is about 1317 W/m2
  • Last January 1st, it was about 1408 W/m2
  • However, in the same period the planet has become much warmer
  • More than 7°F is the value of that
  • The planet is going to become much cooler very soon.
  • Yet Total Solar Irradiance is going up madly while that happens.
And the most important: Why do you ignore these basic data?

Stop abusing of a twisted and corrupted definition of "ad hom". Nobody says your arguments are wrong because you are an ***** -that indeed is an "ad hom"-. Everybody is saying that every argument you drop here is **** and explaining why, and independently of that you qualify as an ***** because of your pattern of doing the same once and again and doing it worse even when you are warned about your errors. That is not an "ad hom", that is at most an ungentlemanly way to point your errors and flaws.

What you basically do is googling and discovering chunks of text that seem to align with your wished notions, like «... the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.» and instead of researching a bit more and discover, for instance, the old good Chapman cycle, or FinROSE-ctm, or HAMMONIA, you start buying that as a secret backdoor -only known by a bunch of initiated- that contains elements that govern fundamental states of the climate and are harbinger of little ice ages and other similar crap.

By doing that repeatedly and tainting the debate, be certain you are going to be treated here as you deserve. Always. Deservingly, you're way beyond the kid gloves handling stage here.
 
Haig said:
.
Well the science actually if you look at recent papers ..

S0 News July 9, 2014 | Solar Flare, External Forcing

TODAY'S FEATURED LINKS:
India Climate:
West Pacific Warming and Solar:
Cosmic Rays & CLimate:
Censorship:
Cosmic Ray Volcano:

see the links to these papers below the video just click on "show more"
Click to expand...

That doesn't relate in the very least with the text of mine you quoted. Again: I'd like to know what crazy idea did you have about "strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere".

Now, concentrate and reply. Take into account that you fail to link an adequate web source that is related to the topic you think you're replying to. And there's still the fact that your linking doesn't mean you have understood what you link. That's why you go here like a hummingbird buzzing around while you move fast from here to there without even staying in the very subjects you propose.
 
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.

Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.
Click to expand...

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom