Recent Comments

Prev  2543  2544  2545  2546  2547  2548  2549  2550  2551  2552  2553  2554  2555  2556  2557  2558  Next

Comments 127501 to 127550:

127501. Mizimi at 19:31 PM on 5 September 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        #12 Interesting paper -thanks for the pointer - but I was referring to the UHI effect rather than the overall surface T. IE, I would expect to see urban station results begin to fall as a result of declining economic activity, not rural readings. The fall may not be large (weather patterns have a much greater effect on UHI)but should be discernable. Regarding the overall question..are USA surface stations reliable..it kind of begs the question. Global stations have fallen from over 6000 to just 2600 in a fairly short time period. Notably missing is data from what was the USSR and also China, so that USA data now represents nearly half of what we have...reliable or not. I would not consider the spread of surface data sources to be adequate for GMT calcs and would expect a heavy bias towards the USA climate conditions. Satellite records are somewhat better but restricted time-wise.
127502. NewYorkJ at 11:55 AM on 5 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        "People’s psychology and career motivations today are still the same, and they still reject the sun's influence on climate change for exactly the same reasons." I don't know of a single climate scientist who rejects the Sun's influence on climate change. Contrary to popular belief among certain political circles, climate scientists study many aspects of climate and climate change. Galileo was indeed a pioneering scientist, much like Fourier, Arrhenius, Callendar - scientists discovering Earth's greenhouse effect. Revelle and Suess were also pioneers, discovering that the Earth's oceans would not be able to absorb human-emitted CO2 and much would end up in the atmosphere, adding to the greenhouse effect. Many doubted them at the time. Over the decades that followed, a preponderance of evidence vindicated them and the general consensus was gradually built. Modern-day skeptics often seem to resemble those who insisted on believing that the Sun revolved around the Earth, those with stubborn attachment to the notion that human activities, especially those involving fossil fuels, seen as so vital to economic development in the industrial age, can't possibly be warming the planet. They will not be swayed no matter how strong the evidence is. See post #3 on this thread for a link to Weart's indispensible "The Discovery of Global Warming". "Do you honestly think, that if a politician, researcher, or public service career-minded official has to decide between effects of human activity, or effects of the distant sun, they are going to easily believe an idea which makes the entire basis of their training, self-motivation, and their future career, irrelevant? " When it's a decision between relatively meager government funding with your name blended in with the rest of the crowd, and a $2,500 per day check from Exxon with your name and arguments parroted repeatedly by media outlets, sometimes the decision is not that difficult. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen#Fossil_Fuel_Interests_Funding There is a huge market for global warming contrarianism. Many folks have a very difficult time believing any scientific idea that might implicate their activities, so they seek out anyone who can tell them there isn't a problem. Credentials or strength of argument don't matter in the least, so fooling this crowd is quite easily done. There are many ready and willing to step up to this task. While denial of evolution is directly religious-based, denial of global warming is more based on a religious-like fear of government. Political and ideological groups, along with entrenched industry interests desperate to protect the status quo, who's going concern is threatened by the science, prey off this fear, spreading false scenarios of economic gloom and doom - claiming that any move away from fossil fuels will cause great calamity to their household. It is a bit of a surprise that the scientific consensus is so strong, since fame and sometimes a bit of fortune await those who argue against the consensus. The incentive is tremendous.
127503. thingadonta at 10:50 AM on 5 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        re 3: “global warming is not a communist/socialist plot where nearly every member of the scientific community (aside from a few contrarian whistleblowers who know better) has compromised their scientific integrity to receive funding and promote their socialist agenda. Then again, maybe the scientific consensus reached on gravity, the Earth being spherical, evolution, crazy claims that smoking causes lung cancer, and the consensus that 9/11 was caused by terrorist hijackers is all bogus". A more pertinent example would be Galileo and the idea of the earth revolving around the sun, rather than the other way around. The reason that Galileo encountered such trouble with the idea that the earth revolved around the sun was not essentially religious, but because people who had devoted their entire lives bringing 'order' to society couldn't handle the idea that the earth, and their place within it, was not at the centre of things. In other words, if the sun was at the centre of the solar system, and we had no control over it, their entire life's motivation, training and purpose, (at least in the field of solar astronomy and importantly at the time-geography), was irrelevant. People’s psychology and career motivations today are still the same, and they still reject the sun's influence on climate change for exactly the same reasons. People within bureaucracies, scientific agencies etc, are trained for their entire careers and lives to bring stability, order and direction to society. They reject notions that the sun has anything to do with climate change because it goes against their entire purpose and training regarding bringing order to the world/society-it also makes them largely irrelevant. They don't like not being at the centre of the universe. 'Consensus' amongst such people/officials is also a very much sought after thing, because it is part of their basic training in bringing order and direction to society. When someone like Galileo comes along who is 'outside' the consensus, it is in the political and social training of such people/officials to routinely dismiss such ideas and indeed work against them, because it goes against their entire training and life purpose, and indeed upsets the social(ist) order and relegates the self-importance of various officials to irrelevance. Do you honestly think, that if a politician, researcher, or public service career-minded official has to decide between effects of human activity, or effects of the distant sun, they are going to easily believe an idea which makes the entire basis of their training, self-motivation, and their future career, irrelevant? This is the reason there was so much trouble with the sun and Galileo-do you think people have really changed that much since then?
127504. NewYorkJ at 10:42 AM on 5 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        Re: #5 Fun with analogies...Astrology is to astronomy as global warming contrarianism (in its typical form) is to climate science. Both rely often on appeals to emotion and dubious philosophy rather than objective scientific study. Take for example "people's behaviour now controls the heavens." Certain folks are skeptical of global warming for the basic emotive reason that it's inconceivable that us insignificant humans could possibly have an effect on something as large as the Earth's climate. Only God, or "the heavens", can control that. It's arrogant to think otherwise. Such misconceptions are often based on religious beliefs. There are a myriad of other fallacies that are pervasive in global warming skeptic circles, things like: - CO2 is too small a part of the atmosphere to possibly have an effect. - Climate change happened in the past naturally. Therefore, recent climate change cannot be human caused. - It's cold in my city this month. Global warming isn't happening. Now when we look at the beliefs of contrarians, they often appear open-minded. And indeed, they are quite open-minded to various natural explanations of global warming, be it the Sun, cosmic rays, ENSO, underseas volcanoes, or benthic bacteria (provided someone they trust doesn't inform them that the latter was an amusing hoax). However, when the thought of human activities, particular ones that implicate fossil fuels and possibly implies concerted government action to mitigate, enters the picture, there becomes a zealous-like devotion towards discrediting the science. I'm afraid these individuals many years from now will be looked upon as those who still to this day latch on to creationism, those who hung on to the belief that the Sun must revolve around the Earth, and smokers and their industry counterparts who vehemently denied the harmful health effects of their activities. There is a very positive role for healthy skeptism. What we often see on scientific topics that have political implications or challenge one's ideology is skeptism that is anything but healthy. I just hope that scientific skeptism in general has not been permanently damaged in the public eye.
