Trenberth Debunks Himself

[SwimExpert]

In both of those papers, the connection to the sun was really conjectural.

Funny, I would say the same thing about nearly everything you believe in regards to AGW.

 

[mamooth]

Another fine frenzy of cherrypicking from SSDD. Throw everything at the wall, and hope something sticks. If you're a denialist, that's the scientific method.

 

[westwall]

Another fine frenzy of cherrypicking from SSDD. Throw everything at the wall, and hope something sticks. If you're a denialist, that's the scientific method.

Yes indeed. You denialists have been having your asses handed to you for years now. It's sad when the real world doesn't conform to your cute little computer model derived science fiction tales.

 

[Abraham3]

Let's look at the next abstract.

Solar irradiance at the earth's surface: long-term behavior observed at the South Pole

J. E. Frederick and A. L. Hodge
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Abstract. This research examines a 17-year database of UV-A (320–400 nm) and visible (400–600 nm) solar irradiance obtained by a scanning spectroradiometer located at the South Pole. The goal is to define the variability in solar irradiance reaching the polar surface, with emphasis on the influence of cloudiness and on identifying systematic trends and possible links to the solar cycle. To eliminate changes associated with the varying solar elevation, the analysis focuses on data averaged over 30–35 day periods centered on each year's austral summer solstice. The long-term average effect of South Polar clouds is a small attenuation, with the mean measured irradiances being about 5–6% less than the clear-sky values, although at any specific time clouds may reduce or enhance the signal that reaches the sensor. The instantaneous fractional attenuation or enhancement is wavelength dependent, where the percent deviation from the clear-sky irradiance at 400–600 nm is typically 2.5 times that at 320–340 nm. When averaged over the period near each year's summer solstice, significant correlations appear between irradiances at all wavelengths and the solar cycle as measured by the 10.7 cm solar radio flux. An approximate 1.8 ± 1.0% decrease in ground-level irradiance occurs from solar maximum to solar minimum for the wavelength band 320–400 nm. The corresponding decrease for 400–600 nm is 2.4 ± 1.9%. The best-estimate declines appear too large to originate in the sun. If the correlations have a geophysical origin, they suggest a small variation in atmospheric attenuation with the solar cycle over the period of observation, with the greatest attenuation occurring at solar minimum.

Citation: Frederick, J. E. and Hodge, A. L.: Solar irradiance at the earth's surface: long-term behavior observed at the South Pole, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 1177-1189, doi:10.5194/acp-11-1177-2011, 2011.

So... the solar cycle is visible at the South Pole. I see nothing about any 24-fold amplification. I see nothing about any correlation between the solar cycle and temperatures, either global or local. Somebody tell me where Hockey Schtick sees what they claim to see in this paper.

 

[Abraham3]

Next paper:

Speleothem based 1000-year high resolution record of Indian monsoon variability during the last deglaciation

Mahjoor Ahmad Lonea, E-mail the corresponding author, Syed Masood Ahmada, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author, Nguyen Chi Dungb, Chuan-Chou Shenb, E-mail the corresponding author, Waseem Razaa, Anil Kumara
a CSIR-National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad 500007, India
b High-Precision Mass Spectrometry and Environment Change Laboratory (HISPEC), Department of Geosciences, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan, ROC

Highlights
•
First high resolution last deglacial ISM record from a South Indian speleothem
•
Decadal to multidecadal variability with abrupt changes in ISM activity
•
Strong solar and ocean–atmospheric control on Indian Summer Monsoon variability
•
South China caves influenced by Indian summer monsoon (ISM)
•
Timing of Termination 1a in Indian region and ISM relation with East Asian Monsoon

Abstract
A high resolution record of the Indian summer monsoon (ISM) is generated using a δ18O time series from a stalagmite collected from the Valmiki cave in southern India. This record covers a time span of ~ 1000 years from 15,700 to 14,700 yr BP (before 1950 AD) with an average sampling resolution of ~ 5 years. High amplitude δ18O variation in this record reflects abrupt changes in ISM activity during the last deglaciation and suggest an age for the onset of Termination 1a (T1a) at ~ 14,800 yr BP in the Indian sub-continent. This record shows evidence for strong changes in tropical climate during the last deglaciation. Coincident variability in VSPM4 δ18O with speleothems from southern China during Termination 1a suggests that these caves reflect fluctuations in ISM activity. The variance in δ18O amplitude reveals significant multidecadal variability in ISM activity. Our record reveals intervals of strong monsoon activity during the later phase of Heinrich event 1 (H1) and shows synchronous multidecadal variability between ISM and East Asian monsoon (EAM). Spectral analysis of δ18O time series in VSPM4 reveals solar forcing and strong ocean–atmospheric circulation control on ISM dynamics during the studied time interval.

So from speleothems (any of the crystalline deposits that form in a solution cave after the creation of the cave itself --dictionary) we have a high resolution record of the climate in India and China during the last deglaciation and the evidence points to strong controls exerted by solar forcing and ocean-atmosphere circulation on the dynamics of Indian Summer monsoon.

