University of Wollongong Study confirms natural emission is responsible for 90% of the Earth's atmospheric acidity.

[BethesdaWX]

Interesting tidbit...

For the all years with ENSO Region 3.4 anomalies of -0.75°C or colder, the following are the 5 warmest globat temperature anomalies:

1. +0.52°C*, 2011 (January-November) -- highest reading for a moderate/strong La Niña was noted by the WMO

2. +0.33°C, 2000

3. +0.32°C, 1999

4. +0.31°C, 1988

5. +0.19°C, 1989

The remaining 5 years with such anomalies occurred prior to 1976. All of them had negative global temperature anomalies.

I keep hearing how the globe is about to fall off the proverbial cliff when it comes to global temperatures. The ongoing two-year La Niña should, if anything, have caused a much sharper downturn than what occurred. It didn't. In fact, 2011's temperature anomaly exceeds a number of those during or immediately following El Niño events.

It will be interesting to see how the global temperature rebounds when the next El Niño event unfolds. My guess is that an El Niño event that rivals 2004-05 would probably lead to a global temperature anomaly that would exceed 2005's record of +0.63°C. Something stronger e.g., along the lines of 2002-03 could push the global anomaly close to +0.70°C.

No it shouldn't have done that at all, the magnetic state in 2003/04 was high which superimposed on todays southerly interplanetary magnetic field should result in more thermal energy and less kinetic energy balance in the ENSO state which also would prolong the series of La Ninas to probably 3 years.

This "cliff drop" shouldn't begin until 2013, with a -0.2C/decade drop through 2020

The AP reflects all of this, I'm surprised the 'oh my la nina with no cooling' responses didn't start earlier. The El Nino of 2013/14 may cause a small spike but any El Ninos that do occur probably won't have any major effect on the global temperature from this point on, kind of like what happened from 2001/02 to 2002/03.

[BethesdaWX]

No results found for "magnetic sun hypothesis".

I googled the term and there were results all over the place with various relativity.

Strike 1

[donsutherland1]

If I recall correctly, Joe Bastardi suggested cooling (not yet cool anomalies) would be underway, that summer Arctic ice would be recovering, etc. He was wrong to date. Cooling was nowhere near what he suggested. Summer 2011's Arctic ice reached the 2nd lowest figure on record. Joe Bastardi is not the only one, but has been among the most vocal in recent years.

This "cliff drop" shouldn't begin until 2013...

We will see.

...but any El Ninos that do occur probably won't have any major effect on the global temperature from this point on, kind of like what happened from 2001/02 to 2002/03.

Your account of what happened following 2000 is not correct. The following are the global anomalies prior to and during the El Niño event in question:

GISS:

2000: +0.33°C

2001: +0.47°C

2002: +0.56°C

2003: +0.55°C

2000 to El Niño Peak: +0.23°C

NCDC:

2000: +0.42°C

2001: +0.54°C

2002: +0.60°C

2003: +0.61°C

2000 to El Niño Peak: +0.19°C

[BethesdaWX]

If I recall correctly, Joe Bastardi suggested cooling (not yet cool anomalies) would be underway, that summer Arctic ice would be recovering, etc. He was wrong to date. Cooling was nowhere near what he suggested. Summer 2011's Arctic ice reached the 2nd lowest figure on record. Joe Bastardi is not the only one, but has been among the most vocal in recent years.

We will see.

Bastardi has no idea what he is talking about, I would not even pay attention to what he says. My reasoning is just a hypothesis, admittedly, but so far it has done very well if not flawlessly once we reached equilibrium in 2002. We'll see if it continues, if I fail I will openly concede but I am confident.

Your account of what happened following 2000 is not correct. The following are the global anomalies prior to and during the El Niño event in question

Actually no, I meant the winter of 2001/02 was neutral and 2002/03 was a moderate El Nino,with no jump in temps, year 2002, by the external modulation hypothesis, was when we reached equilibrium. GISS is the outlying dataset with lower reoslution than NCDC and HADCRUT3. I don't even pay attention to GISS, it is the significant warm outlier from NCDC, UAH, RSS, and HADCRUT3. HADCRUT3 doesn't include the Arctic where there is no data, which is why it is cooler. But using all datasources together we gave NO statistically significant warming from 2002 onward.

For the LT (lower troposphere) where there should be more warming occuring, datasets show less warming than GISS.

RSS

UAH

NCDC

HADCRUT3

GISS

Never use the outlying dataset, that is against the scientific method unless you have a reason to discredit the other 4 datasets that agree reasonably well.

2002 is when we reached equilbirium in the solar magnetic theory

Look at the resolution change between GISS and NCDC

That is pretty telling based on how they alter the dataset, the resolution and confiedence interval.

Satellite means vs surface means:

[PhillipS]

I googled the term and there were results all over the place with various relativity.

Strike 1

I just googled the exact phrase you used and got the same results as Vergent:

No results found for "magnetic sun hypothesis"

Just googling the three words without the quotes will of course return a lot of hits. But this is a technical forum and you are just making up jargon. Very unscientific of you.

Score: Vergent 1 Bethesda 0

[BethesdaWX]

I just googled the exact phrase you used and got the same results as Vergent:

No results found for "magnetic sun hypothesis"

Just googling the three words without the quotes will of course return a lot of hits. But this is a technical forum and you are just making up jargon. Very unscientific of you.

Score: Vergent 1 Bethesda 0

I shall now prove you're lying.

About 2,290,000 results (0.14 seconds)

https://www.google.c...iw=1920&bih=888

BB: 2, Vergent: 0, PhilipS: 0

[PhillipS]

I think you're taking things way too literally here. Same problems that inhibit other models inhibit climate models, our limited understanding of atmospheric processes is what goes into climate models, while observations = everything we know and don't know.

Observations will do the hypothesis test, not the models. Models didn't predict the flat-lining in temps over the past 10 years, magnetic solar theorists did including myself. Magnetic Sun: 1, AGW : 0

Magnetic solar theorists predict a drop in global temps beginning in 2013, climate models based on CO2 influence forecast continued warming. If we begin a cooling trend in 2013, dropping 0.25C by 2020-2025, AGW theory bites the dust, goodbye.

I'm not taking things too literally at all. The kindest way to describe your attempt to conflate models from different scientific fields is you are comparing apples to oranges. Models can be built in a wide variety of ways so it is stupid and unfounded to assume that characteristics of a model in Atmospheric chemistry are in any way relevant to models in Climatology.

So you still have not answered my question about why you even started this thread. Formic acid is not a GHG and has no relation to climate change - the topic of this forum. So why did you bring it up?

[BethesdaWX]

I'm not taking things too literally at all. The kindest way to describe your attempt to conflate models from different scientific fields is you are comparing apples to oranges. Models can be built in a wide variety of ways so it is stupid and unfounded to assume that characteristics of a model in Atmospheric chemistry are in any way relevant to models in Climatology.

Observations reflect the results of what we know and don't know. Models reflect only what we know, they are just predictions into the future. Obersvations > Models, end of story.

So you still have not answered my question about why you even started this thread. Formic acid is not a GHG and has no relation to climate change - the topic of this forum. So why did you bring it up?

It is related to the scientific process, and involves the climate system. Thats why.

[BethesdaWX]

Magnetic sun Climate Hypothesis:

https://www.google.c...iw=1920&bih=888

About 896,000 results (0.14 seconds)

BB: 3, PhilipS : -1

[PhillipS]

I shall now prove you're lying.

About 2,290,000 results (0.14 seconds)

https://www.google.c...iw=1920&bih=888

BB: 2, Vergent: 0, PhilipS: 0

You didn't prove a thing because that's not the phrase you used. Yes those three words appear in a number of places. Big deal. I just googled the three words "bethesda" "is" "moronic" and got:

About 4,060,000 results (0.31 seconds) So it must be true by your standards, right?

Google your own term "magnetic sun hypothesis" and report back on how many times that phrase is found.

[BethesdaWX]

You didn't prove a thing because that's not the phrase you used. Yes those three words appear in a number of places. Big deal. I just googled the three words "bethesda" "is" "moronic" and got:

About 4,060,000 results (0.31 seconds) So it must be true by your standards, right?