127505. thingadonta at 10:11 AM on 5 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        re 3: "Why would anyone want to study astronomy, when humans didn't have anything to do with the creation of the universe? Climate change is a very interesting area of research, regardless of cause". It is interesting that the original reasons astronomy was studied was probably religious, and ultimately descended into controlling people (astrology). The astronomers couldn't handle just looking at the stars for knowledge sake, no, they had to impose a religious fundamentalism on the people, ie astrology. Astrology was an attempt to impose their supposed objective knowledge on people, to explain peoples behaviour (and everything else) on the movements of the stars. These 'explanations' weren't about objecive knowledge, it was about furthering their own political agenda, self-interests and self-importance, also based on innate tendancies to control other people. It was an early form of socialist determinism. AGW could be the same thing, but in reverse. Instead of the heavens controlling people's behaviour, people's behaviour now controls the heavens. AGW could be argued to be the 21st century version of Babylonian astrology. Maybe in a few thousand years AGW will be on the back of newspapers for fruitcakes, just like astrology now. As for your second point, yes climate change is mildly interesting, but I fear the researchers are not being fair to the actual data, or the history of the planet.
127506. thingadonta at 10:05 AM on 5 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        re response to 1: "The same reason any scientist gets into science. The love of knowledge. Curiosity. The challenge of furthering our understanding of how the universe works". Yes, but it is only half the story. Here are some other reasons people get into science. A career. Getting paid. Having a secure career and family life. Imposing knowledge on other people and other cultures. Controlling other people through superior access to knowlege and resources. To find God's order in the universe. To find chaos in the universe. To serve God. To avoid serving God. Getting into politics. To avoid getting into politics. Avoiding religious fundamentalism. To get into religious fundamentalism. Starting a knowledge-based cult. Satisfying inborn desires to control other people. Imperialism through knowledge and culture rather than military invasion. Getting a job which is not subject to market forces. Because one can't handle business or other people. Getting into the public service. Because one failed at religion, society, or business. To flee totalitarianism. To further ones political interests. Etc Etc. It's not all objective curiosity.
127507. NewYorkJ at 05:39 AM on 5 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        So the Heartland Institute, a political organization that has also been in the business of disputing smoking's link to lung cancer, is pretending to speak for science. One clear difference between a Heartland Institute "conference" and a real scientific conference (such as AGU, IPCC) is that the Heartland Institute has already decided on what they want the science to say, and seeks to gather like-minded individuals to support their political agenda - those who will effectively push non-peer-reviewed ideas and ignore the overwhelming evidence against their views. Matt Andrews, "To me, the issue is not that the general public are at odds with scientific opinion; in Australia, at least, support for strong climate action is very high indeed. The discrepancy lies in the arena of politics and media commentary, where rates of climate denial appear to be much higher than in the broader community (and among the scientists). " And the media and politicians tend to have a strong influence on public opinion. Thus, the discrepancy between the scientific community and the general public (at least in the U.S.). thingadonta, "But skeptics don't care a less about the latest 'opinion poll' amongst researchers," Correct. They tend to care much more about the latest opinion poll of the general public, as that is generally their target audience. As for the rest of your post, I refer you to: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ Despite the push of this notion in certain extreme political circles, global warming is not a communist/socialist plot where nearly every member of the scientific community (aside from a few contrarian whistleblowers who know better) has compromised their scientific integrity to receive funding and promote their socialist agenda. Then again, maybe the scientific consensus reached on gravity, the Earth being spherical, evolution, crazy claims that smoking causes lung cancer, and the consensus that 9/11 was caused by terrorist hijackers is all bogus. Those with certain anti-government and political or religious agendas all know better (or knew better at one time). "Why would anyone want to study climate change for long peiods if you don't believe humans have anything to do with it in the first place? (you would also have to put up with alot of people who you don't agree with, for one thing). " Odd logic. Why would anyone want to study astronomy, when humans didn't have anything to do with the creation of the universe? Climate change is a very interesting area of research, regardless of cause.
127508. Matt Andrews at 01:10 AM on 5 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        Er... moving right along (and back to reality), it's notable that the Gallup poll used for the "general public" figure above is from the US. The US ranked lowest, and by far the lowest of major economies, in a survey of 18,578 people in 19 countries on levels of concern over climate change. To me, the issue is not that the general public are at odds with scientific opinion; in Australia, at least, support for strong climate action is very high indeed. The discrepancy lies in the arena of politics and media commentary, where rates of climate denial appear to be much higher than in the broader community (and among the scientists).
127509. thingadonta at 19:48 PM on 4 September 2009
        The growing divide between climate scientists and public opinion
        A few points on the above discussion: It doesn't matter tuppence whether an entire research field is 100% in agreement, that research field can, and often does, have vested interests to promote a particular view. People who differ from the mainstream within such fields can easily be weeded out through human politics, (if not just through them just leaving research because they don't agree/dont have vested interests), not data. Science, like any other human activity, is subject to politics, self- interest, unconscious bias, and distortion. High levels of agreement can be a sign that things are WRONG/CORRUPT within the field, not the other way around. Why would anyone want to study climate change for long peiods if you don't believe humans have anything to do with it in the first place? (you would also have to put up with alot of people who you don't agree with, for one thing). Another issue is that people who stay for long periods within certain reearch fields (eg >5 years) tend to agree with it in the first place. The level of 'consensus' within such fields is subject to selection bias and can therefore be pretty meaningless. I'm sure fields like homeopathy, to take one extreme non-mainstream example, could get '100% agreement' on the effects of diluted water, if somebody really wanted to do a survey, because nobody who researches within it, and who 'excels' at it over a number of years and commits their life to it and doesnt leave (eg for >5 years), would be against it by this time, almost by default. If you think this argument doesnt apply to peer-reviewed mainstream research, look at the banks and financial industry in the early 2000s. Financial modellers, with vested interests, in promoting a particular view/perspective, managed to gamble and steal away billions of dollars of both banks and people's money, and almost took entire societies to ruin, based on 'consensus' models and politics widespread throughout the financial community. Anyone who saw through the distortions, within the financial community, would not have been eg promoted, would not have received ridiculous bonuses, and was 'weeded' out of the banking hierarchy, even though they were essentially right. It was in the financial modellers' interest to promote a certain angle, and if you did surveys of the financial community regarding various finanical products and practices in the early 2000s, you would have got much the same results as you give above. And they were all basically wrong, because of human politics, distortion, and self interest. Academia is not some panacea free of human politics to sort out human societies, as you seem to think. People don't tend to study certain research fields unless they have a particular vested interest/political view to begin with. Here are just a few ideas/models which have largely come out of 'consensus' fields within academia (going back thousands of years in some cases), or more specifically, from 'radical intellectualism' (typically socialist) within academia: -Communism (socialist-determinist economics) (see books by Richard Pipes) -Eugenics (socialist-determinist race, biology) -Astrology (socialist-determinist astronomy) -AGW? (socialist-determinist climate and energy). The last is debatable. But skeptics don't care a less about the latest 'opinion poll' amongst researchers, any more than a political party's internal review of 'commitment to the party', or some self-appoined dictator's rigged election result.
        Response: "Why would anyone want to study climate change for long peiods if you don't believe humans have anything to do with it?" The same reason I got into astrophysics and it had nothing to do with vested interests or political views. The same reason any scientist gets into science. The love of knowledge. Curiosity. The challenge of furthering our understanding of how the universe works.