Whoop-de-fucking-doo.

I'm not seeing anything like "evidence indicates that global warming during the 19th, 20th and 21st century owes more to solar TSI variations than it does to the increase in atmospheric levels of GHGs".

You guys must be more familiar with all these papers than I ever will. Can you find the one that says that? Though, you know, personally, I would have led that list with my best shot. Was that your best shot?

 

[Abraham3]

Third paper: Apparently we only get the Hockey Schtick article for this one. It says that though TSI only varies by 0.1% over the course of a solar cycle, the UV content can vary by as much as 100% and that the UV has a larger effect than other frequencies, particularly long wave IR.

Wikipedia's article on solar irradiance seems to have all the same information - maybe it was written by the same fellows. It says this:

Even though it only accounts for a minuscule fraction of total solar radiation, the impact of solar UV, EUV and X-ray radiation on the Earth's upper atmosphere is profound. Solar UV flux is a major driver of stratospheric chemistry, and increases in ionizing radiation significantly affect ionosphere-influenced temperature and electrical conductivity.

And, you know what? I think if Wikipedia knows it, so does the IPCC.

 

[SSDD]

In both of those papers, the connection to the sun was really conjectural. Let's look at some the actual statements

Highlights
•
The Northern tropospheric temperature correlates with the Scandinavian Pattern.
•
The Northern stratospheric temperature correlates to the Southern Oscillation.
•
The cosmic ray flux might modulate the tropospheric and stratospheric variability.
•
UV effects on tropospheric and stratospheric temperature are not clear.
Abstract
Possible relationships between tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere and atmospheric oscillations, solar and geomagnetic activity are described, using correlation analysis. The dependence of correlations on season, solar activity level and phase of the Quasi Biennial Oscillation (QBO) is also investigated. An important finding is that the variability of the hemispheric tropospheric temperature is well connected to the Scandinavian Pattern, to the Pacific North American teleconnection and less with the North Atlantic Oscillation. There is also a possible link with the Southern Oscillation (SO) for winter. Solar UV and cosmic ray flux might influence tropospheric temperature during warm seasons, solar maximum or QBO West. Significant correlations between the Northern stratospheric temperature and the SO is observed especially during the Eastern phase of QBO and solar minimum. Signatures of geomagnetic variability are seen in the winter stratospheric temperature. The stratospheric temperature correlates with the cosmic ray flux and solar UV at annual level at solar maximum and QBO West. The UV effect at the stratospheric level is less clear than expected. The existence of some correlations between tropospheric/stratospheric temperatures and internal and external parameters under certain climatic circumstances and during different solar cycle phases might help in identifying processes that transfer energy from the Sun to different atmospheric layers and in assessing their role in climate variability.

You call that "Nobel-worthy" ? ? ?

And, pardon the confusion, what I thought were two papers was simply the paper itself and Hockey-Schtick's description of it.

Got to hand it to you, you have hypocricy down to an art form....the literature that supposedly "settles" the science is chock full of coulds, mights, mays, and possiblys, and you discount these papers because they acknowledge the uncertainty that exists in climate science?

 

[SSDD]

Another fine frenzy of cherrypicking from SSDD. Throw everything at the wall, and hope something sticks. If you're a denialist, that's the scientific method.

Sorry you cant read. Tragic. What cherries do you suppose I picked? There are literally hundreds of papers finding that the sun is the major player in our climate....rather than sort through them all, I posted the first ones I came to. Note that none of these papers were splashed across the media for effect only to be quietly retracted or rewritten at a later date as so much of mainstream climate science is guilty of....Talk about hoping something sticks...they hurl their BS against the wall via the media so it will stick then rewrite it or retract it and never mention the changes made in the media....while the fraud published in the press releases hangs around for years...

 

[Abraham3]

In both of those papers, the connection to the sun was really conjectural. Let's look at some the actual statements

Highlights
•
The Northern tropospheric temperature correlates with the Scandinavian Pattern.
•
The Northern stratospheric temperature correlates to the Southern Oscillation.
•
The cosmic ray flux might modulate the tropospheric and stratospheric variability.
•
UV effects on tropospheric and stratospheric temperature are not clear.
Abstract
Possible relationships between tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere and atmospheric oscillations, solar and geomagnetic activity are described, using correlation analysis. The dependence of correlations on season, solar activity level and phase of the Quasi Biennial Oscillation (QBO) is also investigated. An important finding is that the variability of the hemispheric tropospheric temperature is well connected to the Scandinavian Pattern, to the Pacific North American teleconnection and less with the North Atlantic Oscillation. There is also a possible link with the Southern Oscillation (SO) for winter. Solar UV and cosmic ray flux might influence tropospheric temperature during warm seasons, solar maximum or QBO West. Significant correlations between the Northern stratospheric temperature and the SO is observed especially during the Eastern phase of QBO and solar minimum. Signatures of geomagnetic variability are seen in the winter stratospheric temperature. The stratospheric temperature correlates with the cosmic ray flux and solar UV at annual level at solar maximum and QBO West. The UV effect at the stratospheric level is less clear than expected. The existence of some correlations between tropospheric/stratospheric temperatures and internal and external parameters under certain climatic circumstances and during different solar cycle phases might help in identifying processes that transfer energy from the Sun to different atmospheric layers and in assessing their role in climate variability.

