WeatherRusty Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Use running means to figure out what the running average of TSI is like during the Maunder Minimum. Don't cherry pick the highest TSI that didn't last for very long and claim that TSI has barely increased. Factor in the indirect solar forcings, and you have a significant solar forcing across the 20th Century that is unaccounted for by the TSI forcing alone. There is zero evidence for significant indirect solar focings over the 20th century in the peer-review literature. There is strong evidence against such a conclusion. I am using the very lowest TSI of the Maunder Minimum, and the very highest TSI of the late 20th century. The maximum forcing from the 1600s to the late 1900s is .3W/m2. From the mid-1700s, which is not part of the Maunder Minimum, it is .15W/m2. And from the mid-1700s to the present, including the drop off in solar activity the last 10 years, forcing is just .04W/m2. Remember TSI changes must be divided by 4 to arrive at forcing because half the earth does not face the sun, and because of the curvature of the earth. And reduce radiative forcing further by multiplying the result (X 0.7) to account for Earth's .30 albedo. IPCC .12W/m^2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 This TSI has me baffled. I concur you have to divide by 4 because of the geometry of the Earth which makes there very little change in TSI. Forgive me if I am not up on the latest research, but then how did we get a little ice age?? Was is just unusual high level of volcanic eruptions? I saw something on that recently. I am not doubting the TSI changes. I am asking a sincere question. We know that there was a LIA and it is hard for me to imagine that it was just in western Europe and Greenland/Iceland only. If solar forcing was -.3W/m2 and you add in another -.4W/m2 for unusually high volcanic activity, that would be a total forcing of -.7W/m2. With a climate sensitivity of 3C per CO2 doubling, a forcing of .7W/m2 would cause .57C of global cooling. .57C of global cooling during the LIA fits well within the various reconstructions that have been published. The grey shading represents various reconstructions, the darker the grey the better the agreement between the reconstructions. Ignore the colored lines - those are models based on TSI and volcanoes. Note they fit well within the grey area of reconstructed temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 If solar forcing was -.3W/m2 and you add in another -.4W/m2 for unusually high volcanic activity, that would be a total forcing of -.7W/m2. With a climate sensitivity of 3C per CO2 doubling, a forcing of .7W/m2 would cause .57C of global cooling. .57C of global cooling during the LIA fits well within the various reconstructions that have been published. The grey shading represents various reconstructions, the darker the grey the better the agreement between the reconstructions. Ignore the colored lines - those are models based on TSI and volcanoes. Note they fit well within the grey area of reconstructed temperature. Thanks. That is a pretty good argument for increased climate sensitivity assuming there is not another enhancing factor related to solar forcing. The cosmic ray argument is pretty tenuous from what I have read and am skeptical of too. We would like to see more solid evidence of this if indeed it has any effect. Just from what I know I still think we don't understand the whole picture of what is happening with the climate system. But the data you show here does support your conclusion of 3C per doubling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Thanks. That is a pretty good argument for increased climate sensitivity assuming there is not another enhancing factor related to solar forcing. The cosmic ray argument is pretty tenuous from what I have read and am skeptical of too. We would like to see more solid evidence of this if indeed it has any effect. Just from what I know I still think we don't understand the whole picture of what is happening with the climate system. But the data you show here does support your conclusion of 3C per doubling. This is why it has always been ironic watching deniers try to destroy the hockey stick and create a more pronounced MWP and LIA. A more pronounced MWP and LIA would imply a higher climate sensitivity to radiative forcing. Of course many deniers also deny that CO2 is a radiative forcing agent so at least they are being internally logically coherent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 This is why it has always been ironic watching deniers try to destroy the hockey stick and create a more pronounced MWP and LIA. A more pronounced MWP and LIA would imply a higher climate sensitivity to radiative forcing. Of course many deniers also deny that CO2 is a radiative forcing agent so at least they are being internally logically coherent. It also assumes we have the entire climate system figured out including all the forcings and feedbacks. There is also the cloud variation issue that is not well understood. How have tropical convection variations affected the global energy budget. How has convection varied through the centuries. There is a lot we don't know. It is a pet peeve of mine when people equate gravity or a round earth to our complex global climate. But in any event, your analysis for what we do know about the climate is pretty good in this sub thread here. I still believe we are not accounting for everything. The atmosphere-ocean system is very complex and we hopefully will continue to learn more and more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 It also assumes we have the entire climate system figured out including all the forcings and feedbacks. There is also the cloud variation issue that is not well understood. How have tropical convection variations affected the global energy budget. How has convection varied through the centuries. There is a lot we don't know. It is a pet peeve of mine when people