Unreliable sources to "balanced" approach to Climate Change

[Mallow]

The point is that a 1-2% increase in cloud cover (low cloud cover really) would increase the Earth's albedo. A 1 to 2 % increase in albedo = 2.4 to 4.8 w/m2 which overwhlems any manmade

changes in radiative forcing which is estimated to be at 1.6 w/m2 as of now. That is why there is so much uncertainty in my book. We need to understand what clouds are doing and there

is no good long term measure of clouds from satellite data. If low cloud cover is decreasing by some other factor, than you can't blame CO2 entirely for the warming and I am not

a cosmic ray guy either. 

And my point was that it has warmed, so clearly by your own logic, "a 1-2% increase in cloud cover" has not occurred. So why bring it up?

[PhillipS]

The graph comes from a reliable source. The international satellite cloud climate project. ISCCP. You should look at this stuff instead of assume that it is made up just because of the source. Close minded.

 

You are being dishonest - that graph does not come from ISCCP, it comes from Ole's denialist site Climate4you.  If you feel I'm wrong the you should be able to easily post the same chart from the ISCCP website.  As others have pointed out, that data was never intended for long-term climate studies so Ole's use of it falls into the dishonest chartsmanship category.

 

You should ask yourself why you are so accepting, so unskeptical, of Ole's lies.  Is it because they appear to support your biases?  Personally, I would be pissed if I knew someone was serving me crap and calling it fudge.  But you eat it up and go back for seconds.  You're not being very analytical or scientific, are you?

[blizzard1024]

And my point was that it has warmed, so clearly by your own logic, "a 1-2% increase in cloud cover" has not occurred. So why bring it up?

how do you know what cloud cover has done. It could have decreased too. That is why it is brought up. It is a big uncertainty

the the climate sensitivity argument.  

[skierinvermont]

You are being dishonest - that graph does not come from ISCCP, it comes from Ole's denialist site Climate4you.  If you feel I'm wrong the you should be able to easily post the same chart from the ISCCP website.  As others have pointed out, that data was never intended for long-term climate studies so Ole's use of it falls into the dishonest chartsmanship category.

 

You should ask yourself why you are so accepting, so unskeptical, of Ole's lies.  Is it because they appear to support your biases?  Personally, I would be pissed if I knew someone was serving me crap and calling it fudge.  But you eat it up and go back for seconds.  You're not being very analytical or scientific, are you?

 

There's nothing wrong with the chart. It is an accurate chart and simply presents the single data source as is. The same chart can be found elsewhere from more reliable sources. It doesn't really matter where the chart is coming from so long as it is accurate.

 

However, the interpretation of the chart by blizzard and Snowlover is incorrect. Also IIRC climate4you puts it side by side with a temperature graph as if to imply one caused the other. 

[blizzard1024]

You are being dishonest - that graph does not come from ISCCP, it comes from Ole's denialist site Climate4you.  If you feel I'm wrong the you should be able to easily post the same chart from the ISCCP website.  As others have pointed out, that data was never intended for long-term climate studies so Ole's use of it falls into the dishonest chartsmanship category.

 

You should ask yourself why you are so accepting, so unskeptical, of Ole's lies.  Is it because they appear to support your biases?  Personally, I would be pissed if I knew someone was serving me crap and calling it fudge.  But you eat it up and go back for seconds.  You're not being very analytical or scientific, are you?

It stated that it came from the ISCCP dataset. Who the heck is "Ole" anyway? I STATED that it is NOT intended for long term climate variability as skier (I believe) talked to the person who heads up this project. BUT it does show significant short term variability. Hence a few percent change in cloud cover is plausible either direction in the long term. I am not being dishonest and you have no clue about science or being analytical and have no place in saying that I am not being either.  The way this "Ole" guy is using it is NOT the intent of the graph. You really should read posts more clearly instead of bashing people that don't have your faith. 

[blizzard1024]

There's nothing wrong with the chart. It is an accurate chart. The same chart can be found elsewhere from more reliable sources. It doesn't really matter where the chart is coming from so long as it is accurate.

 

However, the interpretation of the chart by blizzard and Snowlover is incorrect. Also IIRC climate4you puts it side by side with a temperature graph as if to imply one caused the other. 

I KNOW that this chart is not intended for long term climate. I stated this.  We went through this before. However, it does show climate variability on the short term

of  1-3%. hence it is plausible that cloud cover could change on this order in the long term. That was my whole point. geez. 

[Snow_Miser]

I have provided actual SLR data, and compared it to Shaviv's. Shaviv's is different and magically contains an 11-yr cycle in it. What more proof do I need? Ball's in your court.

 

And no, there is zero evidence that cosmic rays influence cloud cover significantly. 

 

You didn't even bother reading the paper to see what SLR data he used.