127510. Former Skeptic at 01:10 AM on 4 September 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        @Mizimi: Your question has been answered recently. Economic activity and influence of the anthro heat flux on the surface T record was hugely overstated by two papers (de Laat and Maurellis, 2006; McKitrick and Michaels, 2007). Please see this paper showing that such a relation between economic activity and surface temp is spurious.
127511. NewYorkJ at 07:44 AM on 3 September 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        Correction to #10: "leaves well over 100 good quality stations just in the United States" I was basing that off the percentage and 1,221 total stations, when the analysis was conducted on only the stations classified at the time. One could extrapolate and say it will probably be around 100 when the analysis is complete.
127512. NewYorkJ at 07:38 AM on 3 September 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        The NOAA analysis is quite good and the results not at all surprising. It's been estimated that less than 100 reasonably placed reliable stations are needed in each hemisphere to obtain an accurate trend. So if we make the big assumption that the Surface Stations team of volunteers have accurately assessed the quality of weather stations, and that all stations not meeting this standard are useless, that still leaves well over 100 good quality stations just in the United States, an area that makes up less than 4% of the northern hemisphere. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1802800 "...created by meteorologist Anthony Watts" Well - broadcast meteorologist to be more precise, and one with no academic degree in a science field.
127513. Mizimi at 20:18 PM on 2 September 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        #7: The urban bias will not be a constant over long periods of time simply because urban areas grow and decay over decades..just look at the development of any reasonably medium/large connurbation. And the magnitude of that bias will relate to the economic activity of that area. With the current global recession I would expect a diminution in urban bias. If you can gain access to the data, your local power generators' mean power output will give a guide. If a comparison is made between rural sites and urban sites any trend should be apparent in both records even if the 'actual' numbers are different.
127514. Ex Scientia Vera at 09:00 AM on 2 September 2009
        There is no consensus
        Wow, Quietman, you actually agree with this drivel spouted by Bruce in 137 and 138? I was enjoying reading your posts, but Bruce is just spouting random bits of exaggerated BS full of spelling errors, ad hominems, straw men and insults all of which are completely devoid of facts and none of which are referenced for our edification (dang that pesky need to support your statements on a science oriented forum!). I suppose I would personally be more reluctant to acknowledge and agree with bumbling ignorance, even if it did indirectly support my position. Bruce, your words make my blood boil. I read nearly every post of Quietman (and the extent of the ongoing discussion) with thoughtful speculation and an open mind. Your rant, however, does a great disservice to the spirit of intelligent discussion and has no place in this forum. There seems to be a big hullabaloo about the semantics of “consensus;” clearly a poor word choice. Of course everyone will be all over me on this, but, it appears that it is a word used to categorize the empirical findings of climate related research. As such, theoretically a paper is critically examined and peer reviewed, then receives the somewhat nebulous classification of “for” (supporting/confirming etc.) or “against” (fail to support/reject alt hypoth/accept null/disconfirm) the argument that the earth is warming and human CO2 emissions are to blame (AGW/ACC). So, for the sake of clarifying semantics, the IPCC has created two piles and thus far (according to their review) the “consensus” or majority of papers demonstrate support for AGW as an alternative hypothesis to…whatever the null may be. I suppose the big sticking point in the use of consensus, as Tiranse [152] points out, is that it is a political/social construct. Thus, we often introduce the scientists as the targets of the discussion, and whether or not such individuals or their respective organizations support AGW theory, as opposed to the papers themselves and the merit of the evidence and methodological rigor contained therein. This then leads to counting exercises and comparing our respective clans of scientists as opposed to the collection of evidence that is available. Please don’t hate the messenger.
127515. Steve L at 06:39 AM on 2 September 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        Irrelevant, but black tar roofs tend to dry and turn grayer over time. Maybe that would tend to cool a microsite until the roof was resurfaced. All the greatest increases or apparent increases in land temperatures seem to be far away from urban development (the far north, alpine glaciers), so it seems pretty strange to think that microsite stuff counters mainstream claims regarding AGW.
127516. Former Skeptic at 02:45 AM on 1 September 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        @thingadonta I think you are confused between *diurnal* trends vs. *annual* trends. Of course there will be a bias - especially at night - from the UHI over when you examine daily or even seasonal data. But whatever urban bias in T trends will be constant when you compare T at annual scales. Unless you are saying that, e.g., 40 WM-2 near-surface flux from micro-scale concrete or anthropogenic sources in, say, 2000/1/2 will differ significantly from 2006/7/8? If it did, then the T comparison data above would be significantly different...but it isn't. Or have I misread this? I'd reckon so. If I were you, I'd also read David Parker's 2004 Nature paper and his 2006 Journal of Climate paper on why global-scale warming is not due to the UHI effect. Also, check out Pete Sinclair's YouTube video on Anthony Watts to show why surfacestations.org is flawed. PS: The best data for surface temp trends are ocean T data (or, if you are Pielke, ocean heat content)...and both, like the surface T data, show substantial rises in magnitude over the past 30 years. But that's another story, eh?
127517. Craig Allen at 01:49 AM on 1 September 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        During the heat wave that gave rise to the fires in Victoria (Australia) last Antipodean summer Tamino did an analysis of Melbourne temperatures showing that they had risen over the last century. Someone raised the heat island effect. I looked up the list of Bureau of meteorology high quality reference stations and suggested he analyse data from 5 rural Victorian stations, including two on headlands overlooking Bass Straight and the Southern Ocean. The Tamino's plots of data from those stations are here ... the trend at each is decidedly up, other than one inland site where night-time temperatures (but not day time) have dropped (probably due to reduced cloud cover). I'm a bit perplexed as to why a version of the the US temperature data is not produced and widely disseminated that is based solely on such high quality sites from places where urban heat island effects are likely to be minimal, and which does not include any corrections with reference to data from lesser quality sites at all. It's about time the whole debate is definitively put to rest. (Not that I think there is any kind or quality of data that will ever mollify Watts' hard core followers.)
127518. thingadonta at 21:10 PM on 31 August 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        re 2: "If a given station was installed on a black tar roof and remains on that black tar roof, the roof's contribution of heat will be constant across decades, and so will contribute zero bias to the change in temperature across decades". This statement is incorrect, and shows a misunderstanding of the differences in thermal inertia between different surfaces during temperature variation. This is also why eg the land heats faster than the ocean during rising temperatures(differences in thermal inertia); the relative difference/'contribution' also increases during rising temperatures/radiation. The same goes for black tar/concreted areas and eg vegetated areas-the black tar/concreted areas will rise in temperature faster during rising temperatures than in vegetated areas. The roofs "contribution of heat" will NOT be constant over the decades, IF the temperature is naturally rising/falling. Moreover, any site in an urban area not only has the surrounding urban heat island effect to deal with over time, (increase in levels of urban infrastructure/ concrete, reduction in natural soil cover, reduction in subsurface moisture, reduction in vegetation, increase in population, increase in car vehicles, increase in roads, etc etc), but it will also be subject to natural temperature trends, which, if the temperature is rising, will also produce an enhanced temperature effect-ie in other words, during a period of natural warming, the urban heat effect will itself be enhanced, particularly in an urban area which is itself expanding/developing. The best sites for measuring surface temperature trends are those within non-changing levels of vegetation, non-changes in rainfall, non-changes in agricultural practises (including irrigation), and stable soil moisture. These are relatively few. All others will show a pronounced surface heat bias during rising natural temperatures, together with any expanding urbanisation, changes in agricultural practices, and/or changes in infrastructure. As for John Cooks response to comment 1 above, it appears to be seriously flawed. If 1 set of data given in the discussion is actually corrected data (ie 'all stations'), and the other is just 'less corrected' (ie 'good' stations), it is a meaningless comparison. The 'good' stations are STILL not that good, and with the dodgy stations corrected to coincide with them in any case (a process known essentially as 'massaging'), the graphs and comparisons above are completely meaningless. Or have I misread this? There are lies, damned lies, and urban temperature stations in developing urban areas within a natural warming trend. re:4 note there are stations which show temperature drops.