equate gravity or a round earth to our complex global climate. But in any event, your analysis for what we do know about the climate is pretty good in this sub thread here. I still believe we are not accounting for everything. The atmosphere-ocean system is very complex and we hopefully will continue to learn more and more. The analysis doesn't assume we have all the feedbacks figured out. It does assume that we know what the forcing agents were over the last millenium. The whole point of my analysis was to figure out how positive (or negative) the net feedbacks are. If the estimates of historical forcing from MWP to LIA are correct (-.3W/m2 TSI, -.3W/m2 volcano), then feedbacks must be fairly net positive to create and thus climate sensitivity fairly large. Oh and it also assumes that temperature reconstruction are a decent approximation of historical temperature. I find it pretty unlikely that another forcing agent besides TSI and volcanoes would create the MWP and LIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 The analysis doesn't assume we have all the feedbacks figured out. It does assume that we know what the forcing agents were over the last millenium. The whole point of my analysis was to figure out how positive (or negative) the net feedbacks are. If the estimates of historical forcing from MWP to LIA are correct (-.3W/m2 TSI, -.3W/m2 volcano), then feedbacks must be fairly net positive to create and thus climate sensitivity fairly large. Oh and it also assumes that temperature reconstruction are a decent approximation of historical temperature. I find it pretty unlikely that another forcing agent besides TSI and volcanoes would create the MWP and LIA. Very off-topic.... But I find it ironic that you moved to SLC and its running a -14 degree anomaly on the month!! Top 3 coldest Jan's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Very off-topic.... But I find it ironic that you moved to SLC and its running a -14 degree anomaly on the month!! Top 3 coldest Jan's? Yes the 15.5F MTD (-13.5 anom) would be the 3rd coldest after 11.6 1949, 13.2 1937, and followed by 18.8 1932, 18.8 1931, and 19.2 1944. However, it probably won't finish quite that cold although could hold onto top 5. It's not like I'm the living incarnation of the greenhouse effect though. I just follow peer-reviewed science with a healthy dose of skepticism and perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 The analysis doesn't assume we have all the feedbacks figured out. It does assume that we know what the forcing agents were over the last millenium. The whole point of my analysis was to figure out how positive (or negative) the net feedbacks are. If the estimates of historical forcing from MWP to LIA are correct (-.3W/m2 TSI, -.3W/m2 volcano), then feedbacks must be fairly net positive to create and thus climate sensitivity fairly large. Oh and it also assumes that temperature reconstruction are a decent approximation of historical temperature. I find it pretty unlikely that another forcing agent besides TSI and volcanoes would create the MWP and LIA. I am no expert on volcanos. How do they estimate the forcing from volcanos before 1900? Do they compare to recent ones? Also, since I have not read the peer viewed literature on the follow-up to the Hockey Stick graph, what is the prevailing thinking on the MWP and LIA? Did they exist globally or were they regional (which I would find hard to believe)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Getting back on track to the original thread topic, these graphs explain why people think the temperature fraud exists. These are the adjustments made to the various datasets... NCDC, GISS, HADCRUT, UAH and RSS. I am not discrediting any of these adjustments. I have not dug in to see why they adjusted the data and am not saying they are not warranted. My point is that you can see why some get skeptical especially since the average person does not know statistical methods and would not understand the methodolgies employed. That is why this is a communication issue of which scientists often do poorly at with the general public. see graphs. cooling early, warming late in record cooling early, warming late in record overall warming, little change to trend. strange adjustments. warming early, cooling late in record!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 The methodology for the adjustments is posted side by side with the actual data itself. It's impossible to access one without the other. There is no communication issue. There is a manipulation issue by certain biased groups and interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 The methodology for the adjustments is posted side by side with the actual data itself. It's impossible to access one without the other. There is no communication issue. There is a manipulation issue by certain biased groups and interests. I have to disagree with you. There is a communication issue with climate change and the general public. People don't even know what climate is, let alone statistical methods that they post for these adjustments.I heard on talk radio today that global warming is a hoax because it has been so cold on the east coast!!! People believe this stuff. It is easy for one who politically is against AGW to show stuff like the graphs above and make statements that are weather, not climate related. There is no easy answer to this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 I have to disagree with you. There is a communication issue with climate change and the general public. People don't even know what climate is, let alone statistical methods that they post for these adjustments.I heard on talk radio today that global warming is a hoax because it has been so cold on the east coast!!! People believe this stuff. It is easy for one who politically is against AGW to show stuff like the graphs above and make statements that are weather, not climate related. There is no easy answer to this one. What