You call that "Nobel-worthy" ? ? ?

And, pardon the confusion, what I thought were two papers was simply the paper itself and Hockey-Schtick's description of it.

Got to hand it to you, you have hypocricy down to an art form....the literature that supposedly "settles" the science is chock full of coulds, mights, mays, and possiblys, and you discount these papers because they acknowledge the uncertainty that exists in climate science?

I guarantee you it has stronger statements then these and they concern larger matters than relationships between the Scandinavian Pattern and the Eastern Quasi-Biennial Oscillation. Would you like to see some?

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf

 

[SSDD]

I guarantee you it has stronger statements then these and they concern larger matters than relationships between the Scandinavian Pattern and the Eastern Quasi-Biennial Oscillation. Would you like to see some?

Your guarantee isn't worth the time it took you to make it. I am skeptical of AGW because I have read the literature...not the altered sanitized, sterilized version you get from skeptical science. There is not a shred of actual evidence that man's CO2 is causing the climate to change. If you believe there is any hard, unequivocal evidence, by all means, lets see it.

I predict you will claim that it has been shown over and over and prove that it hasn't by not providing it once again. Care to prove my prediction wrong?

 

[Abraham3]

There is not a shred of actual evidence that man's CO2 is causing the climate to change. If you believe there is any hard, unequivocal evidence, by all means, lets see it.

Why waste MY time?

There has been enough EVIDENCE presented to convince the vast majority of climate scientists, to convince every single national science academy and every other form of science organization of note ON THE FUCKING PLANET.

If you think that would happen with "not a shred of actual evidence", you're a fooking idiot.

 

[SSDD]

By the way, here from your supposedly more robust paper:

Regarding the higher certainty ranges: In general, studies that account for multiple potential error sources in a rigorous manner yield larger uncertainty ranges. This yields an apparent paradox in interpretation as one might think that smaller uncertainty ranges should indicate a better product. However, in many cases this would be an incorrect inference as the smaller uncertainty range may instead reflect that the published estimate considered only a subset of the plausible sources of uncertainty.

Two widely used reanalysis datasets, NNR and ERA-40, both have demonstrated shortcomings with respect to tropical circulation; hence their increases in the Hadley circulation strength since the 1970s might be artificial.

Data analysis and long-term side-by-side instrumentation field studies show that real non-climatic data artefacts certainly affect maximum and minimum differently in the raw records for both recent (Fall et al., 2011; Williams et al., 2012) and older (Bohm et al., 2010; Brunet et al., 2011) records. Hence there could be issues over interpretation of apparent DTR trends and variability in many regions (Christy et al., 2006; Christy et al., 2009; Fall et al., 2011; Zhou and Ren, 2011; Williams et al., 2012), particularly when accompanied by regional-scale Land Use / Land Cover (LULC) changes (Christy et al., 2006).

The GISS and MLOST datasets fall outside the 90% CI of HadCRUT4 for several decades in the twentieth century (Figure 2.19). These decadal differences could reflect residual biases in one or more dataset, an incomplete treatment of uncertainties in HadCRUT4.1, or a combination of these effects (Box 2.1).

All MSU records were most uncertain when satellite orbits are drifting rapidly (Christy and Norris, 2006, 2009). Mears et al. (2011) found that trend differences between RSS and other datasets could not be explained in many cases by parametric uncertainties in RSS alone. It was repeatedly cautioned that there were potential common biases (of varying magnitude) between the different MSU records or between the different radiosonde records which complicate intercomparisons (Christy and Norris, 2006, 2009; Mears et al., 2012).

SREX noted that available studies using reanalyses indicate a decrease in extratropical cyclone activity (Zhang et al., 2004) and intensity (Zhang et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2009d) over the last 50 years has been reported for northern Eurasia (60°N–40°N) linked to a possible northward shift with increased cyclone frequency in the higher latitudes and decrease in the lower latitudes

At high latitudes, increasing winter base flow and mean annual stream flow resulting from possible permafrost thawing were reported in Northwest Canada.

This may be linked to the greater warming of the land surface relative to the ocean surface (Joshi et al., 2008). The marine specific humidity

AR4 reported that surface-observed total cloud cover may have increased over many land areas since the middle of the 20th century, including the USA, the former USSR, Western Europe, midlatitude Canada, and Australia.

There is also evidence in some regions that periods prior to the 1950s had more heatwaves (e.g., over the USA, the decade of the 1930s stands out and is also associated with extreme drought conditions (Peterson et al., 2013) while conversely in other regionsheatwave trends may have been underestimated due to poor quality and/or consistency of data

Analyses of these indirect indices come with substantial uncertainties. For example, PDSI may not be comparable across climate zones.