127519. dorlomin at 19:16 PM on 31 August 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        Has Watts ever found any station thats positioning under reports the temperature or is it all over reporting?
        Response: I don't know about Watts but one paper (Hansen 2001) compared urban long term trends to nearby rural trends and found 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (eg - a park within the city). More here...
127520. Tom Dayton at 15:50 PM on 31 August 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        Sorry, I should have written that the combined class 1 and 2 dataset is "nearly" uncontaminated by the "lower quality" stations. The data are adjusted not by simply smudging together the "good" with "bad" stations. Instead, a number of distinct types of corrections are made, based on completely sensible rationales having nothing to do with global warming. See The USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Dataset.
127521. Tom Dayton at 15:18 PM on 31 August 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        Re: pico at 13:02 PM on 31 August, 2009 No, Watts's reasoning is not sound. The combined class 1 and 2 dataset is uncontaminated by the "lower quality" stations. The tiny proportion of those "good quality" stations in the all-stations dataset should make them incapable of compensating for Watts's assumed horrible "quality" of the class 3, 4, and 5 stations. The near identical anomalies of the two datasets make perfect sense if whatever microsite effects on temperature anomaly are inconsequential. It's important to keep in mind that the anomaly is what's important for global warming. If a given station was installed on a black tar roof and remains on that black tar roof, the roof's contribution of heat will be constant across decades, and so will contribute zero bias to the change in temperature across decades.
127522. Craig Allen at 13:02 PM on 31 August 2009
        Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
        Watts has argued that these are both plots of the data after it has been corrected. He argues that because the correction algorithm shifts data from dodgy stations to better match that from good stations and visa versa, it is unsurprising that there is a good match between the two lines. Is his reasoning sound? What would you get if you compared these two plots to a plot of only uncorrected data from the good stations?
        Response: There's no vica versa. The good stations undergo very little adjustments because, well, they're good stations. For more info on adjustments made to weather station data due to microsite influences, see Examination of Potential Biases in Air Temperature Caused by Poor Station Locations (Peterson 2006).
127523. Null Hypothesis at 14:03 PM on 26 August 2009
        CO2 lags temperature
        MattJ: It is my understanding that in the distant past when CO2 was much more concentrated than today, the sun was also significantly dimmer. It is getting hotter and bigger all the time and in a billion years or so it will swallow the Earth. The thing with climate change now is that it is so rapid and because we've fragmented all the Earth's ecosystems they can't "move" to adapt.
127524. Quietman at 07:13 AM on 19 August 2009
        We're heading into an ice age
        SAME THREADS: "Are Sunspots Different" http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO300001.pdf "LONGER TERM SOLAR MINIMUM" http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SOLAR_MINIMUM.pdf
127525. Quietman at 07:09 AM on 19 August 2009
        We're heading into an ice age
        John "We're heading into a new Little Ice Age" equals "It's the Sun". No different, same thread.
127526. Patrick 027 at 04:51 AM on 19 August 2009
        It's the sun
        Gord - For the first time ever, you have truly found a real and significant mistake. I did temporarily forget the factor of 4 for the Earth's surface area divided by it's cross section, which of course has a square root of 2. Your equation was correct and mine was erroneous. It is TE = TS ( ( (1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D)) ) )^0.5) But everything else you say is just stupid, at best. As usual. I should pity you.
127527. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:38 PM on 18 August 2009
        The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century
        I recommend this figure also in English http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/Jan%20Pompe_co2%20and%20temp2.gif
127528. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:44 PM on 18 August 2009
        The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century
        "However, for the last 35 years, the dominant forcing has been CO2." Really? This figure http://doskonaleszare.blox.pl/resource/emisje2.png, in the polish alarmist blog, shows an increase of CO2 (by atmosphere exactly) in the years in ppm per year (rocznie = year) - the red curve; and anthropogenic emissions - a black curve (source: CDIAC). Compare the red curve, for example, the figure: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/10_years_no_cooling.jpg. Interesting, is not it? CO2 decide about the temperature... whether is rather the opposite? Solar activity by Oceanic Warm Index - ocean heat capacity - 35 - "40 year lag periods"; by temperature... - the discussion shows that it is possible. "the negative aerosolic forcing has increased since the 1950’s" In central Asia "negative aerosolic forcing" increased since the 1950’s, even though the temperature are also increased... "TSI variation are very small." - Temperature also. 0,74 - UHI (rather not city but country - f.e. Japan; or continental UHI - Europe) or NBL, etc..., ... and temperature increasing becomes very small. Solar energy is redistributed in a number of cycles of even 1500-year..., after the completion of this remember about thermocline...
127529. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:49 PM on 18 August 2009
        The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century
        "However, for the last 35 years, the dominant forcing has been CO2." Really? This figure http://doskonaleszare.blox.pl/resource/emisje2.png, in the polish alarmist blog, shows an increase of CO2 (by atmosphere exactly) in the years in ppm per year (rocznie = year) - the red curve; and anthropogenic emissions - a black curve (source: CDIAC). Compare the red curve, for example, the figure: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/10_years_no_cooling.jpg. Interesting, is not it? CO2 decide about the temperature... whether is rather the opposite? Solar activity by Oceanic Warm Index - ocean heat capacity - 35 - "40 year lag periods"; by temperature... - the discussion shows that it is possible. "the negative aerosolic forcing has increased since the 1950’s" In central Asia "negative aerosolic forcing" increased since the 1950’s, even though the temperature are also increased... "TSI variation are very small." - Temperature also. 0,74 - UHI (rather not city but country - f.e. Japan; or continental UHI - Europe) or NBL, etc..., ... and temperature increasing becomes very small. Solar energy is redistributed in a number of cycles of even 1500-year..., after the completion of this remember about thermocline...
127530. Surn at 20:31 PM on 18 August 2009
        Other planets are warming
        Recent solar activity also contributes to Solar System Warming. The electromagnetic storms on the sun which cause solar flares also convert high wavelength energy into low wavelength energy. Lower wavelengths travel further and are able to better penetrate atmosphere and other barriers. This is why both solar activity and solar intensity matter.
127531. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:54 PM on 18 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        Maybe here: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/06/solar-signal-in-east-equatorial-pacific.html,is the explanation, that - "At some point you have to take the science and its evidence into account" dear Chris, ok; particularly: http://i26.tinypic.com/30iylfk.jpg. If now the red curve on this figure http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif by around move 40, 45 years, ahead... "most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 +/- 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980" - And that's the whole truth? and so on ?
127532. Quietman at 15:03 PM on 18 August 2009
        It's the sun
        "LONGER TERM SOLAR MINIMUM" http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SOLAR_MINIMUM.pdf
        Response: This topic is covered in We're heading into an ice age.
