Msalgado Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Only if you are under the assumption there is no warming in the pipeline (which we of course know there is) and that natural variability is not playing a role (which we of course know it is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 If we assume that Solar Activity has caused 70% of the warming, as is assumed by Scafetta and West, then you get extremely low sensitivities, especially if you use the warming over the last 100 years as being only 0.4 Degrees C. I do not have an answer for your last bullet point, since I did not participate in this study. Have you read much from Leif Svalgaard's work? If not you may want to read some of his stuff to get a counter view on the role of the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 See my analysis above. In order to believe that Climate Sensitivity is around 2.7 Degrees C, you would have to believe that the planet has warmed by 1.1 Degrees C (a warming trend which no study or dataset has measured). Aerosoles are currently at a 55 year low right now, which does not bode very well for the hypothesis that aerosoles are magically cancelling out warming to assume a 2.7 Degree sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is an equilibrium value. The Earth has not reached thermal equilibrium with radiative forcing. That's why the TOA imbalance is important. It represents warming in "the pipeline". That as of yet realized warming is estimated to be about 0.5C which will bring temp at current forcing to +1.25C at equilibrium. Of course if we continue to increase atmospheric CO2 concentration, the time to reach equilibrium is pushed further out into the future. Add some additional methane and other long lived greenhouse gases and we go out still further in time. Reduction of aerosoles should add even more to the net positive forcing. Bring on the clouds, we will need them! Everyone around here loves to speak of lags. This is another one. It takes time (decades) to warm the oceans to equilibrium with radiative forcing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailstoned Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Sorry but the AGW group will consider you a denier/skeptic it's GHG or the highway. No. Unlike the deniers, he is looking at available data (as opposed to cherry picking) and coming to some obvious conclusions. As one in Al Gore's camp, my response is-- fair enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted July 17, 2012 Author Share Posted July 17, 2012 ...Up to a 0.4 Degree difference is extremely significant, since this could be half of the "warming" observed in datasets. That's the maximum between the presentation's estimates of 0.4°C and 0.7°C vs. the 0.7°C to 0.8°C observed warming. If we assume that Solar Activity has caused 70% of the warming, as is assumed by Scafetta and West, then you get extremely low sensitivities, especially if you use the warming over the last 100 years as being only 0.4 Degrees C. The Scafetta and West estimate appears doubtful. Solar irradiance and solar flux have not changed markedly during the 20th century (long-term averages). The longest and deepest solar minimum since at least the early 20th century did not eliminate the earth's energy imbalance. A substantial imbalance persisted. Were the Scafetta and West estimate reasonable, one should have seen much or all of the energy imbalance erased during the solar minimum. I do not have an answer for your last bullet point, since I did not participate in this study. Generally, when a small sample size results in a finding that is inconsistent with a large, randomly-drawn sample size, the findings of the small sample are inferior to those of the larger one. There are exceptions, but a large randomly drawn sample is generally more representative of the population as a whole. Hence, especially since BEST made its methodology public, I have little reason to believe that BEST's outcomes are not the more reliable ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Only if you are under the assumption there is no warming in the pipeline (which we of course know there is) and that natural variability is not playing a role (which we of course know it is). The lag time response to any forcing has been shown to have a lag response of around 7-8 years. This can be seen in a bunch of papers documenting the sun-climate link. If natural variability can virtually silence and even reverse the sign of the temperature trend caused by a positive radiative forcing, why can't internal variability play a significant contributing role in the increase in temperatures? http://www.springerlink.com/content/p1275t4383874p65/ Proxy and instrumental records reflect a quasi-cyclic 50–80-year climate signal across the Northern Hemisphere, with particular presence in the North Atlantic. Modeling studies rationalize this variability in terms of intrinsic dynamics of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation influencing distribution of sea-surface-temperature anomalies in the Atlantic Ocean; hence the name Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). By analyzing a lagged covariance structure of a network of climate indices, this study details the AMO-signal propagation throughout the Northern Hemisphere via a sequence of atmospheric and lagged oceanic teleconnections, which the authors term the “stadium wave”. Initial changes in the North Atlantic temperature anomaly associated with AMO culminate in an oppositely signed hemispheric signal about 30 years later. Furthermore, shorter-term, interannual-to-interdecadal climate variability alters character according to polarity of the stadium-wave-induced prevailing hemispheric climate regime. Ongoing research suggests mutual interaction between shorter-term variability and the stadium wave, with indication of ensuing modifications of multidecadal variability within the Atlantic sector. Results presented here support the hypothesis that AMO plays a significant role in hemispheric and, by inference, global climate variability, with implications for climate-change attribution and prediction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Have you read much from Leif Svalgaard's work? If not you may want to read some of his stuff to get a counter view on the role of the sun. I've read his papers, but I think he is an outlier in saying that TSI is not up statistically since the LIA, with all of the reconstructions/BE-10 isotopes disagreeing with his premise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Climate