All things Solar

[WeatherRusty]

Which scientific consensus are we speaking about ...

1. The flat earth consensus
2. The earth is the center of the universe consensus
3. There is no new frontiers in science consensus, we already know it all.
4. CO2 is the cause of global warming consensus
5. That plate tectonics is an absurd theory consensus (when it first came out, what a brouhaha)
6. etc, etc, etc

It is amazing to me the length to which ideas are held fast to the chest as if it were a religious thing without any critical eye being cast toward dissenting data. If you would open your eyes, you could see that there is much data not supported by your precious hypothesis. And yet, the expected emotional lashout inevitably occurs and always on schedule when faced with unexplainable data.

If you think the scientific consensus is wrong, then demonstrate so through the process of the scientific method which includes subjecting your evidence to the peer-review process. Until you or anyone does this, the current state of understanding holds.

You need convincing evidence to force scientist to re-evaluate the situation. I don't think you have any idea how strong the evidence is in support of decades long warming which is set to continue for many more decades no matter what we do.

[LakeEffectKing]

If you think the scientific consensus is wrong, then demonstrate so through the process of the scientific method which includes subjecting your evidence to the peer-review process. Until you or anyone does this, the current state of understanding holds.

You need convincing evidence to force scientist to re-evaluate the situation. I don't think you have any idea how strong the evidence is in support of decades long warming which is set to continue for many more decades no matter what we do.

How about the warmists do so first??? The null hypothesis has always been natural variability overwhelms our impact, at this point. Until YOUR position actually sets forth a TESTABLE hypothesis that passes many tests...then your overvalued (and overestimated) evidence only based consensus will continue to wither. Your confirmation bias is becoming more and more evident....don't fall too deep into it or there is no return without a major repair of humility.

[Sunny and Warm]

How about the warmists do so first??? The null hypothesis has always been natural variability overwhelms our impact, at this point. Until YOUR position actually sets forth a TESTABLE hypothesis that passes many tests...then your overvalued (and overestimated) evidence only based consensus will continue to wither. Your confirmation bias is becoming more and more evident....don't fall too deep into it or there is no return without a major repair of humility.

we're going to sew a red D on your sweaters to show everyone that you are a Denier. You'll be scorned and shamed for at least 30 minutes I should think.

[Mencken_Fan]

While using skeptic/denier terms repeatedly obviously makes you feel better and/or somehow superior, it reduces everything else you type to very small, unreadable print. That's the Law of Unintended Consequences. The fact that you use such terms while conducting a debate on an issue tells me that you are not really intent on debating at all, but simply trying to goad others into a frothy lather. Unlike others, you bring nothing to the table, and likely embarrass them by being on the "team".

What???

Rusty, an intelligent and rational poster, has contributed mightily to the climate section on this website.

And you?

You give the impression of being the typical "educated" fundie ("A" in spelling, "F" in critical thinking) who defends his ideological views with nicely written but content-less essays. While my impression may be wrong (it is after all only an impression) your style of writing has over the years become an internet meme; a fruitless one, for the only ones that buy it are the same people who are devoid of critical thinking in the first place.

[Sunny and Warm]

What???

Rusty, an intelligent and rational poster, has contributed mightily to the climate section on this website.

And you?

You give the impression of being the typical "educated" fundie ("A" in spelling, "F" in critical thinking) who defends his ideological views with nicely written but content-less essays. While my impression may be wrong (it is after all only an impression) your style of writing has over the years become an internet meme; a fruitless one, for the only ones that buy it are the same people who are devoid of critical thinking in the first place.

says the guy who got laughed off the tropical threads! At least I'm not being fitted for a white jacket. To be truthful, Rusty is a good poster for the most part. He should know though that when you start bashing the people who you are writing to, don't expect them to show respect in return, nor read what you say, nor change to your position. Use the KISS approach and keep it on message.

[BethesdaWX]

WeatherRusty...please read in entirety. A new peer reviewed paper was also released on this matter, I suggest you read it: http://www.mdpi.com/...-4292/3/8/1603/

It has to do with how quickly the climate system releases energy into space....climate model physics assume The Earth Accumulates Solar Energy until the Warming Peak...Satellite Observations indicate that the Earth Releases the Excess energy into space before the Warming peak...significantly before the warming peak (negative feedback). This not only explains the increase in OLR, but also warming unrelated to CO2 increase may be factored in. In this case, 1.6W/m^2 since 1850 is not nearly enough to explain a supposed 0.8C of warming.

My explanations are relatively simple because they represent what is happening at the most fundamental of levels.

No they don't...that is the problem. You're stuck on CO2, TSI, & Volcanism. You ignore Clouds, Ozone Depletion, and the Increase in OLR. You also Ignore the Obvious effect of the Sun on HLB & the Resulting Jet Stream Supression, Increase in Tropical LLCC, and extremely potent RF inflences of several W/m^2. You do this because it would render "AGW" nearly unmeasurable, if indeed it has been occuring, as has been measured by satellites.