This has been associated with a so-called ‘warming hole’ in this region, where precipitation has also increased, and may be related to interactions between the land and the atmosphere, and long-term variations in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. However large regions, particularly in Africa and South America have limited information on changes in heatwaves.

The most important characteristics of the stratospheric circulation for climate and for trace gas distribution are the winter and spring polar vortices and Sudden Stratospheric Warmings (rapid warmings of the middle stratosphere that may lead to a collapse of the Polar Vortex)

As a result, each index is affected by many climate phenomena whose relative contributions may change with the time period and the dataset used.

I could go on but it would probably be pointless.....like I said, your supposedly robust literature is chock full of mights, maybes, possible, mays, and coulds.

 

[Abraham3]

By the way, here from your supposedly more robust paper:

Regarding the higher certainty ranges: In general, studies that account for multiple potential error sources in a rigorous manner yield larger uncertainty ranges. This yields an apparent paradox in interpretation as one might think that smaller uncertainty ranges should indicate a better product. However, in many cases this would be an incorrect inference as the smaller uncertainty range may instead reflect that the published estimate considered only a subset of the plausible sources of uncertainty.

Two widely used reanalysis datasets, NNR and ERA-40, both have demonstrated shortcomings with respect to tropical circulation; hence their increases in the Hadley circulation strength since the 1970s might be artificial.

Data analysis and long-term side-by-side instrumentation field studies show that real non-climatic data artefacts certainly affect maximum and minimum differently in the raw records for both recent (Fall et al., 2011; Williams et al., 2012) and older (Bohm et al., 2010; Brunet et al., 2011) records. Hence there could be issues over interpretation of apparent DTR trends and variability in many regions (Christy et al., 2006; Christy et al., 2009; Fall et al., 2011; Zhou and Ren, 2011; Williams et al., 2012), particularly when accompanied by regional-scale Land Use / Land Cover (LULC) changes (Christy et al., 2006).

The GISS and MLOST datasets fall outside the 90% CI of HadCRUT4 for several decades in the twentieth century (Figure 2.19). These decadal differences could reflect residual biases in one or more dataset, an incomplete treatment of uncertainties in HadCRUT4.1, or a combination of these effects (Box 2.1).

All MSU records were most uncertain when satellite orbits are drifting rapidly (Christy and Norris, 2006, 2009). Mears et al. (2011) found that trend differences between RSS and other datasets could not be explained in many cases by parametric uncertainties in RSS alone. It was repeatedly cautioned that there were potential common biases (of varying magnitude) between the different MSU records or between the different radiosonde records which complicate intercomparisons (Christy and Norris, 2006, 2009; Mears et al., 2012).

SREX noted that available studies using reanalyses indicate a decrease in extratropical cyclone activity (Zhang et al., 2004) and intensity (Zhang et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2009d) over the last 50 years has been reported for northern Eurasia (60°N–40°N) linked to a possible northward shift with increased cyclone frequency in the higher latitudes and decrease in the lower latitudes

At high latitudes, increasing winter base flow and mean annual stream flow resulting from possible permafrost thawing were reported in Northwest Canada.

This may be linked to the greater warming of the land surface relative to the ocean surface (Joshi et al., 2008). The marine specific humidity

AR4 reported that surface-observed total cloud cover may have increased over many land areas since the middle of the 20th century, including the USA, the former USSR, Western Europe, midlatitude Canada, and Australia.

There is also evidence in some regions that periods prior to the 1950s had more heatwaves (e.g., over the USA, the decade of the 1930s stands out and is also associated with extreme drought conditions (Peterson et al., 2013) while conversely in other regionsheatwave trends may have been underestimated due to poor quality and/or consistency of data

Analyses of these indirect indices come with substantial uncertainties. For example, PDSI may not be comparable across climate zones.

This has been associated with a so-called ‘warming hole’ in this region, where precipitation has also increased, and may be related to interactions between the land and the atmosphere, and long-term variations in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. However large regions, particularly in Africa and South America have limited information on changes in heatwaves.

The most important characteristics of the stratospheric circulation for climate and for trace gas distribution are the winter and spring polar vortices and Sudden Stratospheric Warmings (rapid warmings of the middle stratosphere that may lead to a collapse of the Polar Vortex)

As a result, each index is affected by many climate phenomena whose relative contributions may change with the time period and the dataset used.

I could go on but it would probably be pointless.....like I said, your supposedly robust literature is chock full of mights, maybes, possible, mays, and coulds.

So we find that both sets of papers are honest about their reliability. But when I said robust, you knew PRECISELY what I was talking about. I guess I get to quote it for you (again).

 

[SSDD]

There is not a shred of actual evidence that man's CO2 is causing the climate to change. If you believe there is any hard, unequivocal evidence, by all means, lets see it.

Why waste MY time?

There has been enough EVIDENCE presented to convince the vast majority of climate scientists, to convince every single national science academy and every other form of science organization of note ON THE FUCKING PLANET.

If you think that would happen with "not a shred of actual evidence", you're a fooking idiot.

Like I said, you guys are as predictable as pavlov's dog. If you had any actual hard, unequivocal evidence, you would post it every time you touch the keys....you don't because you don't.