 

Try reading the paper before you make baseless and senseless claims.

[Snow_Miser]

It stated that it came from the ISCCP dataset. Who the heck is "Ole" anyway?

 

Ole Humlum is a skeptical climate scientist who PhillipS doesn't like and runs the climate4you website. Instead of addressing the data that Dr. Humlum gathers from the leading datasets, PhillipS chooses to attack the scientist who gathered the data. Humlum has published numerous times on the subject of Climatology.

[Snow_Miser]

And my point was that it has warmed, so clearly by your own logic, "a 1-2% increase in cloud cover" has not occurred. So why bring it up?

 

We don't know if such an increase or decrease has occured, which was his main point. Thus providing a huge uncertainty with regard to attribution and climate sensitivity.

[skierinvermont]

You didn't even bother reading the paper to see what SLR data he used.

 

Try reading the paper before you make baseless and senseless claims.

 

I know what SLR data he says he used. I have read the paper in its entirety word for word multiple times. It doesn't matter what data he said he used. There is easily accessible accurate SLR data which contradicts his findings. There is no 11-yr periodicity in SLR data.

 

 

Please point to the 11-yr periodicity in this chart. This must be the 10th time I have asked.

 

 

[Snow_Miser]

Perhaps wxtrix and PhillipS can answer why the actual data from ISSCP looks identical to the chart on Dr. Humlum's website, if he is such a "dishonest" scientist.

 

[Snow_Miser]

I know what SLR data he says he used. I have read the paper in its entirety word for word multiple times. It doesn't matter what data he said he used. There is easily accessible accurate SLR data which contradicts his findings. There is no 11-yr periodicity in SLR data.

 

 

Please point to the 11-yr periodicity in this chart. This must be the 10th time I have asked.

 

 

 

Figure 6 in the Shaviv paper:

 

 

Sea level change rate over the 20th century is based on 24 tide gauges previously

chosen byDouglas [1997] for the stringent criteria

they satisfy (solid line, with 1-error range denoted with

the shaded region). The rates are compared with thetotal

solar irradiancevariations Lean [2000] (dashed line, with the

secular trends removed). Here r = 0.54 giving a p = 10−4

(for Neff = 47). The inset depicts the sea level change

rate folded over the solar cycle together with a sinusoidal

least 2 fit (each year is assigned a phase relative to the

preceding and following solar minima, after which all data

points within a phase bin are averaged; the data is then

shown twice, over two cycles, for clarity). The tide gauge

data leads the solar forcing by 3±6 months. The Inset also

depicts the TOPEX / Jason satellite based sea level change

rate overlaid on the solar-cycle folded tide-gauge data. Besides

the large 1997 El-Ni˜no event, the two different data

sets are consistent with each other.

[skierinvermont]

We don't know if such an increase or decrease has occured, which was his main point. Thus providing a huge uncertainty with regard to attribution and climate sensitivity.

 

IF cloud cover had actually changed so dramatically then it could have caused warming. However, such a large change in global cloud cover is highly unlikely. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that such a change has occurred. And there is much evidence to suggest that it has not. 

[Snow_Miser]

IF cloud cover had actually changed so dramatically then it could have caused warming. However, such a large change in global cloud cover is highly unlikely. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that such a change has occurred. And there is much evidence to suggest that it has not. 

 

We have satellite measurements indicating an increase in solar radiation reaching the surface during the late-20th Century that indicate increases of solar radiation comparable to the anthropogenic forcing during this timeframe. Thus, this is supporting evidence for noticeable changes in Cloud Cover. Pinker et al. 2005 and Wild et al. 2005 are two such studies finding a global increase in Solar Radiation using data from satellites and from weather stations. One of the possible factors responsible for this observation mentioned in the Wild et al. 2005 study was a Cloud Decrease:

 

Variations in solar radiation incident at Earth's surface profoundly affect the human and terrestrial environment. A decline in solar radiation at land surfaces has become apparent in many observational records up to 1990, a phenomenon known as global dimming. Newly available surface observations from 1990 to the present, primarily from the Northern Hemisphere, show that the dimming did not persist into the 1990s. Instead, a widespread brightening has been observed since the late 1980s. This reversal is reconcilable with changes in cloudiness and atmospheric transmission and may substantially affect surface climate, the hydrological cycle, glaciers, and ecosystems.

[skierinvermont]

Figure 6 in the Shaviv paper:

 

 

As I said already, I am quite aware of the data Shaviv said he used. However, the actual accurate data that has been carefully developed contradicts Shaviv's data. If there is an 11-yr periodicity, it should be evident in the chart I presented above. There is absolutely zero reason to throw aside the SLR data sets already developed, develop and probably manipulate his own data set, and find results that contradict the real data. 