Global warming is being driven by changes which fundamentally alter Earth's energy balance and the consequences are a direct reflection of the requirements of thermodynamics.

Exactly. CO2 has contributed 1.6W/m^2 RF increase since 1850. Clouds likely have decreased, Solar Destruction of Ozone has definitely occured. In this case, we could be talking about several W/m^2 of RF increase, 0.6W/m^2 per 1% change in LLGCC assuming an equal decrease at all lattitudes. If predominately in the Tropical regions as theorized, we're looking at >1W/m^2 per 1% change...so a measely 1.7% decrease in LLCC in the TLT applies more RF than CO2 has since 1850. And furthermore, with Low Solar Enacting on the Jet streams, and a southward supression, the overall Wx pattern changes may change LLCC in the TLT by >5% over an extended timespan, equating to near 5W/m^2 RF change. Again, this as well is significant occuring in the tropical regions, the primary heart of where we see changes in the Global Temperature (Take ENSO, for example).

These physics were measured by satellites, that I will post at your request.

You skeptics/deniers wish to present a case where the issue is so complex and convoluted that we have little chance of understanding it to the level of being able to make predictions with any confidence. You are wrong, plain and simple.

You are full of it, my friend. Last time I checked, Physics don't change based on political Ideology...what I have listed above is verifyable in a potential scenario, which in this case, AGW Hypothesis will remain as such, and relatively would contribute very little to the energy budget.

Add a factor (CO2) which concentrates energy near Earth's surface, and that surface must warm. Past climate change informs us that the system is plenty sensitive enough to slight perturbation to be of great concern to us.

1) Past climate change shows no such sensitivity to CO2 changes, the correlation to GCR's (Basically, cloud concentrations), is nearly perfect, while the Ordovician Ice age, holding the exact same isotope resolution, provides a 2000ppm CO2 concentration, while global temps plummet into Ice Age Conditions. As well being, the Previous Interglacual dropped 8C before CO2PPM even changed...you ignore this.

2) The Laws of Thermodynamics you hold so tightly actually disprove the CO2=Dominant Driver Theory Outright. The Sun was 30% dimmer...No matter the PPM of CO2 in the expected range demonstrated within the Isotopes, we'd freeze to death, unless something else was at work. A Powerful Solar Wind in this timeframe would suggest the Earth had relatively little low level cloud cover, and in this case Clouds do not have the logorithmic warming impact that CO2 does, So Easily we may be talking about 20-30W/m^2 in additional RF entering the climate system in the low levels. HLGCC, again, is less of an issue overall. And to boot, we were attimes over 10C warmer than present...with a sun 30% dimmer, that would not be possible with CO2 PPM of 2000, based on the physics you hold so dearly...so you in a sense agree that CO2 cannot account for the Trends seen as a whole.

3) No one denies the Smoker/Cancer connection...why did you even bring that up? The Situation with AGW is very different.

You skeptics/deniers can continue to desperately seek reasoning as to how this may not be so, but your task is the monumental one. You must demonstrate why/how the climate will not act as it has in the past, and why the laws of thermodynamic should be overridden in this particular case of climate change.

Well to this point the skeptical position is validated by the data....Whoops! Denying the complexities of the climate system = being a blowhard, in a scientific sense.

This is a thread embedded in a climate change forum. The gist of the discussion concerns how solar variability could be impacting on climate change. The physics of the matter indicates solar variability to be of minor importance, the equal of 0.1% of average TSI or 1.3 watts. This introduces a solar based forcing of about 0.12 watts of climate forcing capable of moving temperature, even with feedbacks, only a few tenths of 1C degree

Irrelavent, as explained above. TSI cannot, and should not, even attempted to correlate to temprature in a short term scale. And TSI is not a driver of temperature directly anyway...so again, irrelavent.

[Sunny and Warm]

nice post Bethesda.

[WeatherRusty]

says the guy who got laughed off the tropical threads! At least I'm not being fitted for a white jacket. To be truthful, Rusty is a good poster for the most part. He should know though that when you start bashing the people who you are writing to, don't expect them to show respect in return, nor read what you say, nor change to your position. Use the KISS approach and keep it on message.

To nip this in the bud, if I offended you I apologize. I use the common terms skeptic/denier as simple identifiers to represent a side of this highly polarizing issue. If there is one thing I don't want to be know for, it is holding in contempt someone for holding an honest opinion. I do not mean to disparage you for holding your opinion, I would like to think I could share what knowledge of the subject matter I have gathered over the years from the perspective of mainstream science. If you don't buy it, so be it.

LEK is constantly pressing me to provide a test of AGW which could falsify the predictions of the science. He knows that it is not possible to test the theory in total, so he has me there. However, most of the constituent parts of the theory have passed such testing. Sound science constitutes the nuts and bolts building of this theory. The total theory is an emergent system built out of smaller constituent parts, much of which represents sound science if held in isolation. This "complex system" is greater than the sum total of it's individual parts. Absolute proof/predictions of this type of emergent system are difficult if not impossible to come by. Just like in cigarette smoking causing lung cancer, a direct, logical proof is not possible.