Google your own term "magnetic sun hypothesis" and report back on how many times that phrase is found.

That is the phrase I used, Felipe: "Magnetic Sun Hypothesis" About 2,290,000 results (0.29 seconds) : https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=Magnetic+Sun+Hypothesis&pbx=1&oq=Magnetic+Sun+Hypothesis&aq=f&aqi=p-p1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=66226l73327l1l73698l29l21l2l0l0l1l213l2639l8.12.1l23l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=1aa0668c8ef40a5d&biw=1920&bih=888

Exactly, you couldn't have used googled "magnetic sun hypothesis" and have gotten no results. Here is an example of a link that discusses what I discuss.

http://www.john-daly...so/sun-enso.htm

You're lying, go to bed.

PS, "PhillipS is wrong about climate change, About 3,200,000 results (0.27 seconds) : https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=PhillipS+is+wrong+about+climate+change&pbx=1&oq=PhillipS+is+wrong+about+climate+change&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2759l9703l0l9977l46l31l2l1l1l0l244l4157l11.16.4l34l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=1aa0668c8ef40a5d&biw=1920&bih=888

[PhillipS]

That is the phrase I used, Felipe: "Magnetic Sun Hypothesis" About 2,290,000 results (0.29 seconds) : https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=Magnetic+Sun+Hypothesis&pbx=1&oq=Magnetic+Sun+Hypothesis&aq=f&aqi=p-p1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=66226l73327l1l73698l29l21l2l0l0l1l213l2639l8.12.1l23l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=1aa0668c8ef40a5d&biw=1920&bih=888

Exactly, you couldn't have used googled "magnetic sun hypothesis" and have gotten no results. Here is an example of a link that discusses what I discuss.

http://www.john-daly...so/sun-enso.htm

You're lying, go to bed.

PS, "PhillipS is wrong about climate change, About 3,200,000 results (0.27 seconds) : https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=PhillipS+is+wrong+about+climate+change&pbx=1&oq=PhillipS+is+wrong+about+climate+change&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2759l9703l0l9977l46l31l2l1l1l0l244l4157l11.16.4l34l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=1aa0668c8ef40a5d&biw=1920&bih=888

You're still wrong. The google search you keep linking to is not for the phrase you used "magnetic sun hypothesis" - it's for the separate words "magnetic" "sun" "hypothesis" in any order and with any number of other words in between. Jeez - don't you know how to structure a google search?!

[WeatherRusty]

Bethesda = pseudo-science = Infinity

[FPizz]

What a disaster

[BethesdaWX]

You're still wrong. The google search you keep linking to is not for the phrase you used "magnetic sun hypothesis" - it's for the separate words "magnetic" "sun" "hypothesis" in any order and with any number of other words in between. Jeez - don't you know how to structure a google search?!

"Read" "the" "link"

http://www.john-daly...so/sun-enso.htm

I had to do it for you, jeezus. I can type in "Anthropogenic" "warming" "theory" and get whatever I get but it is ONE TERM.

[BethesdaWX]

What a disaster

Tell me about it.

[BethesdaWX]

Bethesda = pseudo-science = Infinity

Kinetic Energy

Compare 3.7W/m^2 to the TOTAL energy budget in the climate system [thermal, kinetic, electric/lightning, etc] to get your answer on sensitivity. The percentage you get there superimposed on Earth's Temperature in the LT = change induced by CO2. It is minute.

Famous statement by J. G. Roederer:

"The energy argument is not valid for highly nonlinear complex systems such as the coupled atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere-biosphere. It is well known that complex systems can behave chaotically, i.e., follow very different paths after the smallest change in initial or boundary conditions, or in response to the smallest perturbation. In a highly nonlinear system with large reservoirs of latent energy such as the atmosphere-ocean-biosphere, global redistributions of energy can be triggered by very small inputs, a process that depends far more on their spatial and temporal pattern than on their magnitude."

http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm

[WeatherRusty]

Kinetic Energy

Compare 3.7W/m^2 to the TOTAL energy budget in the climate system [thermal, kinetic, electric/lightning, etc] to get your answer on sensitivity. The percentage you get there superimposed on Earth's Temperature in the LT = change induced by CO2. It is minute.

