The science against climate change

[westwall]

Daveman -

For the love of God - what question do you want answered?

I will anwer any question which is coherent and on-topic. If your question fits thi description, give me a post # and you have my word I will answer it.

How about answering mine

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

What question?

With all due respect guys, this thread is 11 pages long. I have addressed every sensible question or comment that I have seen, and tried to skip through the usual spamming. I may well have missed something useful, in which case tell me what the thread# is, and I'll take a look at it.

 

[Old Rocks]

None of these fellows want answers. What they want is for the real scientists to shut up. They were messing in their pants when Muller stated that he was going to run a complete check on all known data. Stating that, at last, it was going to be shown how badly the stations were off because of the heat island affect. The Koch Brothers even funded a good deal of that study.

Then, when Muller stated that the study confirmed the scientists study completely, all of the sudden, Muller was persona non grata.

The denialists do not want science, they deny science, much prefering to live in a world where things are what the think they ought to be. Not even the increase in the extreme weather events will wake them up. Nothing is allowed to disturb their little alternative reality.

 

[IanC]

saigon- you havent really addressed my statement about solar output and why it is considered a non issue for increased temps.

even skeptical-science seems to show an increased output for the last 60 years at least.

if a lower level of TSI contributed to pulling us out of the LIA, why shouldnt an even higher level not continue to heat the planet? TSI has been going down for the last decade and no appreciable warming has occured.

I certainly dont understand all of the ramifications but it seems very unlikely that solar output has no portion of the warming trend. the computer models dont allot TSI as a significant factor therefore any temperature increase due to solar is smeared and transported over to the factors they do take into account, such as CO2.

 

[IanC]

None of these fellows want answers. What they want is for the real scientists to shut up. They were messing in their pants when Muller stated that he was going to run a complete check on all known data. Stating that, at last, it was going to be shown how badly the stations were off because of the heat island affect. The Koch Brothers even funded a good deal of that study.

Then, when Muller stated that the study confirmed the scientists study completely, all of the sudden, Muller was persona non grata.

The denialists do not want science, they deny science, much prefering to live in a world where things are what the think they ought to be. Not even the increase in the extreme weather events will wake them up. Nothing is allowed to disturb their little alternative reality.

Muller's preliminary report has not passed peer review, there must be significant problems to hold up the publication of the 4 BEST papers for over a year now.

didnt NATURE just have an article on how extreme weather cannot be linked to AGW in any meaningful way?

 

[Saigon]

Ian C-

I know a few posts have touched on TSI earlier (Flac asked much the same question) and I do think this is a very valid point.

In fact, this is probably the last remaining plausible theory which remains as an alternative to so-called 'AGW'.

I think there is no quetion that solar radiation CAN effect the climate. But not being an expert in these fields, I am guided by what the experts say.

This graphic does not show any trend which resembles anything I have seen on climate change. It does show upwards curves at times which COULD explain warming cycles, but they do not match the current changes in temperature anything like as closely as CO2 levels do.

Though some of the material on TSI is difficult for me to understand, I found this interesting:

"A paper by Benestad and Schmidt[62] concludes 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." This paper disagrees with the conclusions of a Scafetta and West study,[63] who claim that solar variability has a significant effect on climate forcing. Based on correlations between specific climate and solar forcing reconstructions, they argue that a "realistic climate scenario is the one described by a large preindustrial secular variability (e.g., the paleoclimate temperature reconstruction by Moberg et al.)[64] with the total solar irradiance experiencing low secular variability (as the one shown by Wang et al.).[65] Under this scenario, according to Scafetta and West, the Sun might have contributed 50% of the observed global warming since 1900.[10] Stott et al. estimate that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity during the last 30 years account for between 16% and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999."

So in conclusion, maybe we can say that:

Does the sun/TSI impact our climate and climate change?

Yes.

Does the sun/TSI fully explain the current changes in our climate or cancel out the impact of AGW?

No, it does not.

 

[IanC]

Ian C-

I know a few posts have touched on TSI earlier (Flac asked much the same question) and I do think this is a very valid point.

In fact, this is probably the last remaining plausible theory which remains as an alternative to so-called 'AGW'.

I think there is no quetion that solar radiation CAN effect the climate. But not being an expert in these fields, I am guided by what the experts say.

This graphic does not show any trend which resembles anything I have seen on climate change. It does show upwards curves at times which COULD explain warming cycles, but they do not match the current changes in temperature anything like as closely as CO2 levels do.