sensitivity is an equilibrium value. The Earth has not reached thermal equilibrium with radiative forcing. That's why the TOA imbalance is important. It represents warming in "the pipeline". That as of yet realized warming is estimated to be about 0.5C which will bring temp at current forcing to +1.25C at equilibrium. So what has prevented Earth from warming over the last 10-15 years? I am curious as to what your opinion on that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Good question until you come to the conclusion that the Earth has indeed warmed in the past 10-15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 So what has prevented Earth from warming over the last 10-15 years? I am curious as to what your opinion on that is. First I ask myself what was the warming deficit over that period of 10-15 years? Let's give the skeptics the benefit of the doubt and say there has been no warming since 1998 which of course is what you are insisting is true by the nature of your question. If we assume a continuation of previous rates of surface warming over the previous 3 decades at anywhere between ~ 0.13C to 0.17C per decade depending on the database used, then we should look to account for a deficit of about 0.21C over the past 14 years. What of natural variability could produce a -0.21C cooling effect? Well, we can be pretty confident that the predominance of solar minimum over the later half of the period would depress temperature about 0.1C. We have also experienced a predominance of La Nina conditions during the later half of the period which could account for the remainder all by itself. These two variables are now both tending warmer. Global use of coal has been increasing I do believe. The rapidly developing world economies (especially China) are likely adding to the atmospheric load of aerosols and thus increasing negative forcing to some degree. In a nutshell, natural variability is expected to sometimes augment background greenhouse warming while at other times depressing it. CO2 is not the only factor impacting climate change, but it is the one factor known to be changing well outside the range of normalcy longterm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 What of natural variability could produce a -0.21C cooling effect? Well, we can be pretty confident that the predominance of solar minimum over the later half of the period would depress temperature about 0.1C. We have also experienced a predominance of La Nina conditions during the later half of the period which could account for the remainder all by itself. These two variables are now both tending warmer. Didn't you say before that there was a lag response from the oceans to the CO2 forcing, because equilibrium has not been met? Equilibrium has not been met with the solar forcing by any means, and the true effects of the lagged solar minimum will begin to be experienced in the oceans somewhere around 2013-2014, assuming a 7-8 year lag between solar activity and the temperature response to the increase in solar activity, because of the large heat capacity of the oceans. Global use of coal has been increasing I do believe. The rapidly developing world economies (especially China) are likely adding to the atmospheric load of aerosols and thus increasing negative forcing to some degree. Aerosoles have largely been decreasing, and are at record lows, so no, it's not China. In a nutshell, natural variability is expected to sometimes augment background greenhouse warming while at other times depressing it. CO2 is not the only factor impacting climate change, but it is the one factor known to be changing well outside the range of normalcy longterm. Longterm changes in the sun can give rise to a "pronounced" climatic response, according to Raspopov et. al 2007. Are you arguing that long term changes in the sun's output can not create a long term trend upward in the Global Temperatures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Good question until you come to the conclusion that the Earth has indeed warmed in the past 10-15 years. That is not correct, friend, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 What is incorrect, is the notion that the Earth is only the atmosphere. Even the atmosphere has shown warming in the past 10-15 years, so even if one was only speaking of the atmosphere then the statement would be incorrect but I digress. The truth of the matter is that when the debate boils down to "has it warmed in the past 10-15 years" I'm not sure its worth having. I could understand someone I encountered away from this site having a misconception on that point but when someone here still believes that we have no seen warming in the past 10-15 years then I believe they are willfully ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Didn't you say before that there was a lag response from the oceans to the CO2 forcing, because equilibrium has not been met? Equilibrium has not been met with the solar forcing by any means, and the true effects of the lagged solar minimum will begin to be experienced in the oceans somewhere around 2013-2014, assuming a 7-8 year lag between solar activity and the temperature response to the increase in solar activity, because of the large heat capacity of the oceans. Aerosoles have largely been decreasing, and are at record lows, so no, it's not China. Longterm changes in the sun can give rise to a "pronounced" climatic response, according to Raspopov et. al 2007. Are you arguing that long term changes in the sun's output can not create a long term trend upward in the Global Temperatures? There is a lag in temperature response to any radiative forcing. The radiative forcing takes place at the TOA and doesn't know or care what the cause, whether it be the Sun, aerosols, greenhouse gases or albedo changes. If the Sun starting today did not change and we emitted zero greenhouse gases from this point on, the surface temperature would still continue to rise until the warmer (higher energy) radiation from the surface balanced the energy entering the system. If that took 10 or 50 years to complete doesn't matter. It simple must happen to satisfy the laws of thermodynamics. La Nina increases the time to reach thermal equilibrium, because it then takes longer to warm the surface waters to reach equilibrium. Intrinsic solar variability can not produce a "pronounced" thermal response on Earth with a radiative forcing of only 0.12W/m^2. That forcing produces a Planck response of only 0.8C....before any feedback. So yes, I am arguing that TSI changes can not create