 

 

You are showing classic symptoms of dogmatism and conspiracy theory. You reject data sources that have been widely used and reviewed for decades and instead accept an obscure data source developed by an AGW denier which contradicts the mainstream data source. 

[skierinvermont]

We have satellite measurements indicating an increase in solar radiation reaching the surface during the late-20th Century that indicate increases of solar radiation comparable to the anthropogenic forcing during this timeframe. Thus, this is supporting evidence for noticeable changes in Cloud Cover. Pinker et al. 2005 and Wild et al. 2005 are two such studies finding a global increase in Solar Radiation using data from satellites and from weather stations. One of the possible factors responsible for this observation mentioned in the Wild et al. 2005 study was a Cloud Decrease:

 

Variations in solar radiation incident at Earth's surface profoundly affect the human and terrestrial environment. A decline in solar radiation at land surfaces has become apparent in many observational records up to 1990, a phenomenon known as global dimming. Newly available surface observations from 1990 to the present, primarily from the Northern Hemisphere, show that the dimming did not persist into the 1990s. Instead, a widespread brightening has been observed since the late 1980s. This reversal is reconcilable with changes in cloudiness and atmospheric transmission and may substantially affect surface climate, the hydrological cycle, glaciers, and ecosystems.

 

Except the study also says that solar radiation reaching the surface was decling prior to 1990 - the period of strongest increase in solar acitivity and when any hypothesized cloud decrease due to the sun would have been strongest. When solar variables stabilized and began to decrease, when clouds should have increased, sunlight began to reach the surface better. 

 

In short, the correlation is the exact opposite of what one would expect if a strong sun caused a decrease in clouds and a weak sun a decrease.

 

 

In short, the changes in solar radiation correlate best with aerosols and ENSO-induced cloud changes. NOT solar induced cloud changes. It runs the exact opposite of solar cloud changes, if such a connection could possibly exist. 

[Snow_Miser]

As I said already, I am quite aware of the data Shaviv said he used. However, the actual accurate data that has been carefully developed contradicts Shaviv's data. If there is an 11-yr periodicity, it should be evident in the chart I presented above. There is absolutely zero reason to throw aside the SLR data sets already developed, develop and probably manipulate his own data set, and find results that contradict the real data. 

 

You can be skeptical of Shaviv's data. I can agree with reasonable skepticism over his work. Saying he manipulated the data though when it got published into a peer reviewed journal is pretty bold and not accurate. I believe he used the best quality SLR datasets to build his SLR dataset.

[Snow_Miser]

Except the study also says that solar radiation reaching the surface was decling prior to 1990 - the period of strongest increase in solar acitivity and when any hypothesized cloud decrease due to the sun would have been strongest. When solar variables stabilized and began to decrease, when clouds should have increased, sunlight began to reach the surface better. 

 

In short, the correlation is the exact opposite of what one would expect if a strong sun caused a decrease in clouds and a weak sun a decrease.

 

 

If you actually read the Wild paper they attribute the increase in solar radiation reaching the surface to ENSO and a decline in aerosols. 

 

The ISSCP record coincidentally has Cloud Cover start declining at around 1986, which is not too dissimilar to a Global Brightening trend observed since the late 1980s in the paper.

 

While the global brightening trend is not exclusive to Cloud Cover changes, it is a piece of evidence that can be used to support that hypothesis.

 

There was a record low in GCRs in 1992, which would reflect the peak levels of Solar Activity, and would be consistent with this study. Solar Activity only really started to decline in the late 1990s and the early 2000s, which is also consistent with the ISSCP's dataset showing a flatlining in Cloud Cover during this timeframe.

[skierinvermont]

You can be skeptical of Shaviv's data. I can agree with reasonable skepticism over his work. Saying he manipulated the data though when it got published into a peer reviewed journal is pretty bold and not accurate. I believe he used the best quality SLR datasets to build his SLR dataset.

 

 

There is already high-quality well accepted SLR data easily available. Why did he go use some obscure data source developed by an AGW denier? The data he used contradicts the data that has been used for decades. Unless he can somehow prove that the data that has been used for decades is inaccurate, and that his is better (and that it was not manipulated in any way), his conclusions are useless.\

 

 

If there is an 11-yr periodicity in SLR data, it should be evident in the mainstream data source. 

 

 

Also it was published in JGR which doesn't have the most stringent peer-review. 

[skierinvermont]

The ISSCP record coincidentally has Cloud Cover start declining at around 1986, which is not too dissimilar to a Global Brightening trend observed since the late 1980s in the paper.

 

While the global brightening trend is not exclusive to Cloud Cover changes, it is a piece of evidence that can be used to support that hypothesis.

 

There was a record low in GCRs in 1992, which would reflect the peak levels of Solar Activity, and would be consistent with this study. Solar Activity only really started to decline in the late 1990s and the early 2000s, which is also consistent with the ISSCP's dataset showing a flatlining in Cloud Cover during this timeframe.