Though some of the material on TSI is difficult for me to understand, I found this interesting:

"A paper by Benestad and Schmidt[62] concludes 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." This paper disagrees with the conclusions of a Scafetta and West study,[63] who claim that solar variability has a significant effect on climate forcing. Based on correlations between specific climate and solar forcing reconstructions, they argue that a "realistic climate scenario is the one described by a large preindustrial secular variability (e.g., the paleoclimate temperature reconstruction by Moberg et al.)[64] with the total solar irradiance experiencing low secular variability (as the one shown by Wang et al.).[65] Under this scenario, according to Scafetta and West, the Sun might have contributed 50% of the observed global warming since 1900.[10] Stott et al. estimate that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity during the last 30 years account for between 16% and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999."

So in conclusion, maybe we can say that:

Does the sun/TSI impact our climate and climate change?

Yes.

Does the sun/TSI fully explain the current changes in our climate or cancel out the impact of AGW?

No, it does not.

I think your graph is a little misleading, going over and under a zero origin. the output was warming the globe even back in the 1800's. also, it is like turning up the gas on your stove. you dont have to keep increasing the flame to warm your pot of water. the original setting brought us out of the Little Ice Age. in the last half of the 20th century the output was even higher!.

again, I dont see how a Solar Grand Maximum can just be handwaved away as a significant reason for warming.

edit- oh, and I dont think anyone thinks that the grand maximum is going to continue uninterupted for another 40 years either.

 

[Saigon]

Ian -

I agree that it can't be 'handwaved' away. I think it is important that we have the SORCE project and as many studies as needed to determine the facts.

But also in this graph:

It is interesting to see the sunspot pattern from the left being almost the opposite of temperature for the first 6,000 years of the graph.

It's an interesting theory - but I don't see it as being as compelling a theory as CO2.

 

[IanC]

Ian -

I agree that it can't be 'handwaved' away. I think it is important that we have the SORCE project and as many studies as needed to determine the facts.

But also in this graph:

It is interesting to see the sunspot pattern from the left being almost the opposite of temperature for the first 6,000 years of the graph.

It's an interesting theory - but I don't see it as being as compelling a theory as CO2.

sorry, your link doesnt work.

here is an interesting paper on solar output. no temp or AGW angle though

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf

it demonstrates that the sun is as active now as it has been in 10,000 years.

 

[Saigon]

Ian -

Sorry, I forgot the link.

Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I'll take a look at your material.

 

[IanC]

 

[IanC]

even eyeballing it, it looks like the r2 ~ 0.6 or 0.7 with most of the discreapancy in the far past. also, the temp graph looks a little different than others that I have seen. I'll try to check it tomorrow.

 

[flacaltenn]

And YOU ignore that the output of sun has INCREASED by 1.2W/m2 since 1700s.

You ignore that temperature and solar activity have been going the opposite way since 1980, thus conclusively disproving your "the sun did it!" theory.

Okay, you don't ignore it. You just wave your hands around and shout "It doesn't have to be linear!". That is, when increased solar activity raises temps, it supports your theory, and when decreasing solar activity raises temps, that supports your theory. Your theory is not disprovable, meaning it's pseudoscience. That's the opposite of how AGW theory works, since if temps started dropping over the long term, AGW theory would be disproved.

Unfortunately for you -- my observations weren't "hand-waving".. Since they are in line with the science of Climatology not making snap decisions based on any 10 or 20 year period. There are NATURAL CYCLES that have 60 and 1000 yr periods that ARE KNOWN and acknowledge due to orbital mechanics and longer solar phenomenons than sunspots. These SAME THINGS that have driven the climate for 1000s of years. They HAVE NOT dispersed. Again -- unfortunate for you...

So when you see a 1.2W/m2 trend in SOLAR radiation over the past 300 yrs --- that's a VERY VALID climate driver. And the fact that every skeptic-slaying blog on the net instructs the "useful tools" of alarmism to drag out the last 22 yrs or so of solar SUN SPOT activity to counter that VALID observation about TSI --- you KNOW they are deflecting -- not discussing.

We have JUST DISCOVERED because of ORBITING solar observatories that the very SPECTRUM of solar radiation MAY VARY over the sun spot cycle. Meaning that the fundament greenhouse effect is actually temporaly variant -- that the WINDOW depends on the relative balance of IR versus UV and that is NOT static.. So much we don't know about the sun because we've only had real-time space observation for the last 20 yrs or so.

Like I said --- it is not REQUIRED that the temperature be driven from a LINEARLY CORRELATED variable like CO2. In fact, the "tipping point" argument of AGW theory says and CONFIRMS what I just said. The time lags and feedbacks take DECADES or CENTURIES to reach equilibrium. And none of the models are THAT good to include the REAL time response to any forcing function --- either MAN-MADE or NATURAL.....