So, the doubt will always remain. Even as we "frogs" slowly boil to death in a gradually heating pot of water. We might be better off with more bold warning signs, but GW is a slowly progressing process, moving in fits and starts. We have warning signs, but will we heed them and leap to action? Apparently not.

[LakeEffectKing]

To nip this in the bud, if I offended you I apologize. I use the common terms skeptic/denier as simple identifiers to represent a side of this highly polarizing issue. If there is one thing I don't want to nr knowm for, it is holding in contempt someone for holding an honest opinion. I do not mean to disparage you for holding your opinion, I would like to think I could share what knowledge of the subject matter I have gathered over the years from the perspective of mainstream science. If you don't buy it, so be it.

LEK is constantly pressing me to provide a test of AGW which could falsify the predictions of the science. He knows that it is not possible to test the theory in total, so he has me there. However, most of the constituent parts of the theory have passed such testing. Sound science constitutes the nuts and bolts building of this theory. The total theory is an emergent system built out of smaller constituent parts, much of which represents sound science if held in isolation. This "complex system" is greater than the sum total of it's individual parts. Absolute proof/predictions of this type of emergent system are difficult if not impossible to come by. Just like in cigarette smoking causing lung cancer, a direct, logical proof is not possible.

So, the doubt will always remain. Even as we "frogs" slowly boil to death in a gradually heating pot of water. We might be better off with more bold warning signs, but GW is a slowly progressing process, moving in fits and starts. We have warning signs, but will we heed them and leap to action? Apparently not.

And that gets to the absolute core of the difference between MANY skeptics and pro-AGW'ers....the hypothesis is plausible, and certainly evidence is there, much of it agreed upon by both sides. However, the subtle differences and questions seem to diverge into a black and white type debate and many skeptics value the beholding to the Sci. Method to the entire entity of the hypothesis more that the AGW'ers...no biggie, you guys may be right for the right or wrong reasons....then....throw in some confirmation bias, a little politics and some conspiracy theories from both sides and you have the climate cesspool that often emerges during climate debate. It is what it is....

[Sunny and Warm]

To nip this in the bud, if I offended you I apologize. I use the common terms skeptic/denier as simple identifiers to represent a side of this highly polarizing issue. If there is one thing I don't want to be know for, it is holding in contempt someone for holding an honest opinion. I do not mean to disparage you for holding your opinion, I would like to think I could share what knowledge of the subject matter I have gathered over the years from the perspective of mainstream science. If you don't buy it, so be it.

LEK is constantly pressing me to provide a test of AGW which could falsify the predictions of the science. He knows that it is not possible to test the theory in total, so he has me there. However, most of the constituent parts of the theory have passed such testing. Sound science constitutes the nuts and bolts building of this theory. The total theory is an emergent system built out of smaller constituent parts, much of which represents sound science if held in isolation. This "complex system" is greater than the sum total of it's individual parts. Absolute proof/predictions of this type of emergent system are difficult if not impossible to come by. Just like in cigarette smoking causing lung cancer, a direct, logical proof is not possible.

So, the doubt will always remain. Even as we "frogs" slowly boil to death in a gradually heating pot of water. We might be better off with more bold warning signs, but GW is a slowly progressing process, moving in fits and starts. We have warning signs, but will we heed them and leap to action? Apparently not.

Thanks for the post. To reply, I sometimes imagine different time periods, and what the humans of that day may have thought if they had the scientific capability that we have today. For example, if we were just coming out of the last ice age 12,000 years ago, and for a 100,000 years we were gripped by ice and cold, what would we think about the drastic rise in temperatures and sea levels inundating the coastlines. Would we be seeking to cool the earth back down? What about when grapes could no longer be grown in England. If I had vines back then, and suddenly had crop failures, would I ask what caused that and try to warm us back up? What about the ability for a period of time to skate on the Thames when my forefathers could not. What caused that, and should we try to warm it up a bit? So, the moral of the story is don't be too much in a hurry to make changes without understanding the consequences. The planet may just be getting from point A to point B just as we've done dozens of times in the last few million years.

The most important question is are we capable of being in an event and understanding what is causing it, because that is a very difficult thing to do since the science and the scientists are evolving with the changing events and using minute information to forecast what will happen 100 years from now? It is easy to look dispassionately at something that occurred 400, 1000, or 12000 years ago and solve the puzzle over decades of research. Why? Because we are not in it nor effected by it. It is just a puzzle to be solved. But AGW is different for one important reason. The very scientists doing the research are attempting to review something in the present with all its politics and money and instant information. Just being in an event makes one passionate about it. It is human nature to want what you are going through to be unique or important in history, and so the fervor looks religious (and frankly unseemly). Many like myself are mistrustful of the supposed altruism of grants for and against various research revolving around passionate and possibly money-making issues such as solar and wind power. Money and power is corrupting as we all know. Just look to James Hansen as a prime example of a scientist who has lost his way. You cannot discuss science on one hand and speak about civil disobedience on the other. That type of passion has no place in science, and you know that Rusty. Perform the science and let the chips fall where they may. When you take the passion out of this issue, I see lots of gray areas. So for me, the science is not "settled".