127533. Patrick 027 at 14:06 PM on 18 August 2009
        It's the sun
        As stupid as ever, Gord. Way to be consistent! ""In the absence of the greenhouse effect and an atmosphere, the Earth's average surface temperature of 14 deg C (57 deg F) could be as low as -18 deg C (-0.4 deg F), the black body temperature of the Earth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect" That's what wikipedia says, then. It's not what I say. It's not what scientists say so long as they proofread well. It should be, 'In the absence of the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface temperature would be about -18 deg C.' I've told you this before. Did it ever occur to you that some of your sources might have rounded the sun's effective temperature (effective as in the temperature that an isothermal blackbody would have that emits the same radiant flux - actual photosphere not being isothermal through it's visible depth, etc.)? Observations: The Earth reflects about 30 % of the solar radiation it intercepts. Observations: The Earth emits to space less than is emitted from the surface, and the total emission to space is that which a blackbody (of the same size and shape) would emit if at about 255 K. Specifically, the emission to space is particularly reduced in places with high cold cloud tops, and in various intervals of wavelengths where H2O, CO2, and various other gases contribute opacity to the air - a spectral pattern not at found in the optical properties of the surface. (I've told you this before.) The Sun is the only energy source in an intermediate sense. Ultimately, the sun is not a source - the energy came from matter that came from energy+matter at some previous time. More proximately, there is energy in the climate system and the climate system can gain and lose energy, and energy can be redistributed within it. (I'VE TOLD YOU THIS BEFORE.) Your equation has a minor error: TE = TS ( ( (1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D) ) )^0.5) should be TE = TS ( ( (1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/D) ) )^0.5) (Mizimi - other than that, his formula is the correct one (a broken clock is correct twice a day (unless it has AM/PM - with digital, 'all bets are off')) - it would look more intuitive if written this way: TE = TS * [ (1-a)^0.5 * (Rs/D) ]^0.5 or TE = TS * (1-a)^(1/4) * (Rs/D)^(1/2) derived from TE^4 = TS^4 * (1-a) * (Rs/D)^2 and while I figured out what you mean by TE*1E4, that would appear confusing to many people; 1E4 could be interpeted as 1 * 10^4, so that it appears that you just multiplied TE by a constant of 10,000.)
127534. Mizimi at 19:01 PM on 15 August 2009
        Is Antarctic ice melting or growing?
        Patrick: there is no equilibrium, the river level rises and falls continuously in response to the amount of water that enters the river, which is modified by a lot of other factors. If you plotted the river level over a period of time you would get a line that wanders up and down. It is only because it is useful for our mathematical purposes that we lump all those variations into an 'annual mean variation'
127535. thingadonta at 11:11 AM on 15 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        59, 61, 62. Chris and New York J Rather than arguing about Hansen looking properly at the solar acivity (which I don't beleive he did), I'm still not convinced that a theoretical long heat lag from the sun can't have caused the heating in both oceans and land from the 1950s-2000s, (iE I am not convinced of the various low calculated solar forcings). Here is another typical example. I had a look at 'tipping points' mentioned in the media from Australian scientists recently and the dire warnings from further warming. (ie warming creates more warming). But you could just as well apply this argument retrospectively. If the sun peaked in the ~1950s, tipping points from this heat could also hve been reached abou this tme, eg slow release of methane from arctic, less clouds over the decades as the air warms/warmed, especially over temperate zones, and so on. In other words, why can't late 20th century heating, be explained by tipping points which have ALREADY occurred from the peak in the sun, (which is using the alarmists OWN argument retrospecively-just to be consistent). I have never heard the argument of tipping points discussed retrospectively, but according to he alarmists, they should have already occurred from the heating from the sun to the mid 20th century. Why then do the alarmists use tipping points with greenhouse gases, but never the same as applied to the sun??? (I note that the changes in solar activity TSI etc do not seem to be enough, on their own, to cause the earth T to rise 1 C, but this is the whole issue of forcings and tipping points, so beloved by the AGWs). Also I am convinced of the medieval warm period, which means the sun's small changes must be significantly magnified by the climate etc).
127536. thingadonta at 10:41 AM on 15 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        Sorry about the repeated posts, I'm having PC issues, and the refresh is faulty.
127537. Mizimi at 04:55 AM on 15 August 2009
        A broader view of sea level rise
        Daily Telegraph reporting on Dr Morner's book "The greatest Lie ever told" "One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend". When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
        Response: The most complimentary thing I can say about Morner's statements are they are baffling. Sea level rise is measured by tide level gauges all across the globe completely independently of satellite measurements, as explained in this very post. As for his comment about being the only sea level specialist, I've corresponded with at least one of the authors John Church who has published many papers on sea levels. I can only imagine Morner's opinion of himself is so high, he considers all other scientists amateurs compared to himself.
127538. thingadonta at 22:28 PM on 14 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        re 50: You shouldn't automatically dismiss something you dont immediately understand. You have also misrepresented what I said. This issue was discussed in the previous post (climate time lag). You are right, we are getting off the topic. But I mention the issue of ocean heat and long term T changes in relation to the McLean et al 2009 paper, becuase the arguments used here against Mclean 2009 refer to long term T trends. I didn't say that he said 'the sun had nothing to do with it', he merely failed to address, in any way, long term (and short term) solar changes in his 2005 paper. Hansens 2005 paper failed to address the increase in solar output from ~1750-1950 with solar heat lag effects on measured increases in ocean heat content between 1955-1998. His argument concerning an inferred climate disequilibrium, which derives from his inferred heat imbalance, could both be entirely wrong, as for one thing he did not model or factor, in any way, solar activity 1750-1950s+ with regards to the increase in ocean heat content 1955-1998 and his subsequent inferred 'imbalance'. Oceans are known to exhibit long time lags. How he failed to factor the suns effects over this time baffles me. Hansen 2005, in making the 2nd major inference about climate 'disequilibrium', solely uses greenhouse gas modelling, and there is no mention or address of solar effects in either his paper, or his press release, on this second inferance. He also has failed in his predictions of T since that time (a 3rd inference!-note the self- perpetuating style: inferance on inference on inference =a gross exageration, which the greens and some academics love), which were based on these 2 inferences in his 2005 paper. Doesn't say much for the value of the paper does it? As for Mclean et al 2009 and back to reality, he simply says that short term variability is driven by natural internal factors; as far as I can see, there is no '3 inferances strike and your out' here (unlike Hansen 2005).
127539. thingadonta at 22:27 PM on 14 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        re 50: You shouldn't automatically dismiss something you dont immediately understand. You have also misrepresented what I said. This issue was discussed in the previous post (climate time lag). You are right, we are getting off the topic. But I mention the issue of ocean heat and long term T changes in relation to the McLean et al 2009 paper, becuase the arguments used here against Mclean 2009 refer to long term T trends. I didn't say that he said 'the sun had nothing to do with it', he merely failed to address, in any way, long term (and short term) solar changes in his 2005 paper. Hansens 2005 paper failed to address the increase in solar output from ~1750-1950 with solar heat lag effects on measured increases in ocean heat content between 1955-1998. His argument concerning an inferred climate disequilibrium, which derives from his inferred heat imbalance, could both be entirely wrong, as for one thing he did not model or factor, in any way, solar activity 1750-1950s+ with regards to the increase in ocean heat content 1955-1998 and his subsequent inferred 'imbalance'. Oceans are known to exhibit long time lags. How he failed to factor the suns effects over this time baffles me. Hansen 2005, in making the 2nd major inference about climate 'disequilibrium', solely uses greenhouse gas modelling, and there is no mention or address of solar effects in either his paper, or his press release, on this second inferance. He also has failed in his predictions of T since that time (a 3rd inference!-note the self- perpetuating style: inferance on inference on inference =a gross exageration, which the greens and some academics love), which were based on these 2 inferences in his 2005 paper. Doesn't say much for the value of the paper does it? As for Mclean et al 2009 and back to reality, he simply says that short term variability is driven by natural internal factors; as far as I can see, there is no '3 inferances strike and your out' here (unlike Hansen 2005).