Those lags in the CO2/Temp history are 1,000 years !!!!!! And YOU want to ding me about 20 years???? Now THAT'S scientific...

PS --- Hey MAMOOTH ---- why did you buds at Skeptical Science NOT SHOW THE ENTIRE historical reconstruction of TSI since the Maunder min in 1700 ? Didn't want to SHOW that is was increasing consistently for the past 300 years??? Or is that adding another 150 years of INCREASING SOLAR WARMING to the horizontal axis would make the little blip at the right side look small and insignificant?

 

[flacaltenn]

even eyeballing it, it looks like the r2 ~ 0.6 or 0.7 with most of the discreapancy in the far past. also, the temp graph looks a little different than others that I have seen. I'll try to check it tomorrow.

Here we have the PERFECT EXAMPLE of what I said in the previous post... The alarmist tools have been schooled to drag out the SUNSPOT number charts in order to refute any reference to TSI (Total Solar Irradiance).. I'm only gonna say this one more time...

In that 300 year study of TSI that's was posted here previously showing a STEADY RISE in the output of the sun over 300 years, the tiny squiggles in that graph are warming due solely to SUNSPOT ACTIVITY.. The chart shown here has removed the LONG TERM TSI differences completely. So that SunSpot activity DOES NOT and never will be the same as the Forcing Function that changes the Watts/squaredmeter warming on the face of the earth...

It's dishonest -- it's a purposeful deflection away from the truth and the units of any graph showing "sunspot number" as the vertical axis has NO MEANING in terms of warming. All it is -- is an indicator of solar volatility with the long term heating effect REMOVED.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Explain the 600 to 800 year lag from the onset of warming temperatures, and the eventual increase in CO2 levels, as demonstrated in the Vostock ice cores.

First explain why you think it needs to be explained.

All you've shown is you have a poor grasp of logic. Your logic here is that the present must behave like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different. That's really bad logic. Since present conditions are not like past conditions, the present will not behave like the past.

See what I mean? Lag? What lag?

Vostok shows CO2 lagging temperature increase because....

 

[flacaltenn]

Ian C-

I know a few posts have touched on TSI earlier (Flac asked much the same question) and I do think this is a very valid point.

In fact, this is probably the last remaining plausible theory which remains as an alternative to so-called 'AGW'.

I think there is no quetion that solar radiation CAN effect the climate. But not being an expert in these fields, I am guided by what the experts say.

This graphic does not show any trend which resembles anything I have seen on climate change. It does show upwards curves at times which COULD explain warming cycles, but they do not match the current changes in temperature anything like as closely as CO2 levels do.

Though some of the material on TSI is difficult for me to understand, I found this interesting:

"A paper by Benestad and Schmidt[62] concludes 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." This paper disagrees with the conclusions of a Scafetta and West study,[63] who claim that solar variability has a significant effect on climate forcing. Based on correlations between specific climate and solar forcing reconstructions, they argue that a "realistic climate scenario is the one described by a large preindustrial secular variability (e.g., the paleoclimate temperature reconstruction by Moberg et al.)[64] with the total solar irradiance experiencing low secular variability (as the one shown by Wang et al.).[65] Under this scenario, according to Scafetta and West, the Sun might have contributed 50% of the observed global warming since 1900.[10] Stott et al. estimate that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity during the last 30 years account for between 16% and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999."

So in conclusion, maybe we can say that:

Does the sun/TSI impact our climate and climate change?

Yes.

Does the sun/TSI fully explain the current changes in our climate or cancel out the impact of AGW?

No, it does not.

I think your graph is a little misleading, going over and under a zero origin. the output was warming the globe even back in the 1800's. also, it is like turning up the gas on your stove. you dont have to keep increasing the flame to warm your pot of water. the original setting brought us out of the Little Ice Age. in the last half of the 20th century the output was even higher!.

again, I dont see how a Solar Grand Maximum can just be handwaved away as a significant reason for warming.

edit- oh, and I dont think anyone thinks that the grand maximum is going to continue uninterupted for another 40 years either.

Just ...."a little misleading"????????????? I think it was drawn by HAND and BIASED by someone trying to minimizing the effect of TSI.. Doesn't even show VARIATION in the height of Sun Spot influenced activity... Looks totally phoney.. And not just because it's got that those Negative forcing values....

PS --- OK NOW I understand.. It's the f'ing input/output of a GISS MODEL.. Of course it's baloney and not REAL data... And it's the reason why the models are TOLD that solar radiation is not a factor. More NASA fiddling and fudging...

Ian --- you are just TOO Diplomatic.. Try to be meaner and more agressive..