[BethesdaWX]

Thanks for the post. To reply, I sometimes imagine different time periods, and what the humans of that day may have thought if they had the scientific capability that we have today. For example, if we were just coming out of the last ice age 12,000 years ago, and for a 100,000 years we were gripped by ice and cold, what would we think about the drastic rise in temperatures and sea levels inundating the coastlines. Would we be seeking to cool the earth back down? What about when grapes could no longer be grown in England. If I had vines back then, and suddenly had crop failures, would I ask what caused that and try to warm us back up? What about the ability for a period of time to skate on the Thames when my forefathers could not. What caused that, and should we try to warm it up a bit? So, the moral of the story is don't be too much in a hurry to make changes without understanding the consequences. The planet may just be getting from point A to point B just as we've done dozens of times in the last few million years.

The most important question is are we capable of being in an event and understanding what is causing it, because that is a very difficult thing to do since the science and the scientists are evolving with the changing events and using minute information to forecast what will happen 100 years from now? It is easy to look dispassionately at something that occurred 400, 1000, or 12000 years ago and solve the puzzle over decades of research. Why? Because we are not in it nor effected by it. It is just a puzzle to be solved. But AGW is different for one important reason. The very scientists doing the research are attempting to review something in the present with all its politics and money and instant information. Just being in an event makes one passionate about it. It is human nature to want what you are going through to be unique or important in history, and so the fervor looks religious (and frankly unseemly). Many like myself are mistrustful of the supposed altruism of grants for and against various research revolving around passionate and possibly money-making issues such as solar and wind power. Money and power is corrupting as we all know. Just look to James Hansen as a prime example of a scientist who has lost his way. You cannot discuss science on one hand and speak about civil disobedience on the other. That type of passion has no place in science, and you know that Rusty. Perform the science and let the chips fall where they may. When you take the passion out of this issue, I see lots of gray areas. So for me, the science is not "settled".

And this is the root of it. In response, we'll hear "We know CO2 warms the planet based on sound science, and the climate system is simple". #1 yes, but irrelavent.....and anyone with some understanding of climate science, can easy refute claim #2, and the supposed "consensus" on climate sensitivity, it is a result of blatant assumption...and even worse, observations are ignored in favor of models that cannot repsresent the conclusions drawn my Observations, that incorporate physics that we understand, and those that we cannot.

Even bring up the issue of the Sun's modulation of the climate system in several aspects, satellites deviations from GCM's in both predictions, and basic fundamendals of energy release, and either you're ignored, or lambashed with false accusations, "oil funding" claims, and then more assumptions...etc etc etc.

What will it take for the scientific community to get a grip? When the Arctic Ice Rebounds? When we begin to cool more dramatically? When Al Gore dies from eating too many hamburgers? Or will an insider spill the beans? Note this is all relating back to "Catastrophic" alarmist scenarios. Rational predictions based on rational climate sensitivities with rational reasonings, will stand out.

[WeatherRusty]

Thanks for the post. To reply, I sometimes imagine different time periods, and what the humans of that day may have thought if they had the scientific capability that we have today. For example, if we were just coming out of the last ice age 12,000 years ago, and for a 100,000 years we were gripped by ice and cold, what would we think about the drastic rise in temperatures and sea levels inundating the coastlines. Would we be seeking to cool the earth back down? What about when grapes could no longer be grown in England. If I had vines back then, and suddenly had crop failures, would I ask what caused that and try to warm us back up? What about the ability for a period of time to skate on the Thames when my forefathers could not. What caused that, and should we try to warm it up a bit? So, the moral of the story is don't be too much in a hurry to make changes without understanding the consequences. The planet may just be getting from point A to point B just as we've done dozens of times in the last few million years.

The most important question is are we capable of being in an event and understanding what is causing it, because that is a very difficult thing to do since the science and the scientists are evolving with the changing events and using minute information to forecast what will happen 100 years from now? It is easy to look dispassionately at something that occurred 400, 1000, or 12000 years ago and solve the puzzle over decades of research. Why? Because we are not in it nor effected by it. It is just a puzzle to be solved. But AGW is different for one important reason. The very scientists doing the research are attempting to review something in the present with all its politics and money and instant information. Just being in an event makes one passionate about it. It is human nature to want what you are going through to be unique or important in history, and so the fervor looks religious (and frankly unseemly). Many like myself are mistrustful of the supposed altruism of grants for and against various research revolving around passionate and possibly money-making issues such as solar and wind power. Money and power is corrupting as we all know. Just look to James Hansen as a prime example of a scientist who has lost his way. You cannot discuss science on one hand and speak about civil disobedience on the other. That type of passion has no place in science, and you know that Rusty. Perform the science and let the chips fall where they may. When you take the passion out of this issue, I see lots of gray areas. So for me, the science is not "settled".