127540. thingadonta at 14:40 PM on 14 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        re 50 You shouldn't automatically dismiss something you dont immediately understand. You have also misrepresented what I said. This issue was discussed in the previous post (climate time lag). Hansens 2005 paper completely failed to address the increase in solar output from 1750-1950 with solar heat lag efects on measured ocean heat content between 1955-1998. His argument concerning an inferred climate disequilibrium, which derives from his inferred heat imbalance, could be entirely wrong, as for one thing he did not model solar activity 1750-1950s+ with regards to the increase in ocean heat content 1955-1998. Oceans are known to exhibit long time lags. Hansen 2005, in making his inference about climate disequilibrium, completely failed to address the effects of changes in solar activity 1750-1950 on hte oceans. He solely uses greenhouse gas modelling to make this inferance of climate disequilibrium, and there is no mention or address of solar effects in either his paper, or his press release. I didn't say that he said 'the sun had nothing to do with it', he merely completely failed to address long term (and short term) solar changes in his 2005 paper. He also has completely failed in his predictions of T since that time, which were based on the inferences in his 2005 paper. This doesn't directly relate to the PDO, ENSO and McLean 2009 other than the oceans heat changes being important in both short term and long term T trends. The cause of their long term heating, and recent T flattening (not predicted by Hansens 2005 paper) is another matter.
127541. Robbo the Yobbo at 09:09 AM on 14 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        I apologise for name calling - I regretted it instantly. Frustration at a discussion that has no solid ground and goes nowhere. ‘The estimated direct radiative forcing due to changes in the solar output since 1750 is +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.3] W m–2, which is less than half of the estimate given in the TAR, with a low level of scientific understanding.’ 4AR However, I wasn’t being ironic at all. A misplaced confidence in selective bits of ‘the science’ without a critical analysis of the sources, error bounds and methods of data manipulations – as well as patience for the normal modes of scientific discourse to take their course - leads to dogmatism rather than scientific objectivity. This is especially the case with models. These are sometimes called experiments – but are more in the nature of thought experiments that are, inherently, not falsifiable with our current understandings. The models are numerical embodiments of the theories of their proponents. They are emphatically not empirical science at this stage but merely hypothesis. It is important to understand the distinction. The direct observations of the TSI during the past 20 years have produced an enormous advance in the understanding of its variability. However, these results open new questions, and some of them are addressed below. For instance, Willson (1997), Willson and Mordvinov (2003) in his composite series found a secular upward trend of 0.05% per decade between the consecutive solar cycles 22 and 23, while Frohlich and Lean (1998) and Frohlich (2000) in their composite series do not see such change. These results are proposing either an increasing, or a constant radiative output of the quite Sun. The F&L paper uses a disputed Nimbus 7 adjustment that is disputed. SCAFETTA’S RESPONSE TO LOCKWOOD AND FROLICH ‘Lockwood and Frolich are using the PMOD TSI composite (prepared by Frolich himself) to deduce their conclusions. By using ACRIM TSI composite (prepared by Willson) the result would be quite different. Lockwood and Frolich just ʺassumeʺ that ACRIM is wrong and PMOD is right, and do not care to repeat their calculation with the ACRIM TSI composite.’ Apart from the methodological issues – I have always wondered about the essential premise – that global temps have continued to increase after the solar downturn in the 1990’s. I may be wrong but – if you look at any monthly record – global temp seems to have peaked in 1998. Something that is entirely consistent with the cosmogenic isotope correlation and with a 10 year relaxation period. I will not go into the ongoing dialogue with Benastad and Scafetta on methodologies. The reference to Svensmark is odd - because it shows CRF peaking in the early 1990's - and they 'rebut their (F&L) argument comprehensively.' Solanki estimates based on his ‘physics-based reconstruction of TSI back to the Maunder Minimum suggests an increase of about 0.80 W/m2 since 1700, with the lower limit being about 0.60 W/m2. This value is much lower than in previous works that may have important implications on Sun-climate relations.’ Did solar activity peak in the 1950’s – certainly SSN peaked around 1960 – fantastic – a relaxation period of 10 years implies a climate lag during ocean heating of 50 to 100 years as Thingadonta keeps telling you. Total solar irradiance and climate Blanca Mendoza Advances in Space Research 35 (2005) 882–890 ‘The secular reconstructed TSI variations can account for a considerable part of the temperature variations of the Earth in the pre-industrial era. But even for those times the temperature changes are not fully reconstructed from TSI. Which means that other sources of solar activity as well as internal natural causes were contributing to the Earth’s temperature variability.’ During the 20th century TSI produces less than half of the observed temperature changes, confirming suggestions that for this century besides natural causes, man-made activities are contributing to the Earth’s temperature variability, particularly the latter’ Mendoza seems to bring us full circle – to the idea that other – unspecified - factors are responsible for climate variation pre industrial revolution - leaving open the possibility of GCR modulation. But also to very logical connection of greenhouse gases to temp increases between 1976 and 1998. This very logical connection lacks a key understanding, however, involving the decadal changes in World Ocean States. These changes explain, as the sulphur dioxide meme cannot, the decline in global temperature between the mid 1940’s to the mid 1970’s, a part of the increase from the mid 1970’s to the late 1990’s. It most especially provides the beginnings of an explanation for the lack of recent ocean and atmospheric warming. Unless you read some of this literature and try to puzzle through it – and in the light of Swanson and Tsonis for instance – you cannot understand a fundamental aspect of Earth climate. I have referenced these before – but they are worth spending some time on. Interdecadal variability and climate change in the eastern tropical Pacific: A review Alberto M. Mestas-Nun˜ez a,*, Arthur J. Miller b Progress in Oceanography 69 (2006) 267–284 The Significance of the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift in the Climatology of Alaska BRIAN HARTMANN AND GERD WENDLER JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME 18 p4824 Indeed Lohmann et al suggest amplification of the solar variations by varying convection patterns over multi-decadal periods. 'We detect the Schwabe, Hale, and Gleissberg cycles in the solar irradiance forcing. It is found that the patterns of SST associated with these cycles are similar when considering different time scales. For all time scales considered, the SST maps over the Pacific area are consistent with a poleward shift of the subtropical jet and a horizontal expansion, but weakening of the Hadley cell consistent with modelling studies (Haigh, 1999). The first EOF for multi-decadal time scales largely resembles the solar fingerprint. The principal component of the first EOF (Figure 4c) suggests that the warming trends since the 1970s and prior to 1940 are in accord with the Gleissberg cycle (Hoyt and Schatten, 1997). The correlation maps suggest that the multi-decadal variability associated with solar irradiance is not confined to the Northern Hemisphere, with modelling studies raising possible links with the tropical Pacific Ocean (Shindell et al., 2001a,b). Even a weak increase of SST due to direct solar forcing may enhance convection. Consequently, the Walker circulation is increased and the associated surface westward anomalous wind may be responsible for the negative SST. An increased Walker cell would be consistent with the out-of-phase relation between the Walker and Hadley cells (Wang and Weisberg, 1998).' CLIMATE SIGNATURE OF SOLAR IRRADIANCE VARIATIONS: ANALYSIS OF LONG-TERM INSTRUMENTAL, HISTORICAL, AND PROXY DATA GERRIT LOHMANN,* NOREL RIMBU and MIHAI DIMA There is an apparent link of the mulit-decadal cycles with clouds. Whether this is as internal climate dynamics or GCR moulation in one or other of the solar varibility cyle is an intersting question