you are describing is not a lack of communication by scientists, which was your initial claim. The fact that the general public is confused is not automatic proof that scientists have failed to communicate. Scientists have done everything they can. They have made their results and methodologies readily available. They have provided easier to comprehend summaries. They have provided extensive comprehensible commentary in interviews whenever the media has requested. The general public is confused because 1. The media has done a bad job in a number of ways. 2. People are biased and uneducated and unable to determine what is a reliable source of information. It doesn't matter how well scientists communicate when FOX News has a stated policy of pretending their is actual real debate over whether the earth has warmed. It doesn't matter how conclusive the results are, or how well scientists communicate those results. It is their policy. It has nothing to do with facts or evidence. it doesn't matter what scientists do or find or say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 this entire thread is the result of a FAKE story on FOX "news". this has been explained to you numerous times IN THIS THREAD. it's not the fault of scientists if FOX goes around lying about stuff. why do you keep insinuating that the scientists are doing something wrong? Haven't you figured out by now that fox is anti-AGW and anyone that leans right politically is as well. I knew I should of done a correlation of people who lean right with AGW deniers for my statistics project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 this entire thread is the result of a FAKE story on FOX "news". this has been explained to you numerous times IN THIS THREAD. it's not the fault of scientists if FOX goes around lying about stuff. why do you keep insinuating that the scientists are doing something wrong? Well that's ironic. I forgot what this thread was about originally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Getting back on track to the original thread topic, these graphs explain why people think the temperature fraud exists. These are the adjustments made to the various datasets... NCDC, GISS, HADCRUT, UAH and RSS. I am not discrediting any of these adjustments. I have not dug in to see why they adjusted the data and am not saying they are not warranted. My point is that you can see why some get skeptical especially since the average person does not know statistical methods and would not understand the methodolgies employed. That is why this is a communication issue of which scientists often do poorly at with the general public. see graphs. NCDC MaturityDiagramSince20080517.gif cooling early, warming late in record GISS MaturityDiagramSince20080517.gif cooling early, warming late in record HadCRUT3+4 MaturityDiagramSince20080225.gif overall warming, little change to trend. MSU UAH MaturityDiagramSince20080508.gif strange adjustments. MSU RSS MaturityDiagramSince20080508.gif warming early, cooling late in record!!!! I have never seen these charts. Looks terrible.... Cities grow and UHI gets more strong.... adjust upward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I have never seen these charts. Looks terrible.... Cities grow and UHI gets more strong.... adjust upward? The charts he showed were adjustments made between 2008 and present. There was already an existing UHI adjustment algorithm prior to 2008. In other words, they were already adjusting 2005 data colder for UHI. Why would they need to retroactively make 2005 even colder? The only one that shows a big shift warmer is GISS - I'm guessing it's because they changed their SST data source. You'd have to go back and see what changes to the methodology were made in the last 4 years. It's all on the GISS website. Maybe you could get back to us! Learning how to access this stuff and read about the methodologies would be good for you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 The charts he showed were adjustments made between 2008 and present. There was already an existing UHI adjustment algorithm prior to 2008. In other words, they were already adjusting 2005 data colder for UHI. Why would they need to retroactively make 2005 even colder? That's a key point. Unfortunately, critics of the temperature records gloss over that information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 The charts he showed were adjustments made between 2008 and present. There was already an existing UHI adjustment algorithm prior to 2008. In other words, they were already adjusting 2005 data colder for UHI. Why would they need to retroactively make 2005 even colder? The only one that shows a big shift warmer is GISS - I'm guessing it's because they changed their SST data source. You'd have to go back and see what changes to the methodology were made in the last 4 years. It's all on the GISS website. Maybe you could get back to us! Learning how to access this stuff and read about the methodologies would be good for you! I was hoping you would do this but I went ahead and did it. The reason for the general warming adjustment in GISS in the chart shown by blizzard is that NOAA changed from GHCN v3.1 to GHCN v3.2. The homogenization adjustment was changed to better detect step changes due to station and siting location changes. So if you have a problem with the changes, as your post indicated, perhaps you could detail for us why the homogenization adjustments for these location changes are incorrect. In the meantime however, I find it troubling that you are dismissive of adjustments without having any familiarity with the reason for the adjustments or even, apparently, of the general methodology by which the record is constructed. Your dismissal of data without having read the methodology for the data comes across as biased to me. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/Technical%20Report%20NCDC%20No12-02-3.2.0-29Aug12.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.