For me, what is settled is the near certainty that human activities are causing a global warming and consequent climate change. How much is the question, and the science is not clear on that point. I understand your concerns and appreciate your very reasoned post above. To many folks are given to hyperbole and overly zealous banter in this debate, sometimes myself included simply for fun, but your response rings true and I have no doubt of your sincerity. Same goes for most poster on here......but not all.

I agree with most of what you have said, but science is done by human beings with their inherent flaws and faults. The science is disseminated to the masses by interests who may not have an ounce of integrity, scientific acumen or the best interest of science at heart. Let's just hope we can find a way to allay your concerns, fears and lack of trust in the system because you are far from alone with those feelings. If science is to benefit mankind we had better get over these feelings, as sometimes justified as they may be, or we will be in big trouble. Our technological society has grown so dependent on science as a means to our survival and prosperity we had better to learn to trust it.

[Sunny and Warm]

Our technological society has grown so dependent on science as a means to our survival and prosperity we had better to learn to trust it.

I don't think it's the science we don't trust. It's some of the scientists consucting the science that we mistrust. If the AGW crowd would get rid of a certain 4-5 scientists and the IPCC, you'd be on your way to having people listen to the message. The fact that the AGW believers cannot police their own ranks promotes the very mistrust the public has for the "science". If you believe Mann or Hansen or someone else has done something unethical or incorrect, just say so. It improves the trust process.

[WeatherRusty]

And this is the root of it. In response, we'll hear "We know CO2 warms the planet based on sound science, and the climate system is simple". #1 yes, but irrelavent.....and anyone with some understanding of climate science, can easy refute claim #2, and the supposed "consensus" on climate sensitivity, it is a result of blatant assumption...and even worse, observations are ignored in favor of models that cannot repsresent the conclusions drawn my Observations, that incorporate physics that we understand, and those that we cannot.

Even bring up the issue of the Sun's modulation of the climate system in several aspects, satellites deviations from GCM's in both predictions, and basic fundamendals of energy release, and either you're ignored, or lambashed with false accusations, "oil funding" claims, and then more assumptions...etc etc etc.

What will it take for the scientific community to get a grip? When the Arctic Ice Rebounds? When we begin to cool more dramatically? When Al Gore dies from eating too many hamburgers? Or will an insider spill the beans? Note this is all relating back to "Catastrophic" alarmist scenarios. Rational predictions based on rational climate sensitivities with rational reasonings, will stand out.

No one has said the climate system is simple, what I have said in essence is that we don't need to go looking for far reaching, arcane explanations for why the planet is warming. Relatively simple physics describes how any body floating in the cold vacuum of outer space warms or cools in response to radiation from a nearby star. Any planet containing absorbing greenhouse gases in it's atmosphere and liquid water on it's surface will be warmed near the surface to a higher degree than what unabated solar radiation can do alone. We have explanations for Earth's temperature which account essentially for all of it. We don't need cosmic rays or magnetic fields to arrive at an accurate estimate of global averaged temperature.

And what is this: "Or will an insider spill the beans?" ?????

You sound more and more like a conspiracy theorist.

"Even bring up the issue of the Sun's modulation of the climate system in several aspects" etc.... That's because these tired old claims have been repeatedly refuted only to be brought up again and again.

"What will it take for the scientific community to get a grip?" .... When sufficient scientific evidence passes peer-review, not when amateur bloggers voice their displeasure with the process.

[BethesdaWX]

No one has said the climate system is simple, what I have said in essence is that we don't need to go looking for far reaching, arcane explanations for why the planet is warming. Relatively simple physics describes how any body floating in the cold vacuum of outer space warms or cools in response to radiation from a nearby star. Any planet containing absorbing greenhouse gases in it's atmosphere and liquid water on it's surface will be warmed near the surface to a higher degree than what unabated solar radiation can do alone. We have explanations for Earth's temperature which account essentially for all of it. We don't need cosmic rays or magnetic fields to arrive at an accurate estimate of global averaged temperature.

And what is this: "Or will an insider spill the beans?" ?????

You sound more and more like a conspiracy theorist.

"Even bring up the issue of the Sun's modulation of the climate system in several aspects" etc.... That's because these tired old claims have been repeatedly refuted only to be brought up again and again.

"What will it take for the scientific community to get a grip?" .... When sufficient scientific evidence passes peer-review, not when amateur bloggers voice their displeasure with the process.