a long term trend upward or downward in Global Temperature! You know that though, that's why you claim some mysterious 7X amplification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 That's the maximum between the presentation's estimates of 0.4°C and 0.7°C vs. the 0.7°C to 0.8°C observed warming. Yes, I am just demonstrating the potential large implications that this study might have for climate sensitivity. Solar irradiance and solar flux have not changed markedly during the 20th century (long-term averages). The longest and deepest solar minimum since at least the early 20th century did not eliminate the earth's energy imbalance. A substantial imbalance persisted. A couple of points, Firstly, there was most certainly a large increase in solar activity during the 20th Century, and solar activity during the 20th Century had some of the highest amounts of solar activity over the last 11500 years. Mufti and Shah 2011 documented a long term increase in solar activity to lead them to conclude that the sun has a significant role to play in long term and short term climate change over the 20th Century. In Figure 2 of Carslaw et. al 2002 it is shown that there is a long term decrease in GCRs over the 20th Century, which would correspond to a more active sun, as this would mean that there would be more solar wind to prevent GCRs from reaching Earth. It is also shown that in 1992, a record low in GCRs was recorded, indicating record high amounts of solar activity occured during the late-20th Century. Surely you don't expect that after such a rapid increase and unusual period of high solar activity, that the climate will immediately respond to a period of lower solar activity, with the oceans having such an enormously large heat capacity? The criticisms to Hansen et. al are legitimate criticisms, citing that you can not accurately quantify such small changes that have occured in Earth's Energy Budget. Generally, when a small sample size results in a finding that is inconsistent with a large, randomly-drawn sample size, the findings of the small sample are inferior to those of the larger one. Perhaps, although the findings of the scientific article can not be simply ignored because of that fact. The reasoning for selecting those 181 stations in the paper is as follows: From the global database GHCN-Monthly Version 2, we examine all stations containing both raw and adjusted data that satisfy certain criteria of continuity and distribution over the globe. In the United States of America, because of the large number of available stations, stations were chosen after a suitable sampling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 What is incorrect, is the notion that the Earth is only the atmosphere. Even the atmosphere has shown warming in the past 10-15 years, so even if one was only speaking of the atmosphere then the statement would be incorrect but I digress. The truth of the matter is that when the debate boils down to "has it warmed in the past 10-15 years" I'm not sure its worth having. I could understand someone I encountered away from this site having a misconception on that point but when someone here still believes that we have no seen warming in the past 10-15 years then I believe they are willfully ignorant. In my argument above I stated that something like a 0.21C surface temp deficit would exist if there had been no warming since 1998. In reality the warming rate relative to the previous 3 decades has been reduced by about one half.....about 0.8C per decade. So over the 14 year period since 1998 we really need only account for ~ 0.1C.....easily within the explanatory power in a combination of La Nina and prolonged solar minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I could understand someone I encountered away from this site having a misconception on that point but when someone here still believes that we have no seen warming in the past 10-15 years then I believe they are willfully ignorant. It's too bad that us willfully ignorant people have the data and evidence to back that statement up though, right? RSS http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend HadCruT http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend GISS http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend UAH http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend Global SSTs from HadSST2 http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Intrinsic solar variability can not produce a "pronounced" thermal response on Earth with a radiative forcing of only 0.12W/m^2. That forcing produces a Planck response of only 0.8C....before any feedback. So yes, I am arguing that TSI changes can not create a long term trend upward or downward in Global Temperature! You know that though, that's why you claim some mysterious 7X amplification. The 7X amplification has been observed, which is why I claim it has been observed, since it has been observed. Shaviv 2008 This can easily give rise to a pronounced climatic response, since there has been a long term decline in Cosmic Rays. Cosmic Rays have decreased by at least 15%, which is an enormous amplifying mechanism, and an enormous increase in solar activity over the 20th Century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 It's too bad that us willfully ignorant people have the data and evidence to back that statement up though, right? RSS http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend HadCruT http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend GISS http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend UAH http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend Global SSTs from HadSST2 http://woodfortrees....last:2012/trend If you think these graphs make your case for you then you're free to go right on ahead believing that. However, if you truly wish to be a good scientist in the future I suggest you ask yourself if they truly prove what you think they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 If you think these graphs make your case for you then you're free to go right on ahead believing that. However, if you truly wish to be a good scientist in the future I suggest you ask yourself if they truly prove what you think they do. How can I put this gently... You are supporting a position that has ZERO facts and evidence to back it up. I have posted data from all of the leading data sets showing that there has not been any rise in global temperatures over the last 10-15 years. Despite all of the evidence, you still continue to support such a