Famous statement by J. G. Roederer:

"The energy argument is not valid for highly nonlinear complex systems such as the coupled atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere-biosphere. It is well known that complex systems can behave chaotically, i.e., follow very different paths after the smallest change in initial or boundary conditions, or in response to the smallest perturbation. In a highly nonlinear system with large reservoirs of latent energy such as the atmosphere-ocean-biosphere, global redistributions of energy can be triggered by very small inputs, a process that depends far more on their spatial and temporal pattern than on their magnitude."

http://www.john-daly...so/sun-enso.htm

Marginal difference

"What a disaster" Bethesda style

[BethesdaWX]

when you google your 3 words with quotes you end up with 0 results. without quotes you get more hits, but it's not googling a discrete phrase so a good number, if not most, of the hits are meaningless in this context.

you do understand context, right? because so far you've taken another article you haven't read and which isn't a climate article, and tried to turn it into something to prove a fake point.

posting anything from Watts here pretty much shows you don't really understand the field. the guy is not a physicist, has no advanced degree, and his met creds are highly suspect.

I posted numerous links discussing it because there is no "brand name" on the magnetic/albedo theory, kapeesh? Nothing I've posted here has anything to do with Watts, you your assertion is blatantly untrue BS, as is usually the case with you.

The only thing 'fake' here is you + whatever limited understanding you have of the science, if any. I suggest not wading deeper.

If you want to debate the science with me, go right ahead, lets hear it. Otherwise don't bother posting the usual nonsense. Same goes for you Weatherrusty, PhillipS, and Vergent. The off topic argumentaive crap essentially proves you have nothing left.

[BethesdaWX]

Marginal difference

"What a disaster" Bethesda style

What? Why can the energy argument be used in a chaotic system of energy? Do you actually expect to correlate a forcing and feedback if equilibrium time is over 10 years?

Do you not understand this?

"The energy argument is not valid for highly nonlinear complex systems such as the coupled atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere-biosphere. It is well known that complex systems can behave chaotically, i.e., follow very different paths after the smallest change in initial or boundary conditions, or in response to the smallest perturbation. In a highly nonlinear system with large reservoirs of latent energy such as the atmosphere-ocean-biosphere, global redistributions of energy can be triggered by very small inputs, a process that depends far more on their spatial and temporal pattern than on their magnitude."

[PhillipS]

"Read" "the" "link"

http://www.john-daly...so/sun-enso.htm

I had to do it for you, jeezus. I can type in "Anthropogenic" "warming" "theory" and get whatever I get but it is ONE TERM.

Gosh - it was fun watching you waffle around and try to bluster that you realized all along the paper you linked to through WUWT had absolutely nothing to due with climate change.

But now that you're linking to crap like this and that you've revealed that you don't know how to use google effectively - well, it is so sad and pathetic I feel sorry for you.

You should cut your losses and pull the plug on this thread. What a trainwreck.

[PhillipS]

I posted numerous links discussing it because there is no "brand name" on the magnetic/albedo theory, kapeesh? Nothing I've posted here has anything to do with Watts, you your assertion is blatantly untrue BS, as is usually the case with you.

The only thing 'fake' here is you + whatever limited understanding you have of the science, if any. I suggest not wading deeper.

If you want to debate the science with me, go right ahead, lets hear it. Otherwise don't bother posting the usual nonsense. Same goes for you Weatherrusty, PhillipS, and Vergent. The off topic argumentaive crap essentially proves you have nothing left.

Um . . . if you go back and read your opening post I think you'll see that you linked to a post on Watts' blog. Are you being forgetful now, too?

[BethesdaWX]

Gosh - it was fun watching you waffle around and try to bluster that you realized all along the paper you linked to through WUWT had absolutely nothing to due with climate change.

But now that you're linking to crap like this and that you've revealed that you don't know how to use google effectively - well, it is so sad and pathetic I feel sorry for you.