And I've never denied the physics of CO2...but there is more to the story, and this much is clear, it comes back to the climate systems handling of the enrrgy budget, and a few errors within the physics aspect of Radiative release. Did you read the paper I posted earlier? http://www.mdpi.com/...-4292/3/8/1603/ It may help us find a foundation to debate physics. I am currently taking classes in particle physics and working toward the BS in atmospheric science, and there is already a problem I see personally with CAGW, and I'm not alone, many thousands of scientists also see the disconnect. I don't want to clutter the thread up with a load of formulas/variables, etc, if they are going to be blown off, especially when there is a new published paper on the matter.

Nothing I have ever posted here has been "far reaching", that would be something like astrometeorology... this is all within the realm of physics that are obviously present within our climate system, and the IPCC admits uncertainties are large even with if their models were not faulty within the spectrum of radiative release and the lack of drivers progged...and a hockeystick is needed to verify these faulty claims...if this is so, the hockeystick in its own is faulty.

I'm just going to say this, then post the paper.

1) The warming profile does not reflect CO2/Enhanced GHE as the causative mechanism behind the Temperature increase. The LT is progged, as a whole, to warm 20% faster than the Surface, this everywhere except for the higher/lower lattitudes. Instead we see the entire column warming equally, actually the surface is warming faster. And contrary to what many think, yes a change in TSI would warm the stratosphere, but the biggest solar influence on the stratosphere by far is the solar wind, destroying ozone.....the layer cools significantly. Just to give you an Idea...when the LT globally in the actual temperature is the hottest, in mid july, the stratosphere is the Coolest. Do you know why this is, and why it is important?

2) CO2's RF value is minor relative to the RF value of the earth's reflectors/shields, (calling them that in a simple manner). The tropical regions especially are a bigger deal, a measly 2% change in LLCC over an extended timeframe easily features a higher RF forcing value than CO2 has had since 1850. There are so many aspects here, including ozone depletion in of itself, is important regarding the heating of the oceans. Before you attempt to gauge CO2 influence, you should gauge the potentia/forcings of all natural drivers, and not Just TSI, Volcanism, and GHG concentrations, assuming all feedbacks revolve around that aspect. They don't....accept it don't deny it.

3) Past history...just take one look:

4) Now it comes to observations vs models, and this is quite clear in the new paper just released:

http://www.mdpi.com/...-4292/3/8/1603/

cheers bro

To show just how insensitive the climate system would be to TOA imbalance, just look here at the new peer reviewed paper. The 3 most sensitive IPCC models to the 3 least sensitive IPCC models....so the entire range of IPCC models..vs observations from satellite data...

Just to put into perspective the implications here, this would render CO2 forcing almost unmeasurable...this is the timeframe of radiative energy gain/loss during the peak forcing value...observations suggest we begin losing radiative energy to space well before the forcing peak. So obviously CO2 forcing would still be present as indicated within physical standards, but it is the handling of the energy buget that is different.

Simply put, this explains 1) the Increase in OLR, 2) The profile of the warming within the atmospheric column, and 3) why only higher energy imput into the climate system can cause significant temperature changes, this would include Stratospheric Ozone Loss/destruction through solar influence, Cloud Cover changes, and Albedo feedbacks through oceanic oscillation changes.

[WeatherRusty]

And I've never denied the physics of CO2...but there is more to the story, and this much is clear, it comes back to the climate systems handling of the enrrgy budget, and a few errors within the physics aspect of Radiative release. Did you read the paper I posted earlier? http://www.mdpi.com/...-4292/3/8/1603/ It may help us find a foundation to debate physics. I am currently taking classes in particle physics and working toward the BS in atmospheric science, and there is already a problem I see personally with CAGW, and I'm not alone, many thousands of scientists also see the disconnect. I don't want to clutter the thread up with a load of formulas/variables, etc, if they are going to be blown off, especially when there is a new published paper on the matter.

Nothing I have ever posted here has been "far reaching", that would be something like astrometeorology... this is all within the realm of physics that are obviously present within our climate system, and the IPCC admits uncertainties are large even with if their models were not faulty within the spectrum of radiative release and the lack of drivers progged...and a hockeystick is needed to verify these faulty claims...if this is so, the hockeystick in its own is faulty.

I'm just going to say this, then post the paper.

1) The warming profile does not reflect CO2/Enhanced GHE as the causative mechanism behind the Temperature increase. The LT is progged, as a whole, to warm 20% faster than the Surface, this everywhere except for the higher/lower lattitudes. Instead we see the entire column warming equally, actually the surface is warming faster. And contrary to what many think, yes a change in TSI would warm the stratosphere, but the biggest solar influence on the stratosphere by far is the solar wind, destroying ozone.....the layer cools significantly. Just to give you an Idea...when the LT globally in the actual temperature is the hottest, in mid july, the stratosphere is the Coolest. Do you know why this is, and why it is important?