And money, prestige, and political power is what has convinced climate science that climate change is manmade.....a few of the more high profile criminals being held accountable for their fraud will quickly convince the rest that it might be better to pursue real science than rock star status.

 

[SSDD]

So we find that both sets of papers are honest about their reliability. But when I said robust, you knew PRECISELY what I was talking about. I guess I get to quote it for you (again).

You however are not honest at all. You pretend that the science is settled and have just said that AGW is proven...if it were, don't you think that the IPCC paper might include that proof.

I am skeptical because the science is in its infancy and there is more evidence against AGW than for it.....correlatory evidence is the poorest sort and that is really all you have.

 

[Abraham3]

All of these quotes are from the Summary for Policymakers

More than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) from 1951 to
2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global
mean surface temperature from 1951–2010.

Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be between 0.5°C and 1.3°C
over the period 1951–2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings likely to be
between –0.6°C and 0.1°C, from natural forcings likely to be between –0.1°C and 0.1°C, and from
internal variability likely to be between –0.1°C and 0.1°C.

It is virtually certain that internal variability alone cannot account for the observed global warming
since 1951.

It is likely that anthropogenic forcings, dominated by greenhouse gases, have contributed to the warming of the troposphere since 1961 and very likely that anthropogenic forcings, dominated by the depletion of the ozone layer due to ozone depleting substances, have contributed to the cooling of the lower stratosphere since 1979.

Further evidence has accumulated of the detection and attribution of anthropogenic influence on
temperature change in different parts of the world.

Robustness of detection and attribution of global-scale warming is subject to models correctly
simulating internal variability.

The observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as
compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling
contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment,
medium confidence).

It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to upper ocean
warming (above 700 m) observed since the 1970s.

It is very likely that there is a substantial contribution from anthropogenic forcings to the global mean sea level rise since the 1970s.

It is very likely that oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide has resulted in acidification of surface waters which is observed to be between –0.0014 and –0.0024 pH units per year.

New evidence is emerging for an anthropogenic influence on global land precipitation changes, on
precipitation increases in high northern latitudes, and on increases in atmospheric humidity.

It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a discernable contribution to surface and
subsurface oceanic salinity changes since 1960's.

It is likely that human influence has affected the global water cycle since 1960.

Anthropogenic forcings are very likely to have contributed to Arctic sea ice loss since 1979.

Ice sheets and glaciers are melting, and anthropogenic influences are likely to have contributed to the surface melting of Greenland since 1990 and to the retreat of glaciers since the 1960s.

It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic component to observed reductions in northern
hemisphere snow cover since 1970.

There has been a strengthening of the evidence for human influence on temperature extremes since
the AR4 and SREX reports.

In land regions where observational coverage is sufficient for assessment, there is medium confidence that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to a global-scale intensification of heavy precipitation over the second half of the 20th century.

There is low confidence in attribution of changes in tropical cyclone activity to human influence due to insufficient observational evidence, lack of physical understanding of the links between anthropogenic drivers of climate and tropical cyclone activity and the low level of agreement between studies as to the relative importance of internal variability, and anthropogenic and natural forcings.

It is likely that human influence has altered sea level pressure patterns globally.

Taking a longer term perspective shows the substantial role played by anthropogenic and natural
forcings in driving climate variability on hemispheric scales prior to the twentieth century.

The extended record of observed climate change has allowed a better characterisation of the basic
properties of the climate system that have implications for future warming.

Human influence has been detected in the major assessed components of the climate system. Taken
together, the combined evidence increases the level of confidence in the attribution of observed climate
change, and reduces the uncertainties associated with assessment based on a single climate variable.
From this combined evidence it is virtually certain that human influence has warmed the global climate
system
*************************************************************
That's what you call ROBUST.

and

So we find that both sets of papers are honest about their reliability. But when I said robust, you knew PRECISELY what I was talking about. I guess I get to quote it for you (again).

You however are not honest at all. You pretend that the science is settled and have just said that AGW is proven...if it were, don't you think that the IPCC paper might include that proof.

I am skeptical because the science is in its infancy and there is more evidence against AGW than for it.....correlatory evidence is the poorest sort and that is really all you have.

I do not use the word "proven" when talking about theories of the natural sciences.

I know better.

 

[SwimExpert]

There has been enough EVIDENCE presented to convince the vast majority of climate scientists, to convince every single national science academy and every other form of science organization of note ON THE FUCKING PLANET.

If a million scientists say a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing.

 

[westwall]

All of these quotes are from the Summary for Policymakers

More than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) from 1951 to
2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global
mean surface temperature from 1951–2010.

Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be between 0.5°C and 1.3°C
over the period 1951–2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings likely to be
between –0.6°C and 0.1°C, from natural forcings likely to be between –0.1°C and 0.1°C, and from
internal variability likely to be between –0.1°C and 0.1°C.

It is virtually certain that internal variability alone cannot account for the observed global warming
since 1951.