127542. chris at 05:12 AM on 14 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        oh dear Robbo.. swearing, arch attempts at "irony" and ad hominem - that's not very convincing. Apart from that I don't understand your angst. The situation concerning solar outputs have clarified even in the few years since the "cut-off" for consideration of data for the latest IPCC reports. There has been no significant secular trend in the solar outputs since the mid 20th century, and analysis of all of the solar outputs (the open solar flux; the international sunspot number; the cosmic ray flux; the total solar irradiance) indicates that the solar outputs have been in a cooling direction since around the mid-1980's [*]. That's simply what a direct inspection of the sun shows. I don't see any point in pretending that that's not what the evidence shows. Even the group that might seem to have most interest in displaying solar contributions (Svensmark) has made an analysis of the CRF variation since the late 1950's and has shown that this has been flat (tending if anything in a cooling direction since that time (last 50 years): http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf In addition to the TSI reconstructions of Lean and Solanki in my post above, each of which come to the same conclusion about the solar contribution (around 0.2 oC of warming contribution since the Maunder Minimum with at least half of this before the start of thre 20th century and effectively no solar contribution to the very marked warming of the last 40 years, both the groups of Foukal [**] and Benestad [***] indicate only a small solar contribution to 20th century warming (perhaps 10%, essentially all of this pre-1950). At some point you have to take the science and its evidence into account Robbo. All the solar scientists come up with a very small 20th century solar contribution from whatever direction they approach this. Calling someone an "idiot" because they point out the relevant science is not going to make the sun shine any hotter! [*] Lockwood M and Frohlich C (2007) Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature Proc. Royal Society A-Mathematical Physical And Engineering Sciences 463, 2447-2460

        Abstract: There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

        [**] P. Foukal, G. North, Tom Wigley (2004) A Stellar View on Solar Variations and Climate. Science 306, 68-69. [***]Benestad RE and Schmidt GA (2009) Solar trends and global warming J. Geophys. Res. 114 Article Number: D14101

        Abstract: We use a suite of global climate model simulations for the 20th century to assess the contribution of solar forcing to the past trends in the global mean temperature. In particular, we examine how robust different published methodologies are at detecting and attributing solar-related climate change in the presence of intrinsic climate variability and multiple forcings. We demonstrate that naive application of linear analytical methods such as regression gives nonrobust results. We also demonstrate that the methodologies used by Scafetta and West (2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2008) are not robust to these same factors and that their error bars are significantly larger than reported. Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 +/- 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.

        and so on…
        Response: I've added Benestad 2009 to the list of peer reviewed papers on It's the Sun. Thanks for the heads up.
127543. Mizimi at 05:05 AM on 14 August 2009
        Antarctica is gaining ice
        Also remember as ice area increases so does the albedo, reducing SI locally. In addition land ice will decline as sea ice increases (WV has further to travel to reach central regions).
127544. Mizimi at 04:32 AM on 14 August 2009
        It's the sun
        not sure I agree with your math Gord. TE*1E4 = (C/(4*SB*(1-GHG))*(1-A) where TE = temp earth C is solar constant SB is stefan Bolz. constant GHG is the greenhouse effect A is albedo If we assume no GHG effect and assume solar constant is 1366w/m2 ( as measured) and albedo of 0.3 then resolving the equation gives: TE*1E4 = (1366/4*5.67*1E-8)*0.7 which results in TE = 254abs. And no, the sun is presently not the only energy source. It may be the largest ( even by a long way) but the earth has internal heat (vulcanism) frictional heat from gravity ( earth moon barycentre is inside the earth) heat from burning FF's, heat from radioactive decay - to name but a few.
127545. Robbo the Yobbo at 02:51 AM on 14 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        The IPCC assesses the level of scientific understanding of solar irradiance changes as low. Chris can obviously improve on that with such confidence. How the hell could solar irradiance peak in 1950 if it was increasing from the beginning of satellitte observations in the late 1970's - by 0,05%/decade - 0.8 W/m2 minima to minima. Solar irradiance changes are the cause of 25 to 50% of temp changes from the LIA. You calculate that yourself - albeit at the lower end of the estimates. Calculating TSI change from sunspot numbers? Gee that must be accurate. Idiot.
        Response: Play nice, children. I would suggest you read some of the work of Sami Solanki (eg - Usoskin 2005, Solanki 2004, Solanki 2003 and much much more...), one of the world's leading solar researchers, who has done much work modelling solar activity and constraining the results with proxies like sunspot numbers. I would also suggest an overview of the data on the long term solar trend.
127546. chris at 20:23 PM on 13 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        Your assertions simply don’t accord with the facts thingadonta. It’s a continual reassertion, over and over, of things that are simply not true. Hansens’ analysis of attributions to 20th century warming include all of the known contributions based on the individually parameterized estimates from the relevant scientists working on the particular area (solar scientists, or scientists that study aerosol contributions and so on). The contributions modelled in the analysis of Hansen and his collaborators are solar, greenhouse gases, natural and anthropogenic aerosols, land use changes, black carbon, ozone, stratospheric ozone… Since these are described explicitly, it doesn’t make sense to continually deny what is right there on the page: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf you can look at the specific attribution of parameterizations in mind-numbing detail in the papers describing the attributions; e.g.: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_2.pdf Since Hansen is not a solar scientist, it makes sense for him and his colleagues to parameterize solar contributions based on the best estimates of solar contributions determined by solar scientists. These data are determined by Lean and colleagues, by Solanki and his group, by Foukal, by Lockwood and their colleagues and so on. These analysis demonstrate that the solar contributions to 20th century warming are small. The entire solar contribution since the depths of the Maunder minimum are likely no more than 0.2 oC. The solar contribution to 20th century warming is most likely less than 0.1 oC (pretty much all of it realized before that very marked onset of late 20th century warming) [*]. So there simply hasn’t been a strong solar contribution to 20th century warming. There was a small contribution in the first part of the century corresponding to something like 0.1 oC. The solar contribution since the early 1980’s has been a tad negative. Altogether the 20th century solar contribution has likely been below 0.1 oC. That’s simply what the science indicates thingadonta, and it would be foolish for Hansen not to use the best data in his parameterizations. I don't see any point in continually denying this! As for lags, we’ve been through this already. The maximum rate of response to a change in forcing occurs essentially immediately when there is the greatest difference between the pre-existing temperature and the new equilibrium temperature to which the earth’s surface will tend under the influence of the forcing. Since the solar output increased somewhat between 1900 and 1950 (it maxed around 1950), and the total contribution to surface warming at equilibrium from that change in forcing is no more than 0.1 oC, we expect that a good bit of this was achieved by 1950 (say 0.04 oC) and by the early 1970’s we’d likely had 0.06 oC of this. Any contribution to the warming of the last 30-odd years was simply insignificant. That's what the science indicates. There doesn't seem to be any good reason for denying the evidence. ---------------------------------------- [*]J. L. Lean and D. H. Rind (2008) “How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006″, Geophys. Res. Lett.35, L18701., who conclude their analysis with:

        “For the ninety years from 1906 to 1996, the average slope of the anthropogenic–related temperature change in Figure 3d is 0.045 K per decade whereas Allen et al. [2006] concluded that the rate is 0.03–0.05 K per decade for this same period. Solar-induced warming is almost an order of magnitude smaller."