2) CO2's RF value is minor relative to the RF value of the earth's reflectors/shields, (calling them that in a simple manner). The tropical regions especially are a bigger deal, a measly 2% change in LLCC over an extended timeframe easily features a higher RF forcing value than CO2 has had since 1850. There are so many aspects here, including ozone depletion in of itself, is important regarding the heating of the oceans. Before you attempt to gauge CO2 influence, you should gauge the potentia/forcings of all natural drivers, and not Just TSI, Volcanism, and GHG concentrations, assuming all feedbacks revolve around that aspect. They don't....accept it don't deny it.

3) Past history...just take one look:

4) Now it comes to observations vs models, and this is quite clear in the new paper just released:

http://www.mdpi.com/...-4292/3/8/1603/

cheers bro

To show just how insensitive the climate system would be to TOA imbalance, just look here at the new peer reviewed paper. The 3 most sensitive IPCC models to the 3 least sensitive IPCC models....so the entire range of IPCC models..vs observations from satellite data...

Just to put into perspective the implications here, this would render CO2 forcing almost unmeasurable...this is the timeframe of radiative energy gain/loss during the peak forcing value...observations suggest we begin losing radiative energy to space well before the forcing peak. So obviously CO2 forcing would still be present as indicated within physical standards, but it is the handling of the energy buget that is different.

Simply put, this explains 1) the Increase in OLR, 2) The profile of the warming within the atmospheric column, and 3) why only higher energy imput into the climate system can cause significant temperature changes, this would include Stratospheric Ozone Loss/destruction through solar influence, Cloud Cover changes, and Albedo feedbacks through oceanic oscillation changes.

The paper discusses the difficulty in separating out OLR due to external forcing versus internal variability. I fail to see how you have woven the gist of this paper into your above narrative. Are you drawing inferences from the paper not intended by the authors?

[BethesdaWX]

The paper discusses the difficulty in separating out OLR due to external forcing versus internal variability. I fail to see how you have woven the gist of this paper into your above narrative. Are you drawing inferences from the paper not intended by the authors?

You didn't read the paper...you're looking somewhat nieve at this point.

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”

The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

In research published this week in the journal “Remote Sensing” http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf, Spencer and UA Huntsville’s Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

For this experiment, the UA Huntsville team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA’s Terra satellite.

The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UA Huntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.

Basically, everything I have said to this point on this forum

[Clifford]

I thought this topic was about Solar Issues.

The Climate Brawling Topic was elsewhere.

I've extended the TSI data that I posted earlier with Composite TSI data from the NOAA website. Earlier graphs started in 2003, and only showed part of the solar cycle.

The NOAA and LASP data did not quite line up, so I adjusted the composite data by subtracting 4.45 Watts/Meter. It gave a reasonably good match through the overlap period, although it wasn't perfect on all dates.

Earlier I had estimated the peak of the solar cycle in 2012 based on solar polar field strengths. I have a new analysis based on the Butterfly charts that indicates that the peak may in fact be in 2013 (which is predicted by others). I'll post those notes shortly.

We've had a moderate uptick in solar activity over the past few days, with a weak M-Class solar flare on July 27th, however, due to delays in the data, it doesn't appear in the chart yet.

[WeatherRusty]

I thought this topic was about Solar Issues.

The Climate Brawling Topic was elsewhere.

I've extended the TSI data that I posted earlier with Composite TSI data from the NOAA website. Earlier graphs started in 2003, and only showed part of the solar cycle.

The NOAA and LASP data did not quite line up, so I adjusted the composite data by subtracting 4.45 Watts/Meter. It gave a reasonably good match through the overlap period, although it wasn't perfect on all dates.

Earlier I had estimated the peak of the solar cycle in 2012 based on solar polar field strengths. I have a new analysis based on the Butterfly charts that indicates that the peak may in fact be in 2013 (which is predicted by others). I'll post those notes shortly.

We've had a moderate uptick in solar activity over the past few days, with a weak M-Class solar flare on July 27th, however, due to delays in the data, it doesn't appear in the chart yet.

I understand that Cliff, but when someone states something like this on a science forum we should not just let it slide:

BethesdaWX #186

Irrelavent, as explained above. TSI cannot, and should not, even attempted to correlate to temprature in a short term scale. And TSI is not a driver of temperature directly anyway...so again, irrelavent.

[WeatherRusty]

You didn't read the paper...you're looking somewhat nieve at this point.

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”

The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

In research published this week in the journal “Remote Sensing” http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf, Spencer and UA Huntsville’s Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

For this experiment, the UA Huntsville team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA’s Terra satellite.

The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UA Huntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.

Basically, everything I have said to this point on this forum

I did read the paper and your interpretation of it is bogus. Then you post a 3rd party interpretation rather than the actual paper. What is wrong with you? Don't you see how obvious this manipulation is?

[The_Global_Warmer]

I did read the paper and your interpretation of it is bogus. Then you post a 3rd party interpretation rather than the actual paper. What is wrong with you? Don't you see how obvious this manipulation is?

Not Surprising.

Will you elaborate though.