It is likely that anthropogenic forcings, dominated by greenhouse gases, have contributed to the warming of the troposphere since 1961 and very likely that anthropogenic forcings, dominated by the depletion of the ozone layer due to ozone depleting substances, have contributed to the cooling of the lower stratosphere since 1979.

Further evidence has accumulated of the detection and attribution of anthropogenic influence on
temperature change in different parts of the world.

Robustness of detection and attribution of global-scale warming is subject to models correctly
simulating internal variability.

The observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as
compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling
contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment,
medium confidence).

It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to upper ocean
warming (above 700 m) observed since the 1970s.

It is very likely that there is a substantial contribution from anthropogenic forcings to the global mean sea level rise since the 1970s.

It is very likely that oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide has resulted in acidification of surface waters which is observed to be between –0.0014 and –0.0024 pH units per year.

New evidence is emerging for an anthropogenic influence on global land precipitation changes, on
precipitation increases in high northern latitudes, and on increases in atmospheric humidity.

It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a discernable contribution to surface and
subsurface oceanic salinity changes since 1960's.

It is likely that human influence has affected the global water cycle since 1960.

Anthropogenic forcings are very likely to have contributed to Arctic sea ice loss since 1979.

Ice sheets and glaciers are melting, and anthropogenic influences are likely to have contributed to the surface melting of Greenland since 1990 and to the retreat of glaciers since the 1960s.

It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic component to observed reductions in northern
hemisphere snow cover since 1970.

There has been a strengthening of the evidence for human influence on temperature extremes since
the AR4 and SREX reports.

In land regions where observational coverage is sufficient for assessment, there is medium confidence that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to a global-scale intensification of heavy precipitation over the second half of the 20th century.

There is low confidence in attribution of changes in tropical cyclone activity to human influence due to insufficient observational evidence, lack of physical understanding of the links between anthropogenic drivers of climate and tropical cyclone activity and the low level of agreement between studies as to the relative importance of internal variability, and anthropogenic and natural forcings.

It is likely that human influence has altered sea level pressure patterns globally.

Taking a longer term perspective shows the substantial role played by anthropogenic and natural
forcings in driving climate variability on hemispheric scales prior to the twentieth century.

The extended record of observed climate change has allowed a better characterisation of the basic
properties of the climate system that have implications for future warming.

Human influence has been detected in the major assessed components of the climate system. Taken
together, the combined evidence increases the level of confidence in the attribution of observed climate
change, and reduces the uncertainties associated with assessment based on a single climate variable.
From this combined evidence it is virtually certain that human influence has warmed the global climate
system
*************************************************************
That's what you call ROBUST.

and

So we find that both sets of papers are honest about their reliability. But when I said robust, you knew PRECISELY what I was talking about. I guess I get to quote it for you (again).

You however are not honest at all. You pretend that the science is settled and have just said that AGW is proven...if it were, don't you think that the IPCC paper might include that proof.

I am skeptical because the science is in its infancy and there is more evidence against AGW than for it.....correlatory evidence is the poorest sort and that is really all you have.

I do not use the word "proven" when talking about theories of the natural sciences.

I know better.

And all of those "assumptions" were made by a bunch of NGO representatives sitting around a table holding their hands up when asked the questions. Yep....great science being done there!

 

[SSDD]

I do not use the word "proven" when talking about theories of the natural sciences.

I know better.

Guess you don't know the definition of evidence...a word that you toss around liberally.

evidence - n - that which tends to prove or disprove something;

None of your so called evidence proves anything other than that you are easily duped.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmm... the conclusions of BTK were that the heat formerly warming the surface may have begun moving to the DEEP ocean, not the ocean above 700 m.

As to your hundreds of peer reviewed papers showing amplifications of solar warming - how about a few links. And maybe some basic physics explaining how passive mechanisms can create a net increase in energy flux. The TSI at the top of the atmosphere is inadequate to cause the warming we've experience.

Sure, how many do you wan?. There were more than 70 published in 2013 alone, Here are a few, if you want more, just ask. If you really aren't aware of the sheer volume of published science finding that the sun is what drives our climate, then you aren't nearly as informed as you like to think you are.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controls climate

Possible effects of atmospheric teleconnections and solar variability on tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere

A new paper published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds more evidence of solar amplification mechanisms by which the Sun controls climate change. According to the authors, changes in solar activity affect cosmic rays [Svensmark et al] and the distribution of solar energy between different layers of the atmosphere [stratosphere and troposphere]. This then results in third order effects upon natural atmospheric oscillations such as the Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation, Scandinavian Pattern, and the Quasi Biennial Oscillation (QBO). These atmospheric oscillations in turn have global effects upon climate change.