position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 You believe there are zero facts to back up that the earth has warmed over the past 10-15 years? Is this because I did not link you to graphs with poor start and end dates? Is this because I have not linked the studies that show the thermal expansion of the oceans and reduction of the cryosphere? Is this because I have not linked the studies showing the rising energy in the system after accounting for natural variability such as ENSO? Is that why you say there are zero facts to back up the statement that the earth has warmed over the past 10-15 years? I mean I just don't see what the point of linking the data you have already seen on this forum is. You're well aware of all the things I just pointed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterymix Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 . I have posted data from all of the leading data sets showing that there has not been any rise in global temperatures over the last 10-15 years. Why clutter the forum? NASA trumps someone scoffing and trying to make a name for themselves, the point being that your sources are inferior to NASA and do not provide a credible counterpoint. NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record 01.19.12 The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 You believe there are zero facts to back up that the earth has warmed over the past 10-15 years? Is this because I did not link you to graphs with poor start and end dates? The ONI in 2001 is extremely similar to that of 2012, and they both were at the end of multi-La Nina years, so 2001 is an appropriate starting date. I have not linked the studies that show the thermal expansion of the oceans I can see why you did not, because oceanic heat content changes have significantly slowed down over the last several years, and have begun to diverge rapidly from modeled projections only a few years ago. The oceans, being such a large heat sink, and having such a high heat capacity take time to respond and equilibriate to a new radiative forcing. This too, is also consistent with no warming. Is this because I have not linked the studies showing the rising energy in the system after accounting for natural variability such as ENSO? :lol: What a joke. After I remove factors from the climate system over the last 150 years, can I claim that the true signal is that we have not warmed during that timeframe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Why clutter the forum? NASA trumps someone scoffing and trying to make a name for themselves, the point being that your sources are inferior to NASA and do not provide a credible counterpoint. If you looked at my charts, you will see that one of my charts uses NASA GISS data. The other charts come from the other leading databases. Therefore, your bolded statement is simply incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Really, I need go no further than your point to say that the oceans are warming over the past 10-15 years than to disprove your initial statement where you claimed there was no warming. Its true that there would be lag for the oceans to reach an equilibrium temperature after warming stopped, but they would be dropping in temperature not rising. Slowed down != Stopped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Really, I need go no further than your point to say that the oceans are warming over the past 10-15 years than to disprove your initial statement where you claimed there was no warming. Its true that there would be lag for the oceans to reach an equilibrium temperature after warming stopped, but they would be dropping in temperature not rising. Slowed down != Stopped Slowing down might indicate the presence of a negative energy imbalance at the TOA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 Slowing down might indicate the presence of a negative energy imbalance at the TOA. A recent paper explained the pause in warming at the upper level of the oceans (0-700m). Its major conclusions: 1. The pause is not exceptional 2. It is explained by more radiation to space (45%) due largely to ENSO and deep ocean warming (35%) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048417.shtml Hansen found that a large energy imbalance persisted despite an exceptionally deep and prolonged solar minimum. Levitus et al., argued in a 2012 paper that the positive linear trend in OHC since 1955 "can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneficii Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 A recent paper explained the pause in warming at the upper level of the oceans (0-700m). Its major conclusions: 1. The pause is not exceptional 2. It is explained by more radiation to space (45%) due largely to ENSO and deep ocean warming (35%) http://www.agu.org/p...1GL048417.shtml Hansen found that a large energy imbalance persisted despite an exceptionally deep and prolonged solar minimum. Levitus et al., argued in a 2012 paper that the positive linear trend in OHC since 1955 "can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs. I'd like to know at what point the skeptics would be convinced and get out of the way of attempts to enact policy to mitigate the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 A recent paper explained the pause in warming at the upper level of the oceans (0-700m). Its major conclusions: 1. The pause is not exceptional 2. It is explained by more radiation to space (45%) due largely to ENSO and deep ocean warming (35%) http://www.agu.org/p...1GL048417.shtml Hansen found that a large energy imbalance persisted despite an exceptionally deep and prolonged solar minimum. Levitus et al., argued in a 2012 paper that the positive linear trend in OHC since 1955 "can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs. There are many papers suggesting many different mechanisms and variables to explain this hiatus. Unfortunately, that alone proves what skeptics have long been saying, that our understanding of the climate system is poor, and if there is no consensus on what scientists believe. Dr. Pielke had an excellent post on this subject here: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/candid-comments-from-global-warming-climate-scientists/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixotic1 Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I'd like to know at what point the skeptics would be convinced and get out of the way of attempts to enact policy to mitigate the issue. When their paychecks don't depend on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.