[Clifford]

One of the things that is somewhat difficult to judge is the peak solar activity, or the midpoint in the solar cycle. Peak activity may actually be an extended period of time, rather than a single discrete point.

Earlier I posted a couple of solar polar field strength charts, with the peak of the solar cycle somewhere near the reversal of solar polar field. Due to the high variability in the data, it is somewhat difficult to predict the actual time of the crossover, although I had estimated that to happen in early 2012.

Another thing I've noticed is that we start having equatorial sunspots around the peak solar activity, as show in the "butterfly diagrams".

http://solarscience....spotCycle.shtml

http://solarscience....images/bfly.gif

I've created a rudimentary form of the butterfly diagram, graphing a point for every sunspot on every day (many overlapping). I have not added data to indicate the sunspot size, or the number of sunspots at a particular latitude.

One interesting observation is that we seem to have more sunspots in the northern hemisphere, and they are closer to the equator than in the southern hemisphere. The progression would seem to indicate a solar maximum around early 2013 for the northern hemisphere, and mid-2013 for the southern hemisphere. I don't know if these differences are common at this stage in the cycle.

We also had some high solar activity this spring. It is possible that the peak solar activity will not be significantly higher than the activity this spring.

[Sunny and Warm]

Clifford,

That's probably the most useful presentation of the Butterfly diagram I've seen. Thank you. I agree with your thoughts as well.

[WeatherRusty]

The contribution of cosmic rays to global warming

Terry Sloan, Arnold Wolfendale (Submitted on 4 Aug 2011)

A search has been made for a contribution of the changing cosmic ray intensity to the global warming observed in the last century. The cosmic ray intensity shows a strong 11 year cycle due to solar modulation and the overall rate has decreased since 1900. These changes in cosmic ray intensity are compared to those of the mean global surface temperature to attempt to quantify any link between the two. It is shown that, if such a link exists, the changing cosmic ray intensity contributes less than 8% to the increase in the mean global surface temperature observed since 1900.

Source

[Sunny and Warm]

The contribution of cosmic rays to global warming

Terry Sloan, Arnold Wolfendale (Submitted on 4 Aug 2011)

A search has been made for a contribution of the changing cosmic ray intensity to the global warming observed in the last century. The cosmic ray intensity shows a strong 11 year cycle due to solar modulation and the overall rate has decreased since 1900. These changes in cosmic ray intensity are compared to those of the mean global surface temperature to attempt to quantify any link between the two. It is shown that, if such a link exists, the changing cosmic ray intensity contributes less than 8% to the increase in the mean global surface temperature observed since 1900.

Source

Thanks, but I'll wait for Svensmark and his actual data, and not proxies, to prove cosmic ray influence over Earth climate. This is a meaningless paper, and I am suspicious of its promotion just before actual results are released. Polluting the well possibly??

[BethesdaWX]

The contribution of cosmic rays to global warming

Terry Sloan, Arnold Wolfendale (Submitted on 4 Aug 2011)

A search has been made for a contribution of the changing cosmic ray intensity to the global warming observed in the last century. The cosmic ray intensity shows a strong 11 year cycle due to solar modulation and the overall rate has decreased since 1900. These changes in cosmic ray intensity are compared to those of the mean global surface temperature to attempt to quantify any link between the two. It is shown that, if such a link exists, the changing cosmic ray intensity contributes less than 8% to the increase in the mean global surface temperature observed since 1900.

Source

I am not a believer in short term cosmic ray impact on clouds, and neither are many scientists who actually work in the field, as the effect is weak. Considerably less GCR activity over many decades/centuries may provide the cumulative effect on GCR's enough to decrease clouds by around 3% overtime, which is a 1.8-3W/m^2 RF increase depending on where the cloud cover is lost.

I feel the biggest impact of solar activity on the climate is through the AO/NAO, to mention that overall Jet stream positions are pushed towards the equator during low solar activity, in this case it has been witnessed (an increase in tropical convection), (Cloud Cover) by a substantial amount beginning in 2009, and the amount of tropical cloud cover is probably the most important aspect of Global Climate forcing since we could be talking about 5-10W/m^2 of RF change into the very heat engine that Runs ENSO and the resulting depicted global synoptical pattern.

[Quixotic1]

Sun ramping up:

[Jesse]

Seems like sunspots/solar activity has really been on the increase the past month. Are we still within Livingston and Penn's prediction for a gradual decrease in activity throughout this decade or have we exceeded their outlook at this point?

[okie333]

Seems like sunspots/solar activity has really been on the increase the past month. Are we still within Livingston and Penn's prediction for a gradual decrease in activity throughout this decade or have we exceeded their outlook at this point?

No, the gauss values are still going down.

[Jesse]

No, the gauss values are still going down.

So we're still within their prediction range?

Over on WesternWx a few members are freaking out about this spike, saying it takes away from the possibility of a Grand Minimum down the road. I figured I'd come here where there are more solar experts to help shed light on things