Contrary to claims of climate alarmists, the authors show that between 1960 to 2003 the trend of solar geomagnetic activity was up, which in turn reduced cosmic rays and cloud formation, leading to the well-known "global brightening" of the latter 20th century, amplification of solar energy at the Earth surface and warming, and change in energy distribution with more heat in the troposphere and less in the stratosphere. Global warming alarmists claim the pattern of increasing tropospheric and decreasing stratospheric temperatures is a fingerprint of man-made global warming, but this paper finds solar amplification mechanisms can account for this same pattern instead.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds solar amplification mechanism via clouds at the South Pole, amplifies surface solar irradiance up to 24 times

ACP - Abstract - Solar irradiance at the earth's surface: long-term behavior observed at the South Pole

A paper published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds evidence of a solar amplification mechanism via cloud cover at the South Pole. According to the authors, at solar cycle minimums, cloud cover increases which further decreases solar radiation reaching the surface of the South Pole by 1.8% - 2.4%, depending on the wavelength, and vice-versa for solar cycle maximums. This begs the question: Could the current record high Antarctic sea ice extent be related to the current weakest solar cycle in 100 years rather than AGW?

The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed papers describing solar amplification mechanisms by which tiny 0.1% changes of total solar irradiance can be amplified to produce large effects on climate. According to this paper, 0.1% changes in solar irradiation over solar cycles are amplified by a factor of 18 to 24 times at the surface of the South Pole, dependent upon wavelength.


THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controls climate

Speleothem based 1000-year high resolution record of Indian monsoon variability during the last deglaciation

A new paper published in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology finds another solar amplification mechanism by which tiny changes in solar activity during 11-12 year solar cycles have a "strong" influence on the Indian Summer Monsoon [ISM]. The ISM in turn profoundly affects the south Asian climate, and interacts with other global atmospheric oscillations.


THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds solar UV varies up to 100% during solar cycles, confirms solar amplification mechanism




A paper published today in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics notes that solar UV radiation can vary up to 100% during solar cycles, that it is "well accepted" these large changes in UV significantly affect stratospheric ozone production, and thereby act as a solar amplification mechanism on temperatures.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds large changes in solar UV influence climate change

ACP - Abstract - Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on climate modelling

paper published today in Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics reviews recent satellite data finding that variations in solar UV within solar cycles are up to 6 times greater than previously believed, and that these variations have a significant influence upon the atmosphere and regional climate change. The authors also find that current models don't reproduce these observations. The IPCC dismisses the role of the Sun in climate change by only considering small changes in total solar irradiance [TSI], while ignoring amplification mechanisms such as the large changes in solar UV within and between solar cycles.

According to the authors, "recent measurements by the SORCE (SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment) satellite suggest a significantly stronger variability in the ultraviolet (UV) spectral range and changes in the visible and near-infrared (NIR) bands in anti-phase with the solar cycle. A number of recent chemistry-climate model (CCM) simulations have shown that this might have significant implications on the Earth's atmosphere." Solar spectral irradiance "changes influence the Earth's atmosphere, both directly, through changes in shortwave (SW) heating and therefore, temperature and ozone distributions in the stratosphere, and indirectly, through dynamical feedbacks."


THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds the Sun controls the hydrological cycle of southern South America

Are southern South American Rivers linked to the solar variability? - Compagnucci - 2013 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library

A paper published today in the International Journal of Climatology finds robust evidence that solar activity controlled the hydrological cycle in southern South America from the early 1900s to 2011. The authors find high river discharges lag solar maxima by about 2 years, and low discharges lag solar minima by about 2 years. According to the paper, "Previous studies have shown a close relationship between the subtropical Argentinean Andean Rivers and the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), as well as a solar influence on the ENSO variability. We suggest that El Niño events occurring a few years after solar maxima could explain the connection."


THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper supports planetary theory of solar variation

http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/10.1007_s10509-013-1558-3.pdf

A new paper by Dr. Nicola Scafetta & Dr. Richard Willson, published in Astrophysics & Space Science, finds additional evidence supporting the planetary theory of solar variation, that gravitational effects from the planets explain solar cycles. Prior analysis has shown that planetary harmonics correlate with solar activity and subsequent climate change via a variety of solar amplification mechanisms.


THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controls climate

Holocene flood frequency across the Central Alps ? solar forcing and evidence for variations in North Atlantic atmospheric circulation

A paper published today in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs climate of the central Alps over the past 10,000 years and finds precipitation and floods were driven by changes in solar activity. The authors propose variations in solar activity and insolation cause widening and shrinking of the Hadley cell, and influence on the North Atlantic Oscillation [NAO] and Intertropical Convergence Zone [ITCZ]. The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications finding solar amplification mechanisms by which small changes in solar activity have large effects on climate.