        In other words around 0.05 oC solar contribution to warming during period 1906-1996. L. Balmaceda, N.A. Krivova and S.K. Solanki (2007) “Reconstruction of solar irradiance using the Group sunspot number” Advances in Space Research 40, 986-989

        Abstract: We present a reconstruction of total solar irradiance since 1610 to the present based on variations of the surface distribution of the solar magnetic field. The latter is calculated from the historical record of the Group sunspot number using a simple but consistent physical model. Our model successfully reproduces three independent data sets: total solar irradiance measurements available since 1978, total photospheric magnetic flux from 1974 and the open magnetic flux since 1868 (as empirically reconstructed from the geomagnetic aa-index). The model predicts an increase in the total solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum of about 1.3 Wm−2.

        1.3 W/m2 since the 17th century Maunder minimum is equivalent to a warming contribution of around 0.2 oC [1.3 * 0.25 (geometry)* 0.7 (albedo)* 0.8 (sensitivity)] over this entire period of which 0.1 oC or less is 20th century. And so on.
127547. Gord at 19:26 PM on 13 August 2009
        It's the sun
        More on the role of the SUN and the Greenhouse Effect ----------------------------------------------------- First, what the AGW'ers say: Greenhouse Effect "In the absence of the greenhouse effect and an atmosphere, the Earth's average surface temperature of 14 deg C (57 deg F) could be as low as -18 deg C (-0.4 deg F), the black body temperature of the Earth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect NOTE: THE ABOVE USES THE TERM "BLACK BODY". This calculation uses an albedo of 0.3. A "black body" actually has an albedo = 0, not 0.3 ! This calculation uses a Sun temp of 5505 deg C or 5778 deg K. TE = TS ( ( (1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D) ) )^0.5) Where TE is blackbody temp of the Earth in K TS is the surface temp of the SUN in K (5778 K) Rs is radius of the Sun (6.96 X 10^8 meters) D is distance between the Sun and Earth in meters (1.5 X 10^11) a is albedo of the Earth and is 0.3 for a NON-black body Result: TE = 254.90 Kelvin TE = -18.25 Celsius -------------------------------------------------------- Sun temp "The Sun's outer visible layer is called the photosphere and has a temperature of 6,000°C (11,000°F)." (6000 deg C = 6273 deg K) http://www.solarviews.com/eng/sun.htm TE = TS ( ( (1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D) ) )^0.5) Where TE is blackbody temp of the Earth in K TS is the surface temp of the SUN in K (6273 K) Rs is radius of the Sun (6.96 X 10^8 meters) D is distance between the Sun and Earth in meters (1.5 X 10^11) a is albedo of the Earth and is zero for a black body Result: TE = 302.55 Kelvin TE = 29.40 Celsius -------------------------------------------------------- Temperature on the Surface of the Sun There are five sources for the surface temp of the Sun (6000,5500,5700,6000 and 5600 deg C). The average is 5800 deg C or 6073 K. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/GlyniseFinney.shtml TE = TS ( ( (1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D) ) )^0.5) Where TE is blackbody temp of the Earth in K TS is the surface temp of the SUN in K (6073 K) Rs is radius of the Sun (6.96 X 10^8 meters) D is distance between the Sun and Earth in meters (1.5 X 10^11) a is albedo of the Earth and is zero for a black body Result: TE = 292.91 Kelvin TE = 19.76 Celsius -------------------------------------------------------- The calculations using a max Sun temp of 6273K and average Sun temp of 6073K, and correctly using an albedo = 0 for a Black Body completely falsifies the statement: "In the absence of the greenhouse effect and an atmosphere, the Earth's average surface temperature of 14 deg C (57 deg F) could be as low as -18 deg C (-0.4 deg F), the black body temperature of the Earth" In fact, the addition of an atmosphere actually LOWERED the "black body" Earth temp (29.4 deg C (max) or 19.76 deg C (average)) to +14 deg C. -------------------------------------------------------- Never, ever forget that the SUN is the ONLY ENERGY SOURCE. The Earth and the Atmosphere ARE NOT ENERGY SOURCES!
127548. NewYorkJ at 16:41 PM on 13 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        thingadonta (#62): "I didn't say that he said 'the sun had nothing to do with it'," thingadonta (#49): "which in turn was made from his inference about a 'heat imbalance', which in turn was made from his inference that the sun had nothing to do with it," thingadonta (#62): "he merely completely failed to address long term (and short term) solar changes in his 2005 paper." I have the paper right in front of me. A quote: "Solar irradiance is taken as increasing by 0.22 W/m2 between 1880 and 2003, with an estimated uncertainty of a factor of 2 (9)." from the abstract... "Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, AMONG OTHER FORCINGS, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 T 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This IMBALANCE is confirmed..." (CAPS are my emphasis) http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf One might also want to read the GISS 2008 surface temperature analysis. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ I encourage all skeptics seeking truth to avoid getting their views of the science from unreliable blogs (or at least take a long break from them), which often distort reality and create strawman arguments. This especially seems to be the case with regards to any work or quotes by Dr. Hansen. Instead, subscribe to a few scientific journals, spend a few weekends reading the IPCC report and references, and keep an open mind.
127549. NewYorkJ at 16:16 PM on 13 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        "This blog post was about the errors in McLean et al." I thought the topic of discussion was . This often becomes the case when their arguments are refuted. Spin the "Hottest Skeptic Arguments" wheel and try again...
127550. NewYorkJ at 16:10 PM on 13 August 2009
        Global warming and the El Niño Southern Oscillation
        Wow. I can't believe there's still someone clinging to McLean et al. after such a thorough debunking. Old habits die hard. Wattsupwiththat? thingadonta, Solar variation has been addressed on many occasions in the peer-reviewed science. The contribution in recent decades is negligible or that of cooling. The "long lag" assumption (Scafetta) doesn't hold water. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/solar-variability-statistics-vs-physics-2nd-round/ Recent study that exposes some of these assumptions: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011639.shtml Others: http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~kaas/forc&feedb2008/Articles/Lockwood&Froehlich2007.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full.pdf "He also has completely failed in his predictions of T since that time, which were based on the inferences in his 2005 paper." You're seriously attempting to evaluate climate predictions based on 3-4 years?

Prev  2543  2544  2545  2546  2547  2548  2549  2550  2551  2552  2553  2554  2555  2556  2557  2558  Next