You should cut your losses and pull the plug on this thread. What a trainwreck.

Hahaha, you made my day Felipe! It's embarassing watching you post irrelavent crap about google searching the Sun-climate connection which has no "brand name", and the fact that it's one term...then how acid is "not a GHG", etc, and that you think you're making any sense whatsoever. Wowzers.

The CC forum is a place for any study that has to do with the climate system. Acid rain and human forcing in that regard belongs in the CC forum.

Do you understand this? Or must I regurgitate it all to you again?

[BethesdaWX]

Um . . . if you go back and read your opening post I think you'll see that you linked to a post on Watts' blog. Are you being forgetful now, too?

It has nothing to do with Watts, it was just posted on his site. What's your point?

[Vergent]

It has nothing to do with Watts, it was just posted on his site. What's your point?

Watts wrote the lying title you used as a topic.

[BethesdaWX]

Watts wrote the lying title you used as a topic.

The title watts used has nothing to do with the study.

[Vergent]

The title watts used has nothing to do with the study.

I have difficulty finding references to formic acid as a GHG.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Guys please stop the name calling towards Bethesda. It is completely ameaturish and unnecesary. No one believes the BS that is being spewed. And if they do, what on Earth could you possibly say that would change their minds?

[WeatherRusty]

What? Why can the energy argument be used in a chaotic system of energy? Do you actually expect to correlate a forcing and feedback if equilibrium time is over 10 years?

Do you not understand this?

"The energy argument is not valid for highly nonlinear complex systems such as the coupled atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere-biosphere. It is well known that complex systems can behave chaotically, i.e., follow very different paths after the smallest change in initial or boundary conditions, or in response to the smallest perturbation. In a highly nonlinear system with large reservoirs of latent energy such as the atmosphere-ocean-biosphere, global redistributions of energy can be triggered by very small inputs, a process that depends far more on their spatial and temporal pattern than on their magnitude."

The equalibrium feedback time is longer than 10 years. The system likely will behave differently depending on initial conditions. A small perturbation can lead to a larger response than produced by the initial forcing.

If we add 3.7w/m^2 of forcing to the climate system (a small purtibation raising the expected black body temperature response by 1.2C) we should expect a non-linear system like the coupled atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere-biosphere to respond somewhat like it has in the past to such a forcing. Because the system is starting from a new set of initial conditions it is unlikely we can pin down the exact equalibrium response, but boundary condition experiments (modeled symulations) can put us in the general ballpark. Our best estimates of climate sensitivity place the equalibrium response somewhere between 2C and 4.5C.

So there is uncertainty in how the climate system (complex system) will respond. That does not mean the system is truely chaotic however. A truely chaotic system would be completely unknowable, with no predictability whatsoever. There would be no repeatable, stable patterns in the atmosphere. The goal of science is to understand the underlying rules which govern the reproducable patterns, and once you do, you can make predictions of future outcomes. One such rule is that if you add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere you will warm the Earth's surface.

I do understand and agree with the quotation.

[donsutherland1]

GISS is the outlying dataset with lower reoslution than NCDC and HADCRUT3. I don't even pay attention to GISS, it is the significant warm outlier from NCDC, UAH, RSS, and HADCRUT3. HADCRUT3 doesn't include the Arctic where there is no data, which is why it is cooler. But using all datasources together we gave NO statistically significant warming from 2002 onward.

Four quick points:

1. Given the outcomes of the BEST study, I have confidence that NCDC and GISS are reliable data sources.

2. Standardized temperatures from GISS and NCDC have diverged somewhat in recent years. However, the divergence is not statistically significant. It might well have more to do with the overly short period of time being measured than issues concerning either GISS or NCDC's data set.

3. GISS extrapolated Arctic temperatures yield an error of 0.05°C (95% confidence level). The extrapolations might provide the best means of estimating overall Arctic temperatures given present technology and methodology short of installing instuments throughout the Arctic (won't be done for obvious reasons).

4. Temperature variation is assumed to be normally distributed. Hence, 30-year periods are the base for statistical analysis. Shorter periods might not be representative.