 

[daveman]

Daveman -

For the love of God - what question do you want answered?

I will anwer any question which is coherent and on-topic. If your question fits thi description, give me a post # and you have my word I will answer it.

You don't have to answer a question. You have to acknowledge that your claim was wrong.

Post #30, http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/247309-the-science-against-climate-change.html#post5998894.

Stations which were chosen to provide data were chosen because they're generally warmer than surrounding stations in the area.

From the second link:

Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.​

Real scientists want all the data they can get their hands on. Climate scientists, however, want to limit data.

And how do they decide?

For example, Canada's reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That's right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left "one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65." And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as "The Garden Spot of the Arctic" due to its unusually moderate summers.

--

Not just Canadian data, but data sets everywhere were torqued so that cold data simply melted away, or so say these researchers.

For instance, Hawaiian data (taken on hot airport tarmacs, of course) was used as stand-in data for cooler ocean waters 1200km away.​

Do you really think using data from ONE station accurately represents ALL the area above Latitude 65N? Do you really think using data from Hawaiian airports accurately represents ocean waters 1200 klicks away?

Actually, you do have questions to answer. Start with those.

 

[flacaltenn]

Daveman -

For the love of God - what question do you want answered?

I will anwer any question which is coherent and on-topic. If your question fits thi description, give me a post # and you have my word I will answer it.

You don't have to answer a question. You have to acknowledge that your claim was wrong.

Post #30, http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/247309-the-science-against-climate-change.html#post5998894.

Stations which were chosen to provide data were chosen because they're generally warmer than surrounding stations in the area.

From the second link:

Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.​

Real scientists want all the data they can get their hands on. Climate scientists, however, want to limit data.

And how do they decide?

For example, Canada's reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That's right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left "one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65." And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as "The Garden Spot of the Arctic" due to its unusually moderate summers.

--

Not just Canadian data, but data sets everywhere were torqued so that cold data simply melted away, or so say these researchers.

For instance, Hawaiian data (taken on hot airport tarmacs, of course) was used as stand-in data for cooler ocean waters 1200km away.​

Do you really think using data from ONE station accurately represents ALL the area above Latitude 65N? Do you really think using data from Hawaiian airports accurately represents ocean waters 1200 klicks away?

Actually, you do have questions to answer. Start with those.

This is EXACTLY why the Arctic temp graph back to the 1920s that I pulled a couple days ago looks better (more resolution, less fakey) and much different from any newer GISS versions of Arctic temp.. They CONTINUE to muck with the data to change history.. Cooling the 30s, and warming the 60s , so that the High priests can claim that today's TODAY'S Arctic warming is unprecendented in recent history..

 

[daveman]

Daveman -

For the love of God - what question do you want answered?

I will anwer any question which is coherent and on-topic. If your question fits thi description, give me a post # and you have my word I will answer it.

You don't have to answer a question. You have to acknowledge that your claim was wrong.

Post #30, http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/247309-the-science-against-climate-change.html#post5998894.

Stations which were chosen to provide data were chosen because they're generally warmer than surrounding stations in the area.

From the second link:

Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.​

Real scientists want all the data they can get their hands on. Climate scientists, however, want to limit data.

And how do they decide?

For example, Canada's reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That's right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left "one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65." And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as "The Garden Spot of the Arctic" due to its unusually moderate summers.

--

Not just Canadian data, but data sets everywhere were torqued so that cold data simply melted away, or so say these researchers.

For instance, Hawaiian data (taken on hot airport tarmacs, of course) was used as stand-in data for cooler ocean waters 1200km away.​

Do you really think using data from ONE station accurately represents ALL the area above Latitude 65N? Do you really think using data from Hawaiian airports accurately represents ocean waters 1200 klicks away?

Actually, you do have questions to answer. Start with those.

This is EXACTLY why the Arctic temp graph back to the 1920s that I pulled a couple days ago looks better (more resolution, less fakey) and much different from any newer GISS versions of Arctic temp.. They CONTINUE to muck with the data to change history.. Cooling the 30s, and warming the 60s , so that the High priests can claim that today's TODAY'S Arctic warming is unprecendented in recent history..

It's many things -- but it's NOT science.

But good luck getting the Troo Beleevers to open their eyes.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

What question?

With all due respect guys, this thread is 11 pages long. I have addressed every sensible question or comment that I have seen, and tried to skip through the usual spamming. I may well have missed something useful, in which case tell me what the thread# is, and I'll take a look at it.

Then you havn't been looking. The Vostock ice core data shows that first there is a warming period (that usually lasts for around 300 to 500 years, then after a further 600 to 800 year lag the CO level rises.

Explain how your theory survives that simple fact.