The authors also find floods and heavy precipitation were more common during cold periods such as the Little Ice Age than during warm periods such as the Medieval Warm Period, the opposite of claims that warming increases precipitation and floods from increased atmospheric water vapor.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds multiple amplification mechanisms by which the Sun controls climate

The interplanetary magnetic field influences mid-latitude surface atmospheric pressure - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

A new paper published in Environmental Research Letters finds multiple solar amplification mechanisms by which small changes in the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field [IMF] have significant global effects upon atmospheric pressures, the jet stream, weather & climate patterns such as the North Atlantic Oscillation [NAO], storm tracks, Eurasian winter temperatures, and the breakup of Arctic sea ice.
The role of the oceans in shaping the tropospheric response to the 11 year solar cycle

Observational data indicate a weakening and poleward shift of the subtropical tropospheric jets in the maximum phase of the 11 year solar cycle, commonly explained in terms of a direct "top-down" propagation of solar signals from the stratosphere to the troposphere. We here demonstrate possible linkages to oceanic variability, instead. The observed response of the jets is qualitatively and quantitatively reproduced in an ensemble of simulations with a global model forced only at the lower boundary by the observed sea surface temperatures and sea ice concentrations, while keeping solar cycle forcing constant. The twentieth century reanalysis, in which only surface observations are assimilated, is characterized by a similar shift of the jets. These findings suggest that changes at the ocean surface could contribute considerably to the poleward shift of the subtropical tropospheric jets, although a top-down influence on the oceans and hence indirectly on the jets cannot be excluded.


A lagged response to the 11 year solar cycle in observed winter Atlantic/European weather patterns

The surface response to 11 year solar cycle variations is investigated by analyzing the long-term mean sea level pressure and sea surface temperature observations for the period 1870-2010. The analysis reveals a statistically significant 11 year solar signal over Europe, and the North Atlantic provided that the data are lagged by a few years. The delayed signal resembles the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) following a solar maximum. The corresponding sea surface temperature response is consistent with this. A similar analysis is performed on long-term climate simulations from a coupled ocean-atmosphere version of the Hadley Centre model that has an extended upper lid so that influences of solar variability via the stratosphere are well resolved. The model reproduces the positive NAO signal over the Atlantic/European sector, but the lag of the surface response is not well reproduced. Possible mechanisms for the lagged nature of the observed response are discussed.


Influence of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, El Nino-Southern Oscillation and solar forcing on climate and primary productivity changes in the northeast Pacific

Evidence of 11-year Schwabe solar sunspot cycles, El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) were detected in an annual record of diatomaceous laminated sediments from anoxic Effingham Inlet, Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Radiometric dating and counting of annual varves dates the sediments from AD 1947-1993. Intact sediment slabs were X-rayed for sediment structure (lamina thickness and composition based on gray-scale), and subsamples were examined for diatom abundances and for grain size. Wavelet analysis reveals the presence of c. 2-3, 4.5, 7 and 9-12 year cycles in the diatom record and an c. 11-13 year record in the sedimentary varve thickness record. These cycle lengths suggest that both ENSO and the sunspot cycle had an influence on primary productivity and sedimentation patterns.


Terrestrial ground temperature variations in relation to solar magnetic variability, including the present Schwabe cycle

We study the influence of solar activity on climate by investigating the relation between the long-term components of the total magnetic fluxes of both the equatorial and polar fields of the sun and the average terrestrial ground temperature. This is done for the period 1610 (beginning of systematic sunspot observations) till present with an extrapolation to 2015. It is found that from 1610 till about the first half of the 20th century the variation of the long-term average terrestrial ground temperatures is chiefly due to the variation of solar activity, with seemingly random, non-solar residuals. Around 2007, after the Grand Maximum of the 20th century, solar activity, after having gone through a remarkable transition period (c. 2005 to c. 2010), entered into another Grand Episode. That Episode started with the present solar cycle, in shape comparable to the equally weak Schwabe cycle #14. The transition period, in combination with the present low Schwabe cycle causes that the solar contribution to the total terrestrial temperature variation is small during the on-going decade. It results in a slowing down of the rise of temperature after c. 2005.


The role of the Sun in atmosphere-ocean coupling

An overview of the processes involved in determining the Sun''s influence on climate is presented in the form of a flow chart. Evidence and hypotheses concerning the combined influences of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation and the Solar Cycle on the Hadley and Walker circulations are discussed in the context of atmosphere-ocean coupling, focussing on the Pacific region. It is shown that the Sun plays a crucial role in ocean-atmosphere coupling but that this coupling appears to be disturbed during the latter half of the 20th century, probably related to climate change. The identification of a solar influence can lead to improved skill in prediction so as to better inform communities to address/mitigate some of the crucial issues that are associated with climate change.


Reconciliation of modeled climate responses to spectral solar forcing

The SIM (Spectral Irradiance Monitor) on SORCE (Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment) provides more spectrally complete daily SSI (spectral solar irradiance) measurements than ever before, allowing us to explore chemical and physical processes in the Earth's ocean and atmosphere system. However, the newly observed SSI instigated controversies in the Sun-climate community on whether the SIM-observed trends are true solar variations and on whether climate responses are in phase or out of phase with solar forcing. In this study, we focus on resolving two apparently contradictory results published on possible temperature responses to SIM-derived solar forcing. When applying extreme scenarios of SIM-based spectral solar forcing in a radiative-convective model (RCM), we find that some apparently contradictory results can be explained by the different methods used to apply the SIM SSI data. It is clear that accurate SSI data are essential for accurate climate simulations and that climate modelers need to take care how they apply these data.

Post the abstracts from the original papers, not the goddamned lies from the 'Hockey Schtick'.