 

 

The hypothesis is:

 

declining GCRs = more clouds = less solar radiation at the earth's surface

 

what has actually happened since 1990 is:

 

 

declining GCRs, clouds ????, more solar radiation at the earth's surface

 

 

 

See the problem? We don't know what clouds have been doing, and solar radiation at the earth's surface began increasing in 1990, instead of the expected decrease.  

[Snow_Miser]

There is already high-quality well accepted SLR data easily available. Why did he go use some obscure data source developed by an AGW denier? The data he used contradicts the data that has been used for decades. Unless he can somehow prove that the data that has been used for decades is inaccurate, and that his is better (and that it was not manipulated in any way), his conclusions are useless.\

 

 

If there is an 11-yr periodicity in SLR data, it should be evident in the mainstream data source. 

 

 

Also it was published in JGR which doesn't have the most stringent peer-review. 

 

Please check your facts before you make blatently false and erroneous claims.

 

The study Shaviv cited is a study by Bruce C. Douglas whose study has gotten over 200 citations in the scientific literature. This is your definition of obscure?

[Snow_Miser]

The hypothesis is:

 

declining GCRs = more clouds = less solar radiation at the earth's surface

 

what has actually happened since 1990 is:

 

 

declining GCRs, clouds ????, more solar radiation at the earth's surface

 

 

 

See the problem? We don't know what clouds have been doing, and solar radiation at the earth's surface began increasing in 1990, instead of the expected decrease.  

 

If we are to base the Solar Radiation changes off of the sun alone, we really shouldn't have been seeing a decrease until the late-1990s.

[skierinvermont]

Please check your facts before you make blatently false and erroneous claims.

 

The study Shaviv cited is a study by Bruce C. Douglas whose study has gotten over 200 citations in the scientific literature. This is your definition of obscure?

 

 

You are right. Douglas is not an obscure denier source.

 

However, the actual data from douglas doesn't look like the data Shaviv presents. Again, there is no other conclusion other than Shaviv manipulated the data.

 

 

This is the actual data from Douglas 1997. Again, it looks nothing like Shaviv's and there is no 11-yr periodicity. In short, Shaviv did not use the data he said he did. 

 

[skierinvermont]

If we are to base the Solar Radiation changes off of the sun alone, we really shouldn't have been seeing a decrease until the late-1990s.

 

 

As you said GCRs peaked record low in 1992. If increasing GCRs increased clouds, then we would see radiation reaching the surface begin to decrease following 1992. Instead, it began to increase consistent with decreasing aerosols and decreasing cloud cover associated with the frequent El Ninos that occurred 1990-2005. 

 

The correlation is exactly the opposite of what one would expect if increasing GCRs caused less clouds and more radiation to the surface. It is consistent with ENSO-related clouds and aerosols. 

[Mallow]

We don't know if such an increase or decrease has occured, which was his main point. Thus providing a huge uncertainty with regard to attribution and climate sensitivity.

 

 

how do you know what cloud cover has done. It could have decreased too. That is why it is brought up. It is a big uncertainty

the the climate sensitivity argument.  

 

But you didn't say that "it could have decreased". You talked about the potential impacts of an increase in cloudcover. But cloudcover didn't increase like that, or else (by your own logic) we wouldn't have warmed.

 

My point is, say what you mean and mean what you say. Don't bring up some irrelevant "factoid" to try to get the opposite point across. It comes across as misleading, or even deceptive. Simply saying "cloudcover changes are uncertain, and could explain a potentially large part of the temperature trajectory" would have been a much clearer way to get your point across. I may still disagree with the point, but at least then I don't feel like I'm being strung along trying to figure out why you'd be talking about cooling when we're discussing warming.

[PhillipS]

Perhaps wxtrix and PhillipS can answer why the actual data from ISSCP looks identical to the chart on Dr. Humlum's website, if he is such a "dishonest" scientist.

 

 

Knowingly using data in an analysis for which it is unsuitable is fundamentally dishonest.  I just went and looked at Ole's site and nowhere did I see a caveat about the ISCCP data, nor any discussion of the uncertainty bars for the data.  Those are further examples of his dishonesty.  The GISS plot you posted (btw, thanks for finding that) gives the uncertainty of the monthly values as +- 1.48%, which is a significant difference in the plots.  Much of the observed variability could be simple measurement uncertainty - a fact which Ole neglected to address and which Blizzard seems to not understand.

 

Blizzard also conflates variability with trends by asserting that short-term cloud variability explains the observed long-term global warming trend.  That's not true at all.  Without a solid record of cloud changes over the same period as the instrumental temperature record his whole premise is just rhetorical hand-waving.  

[Snow_Miser]

You are right. Douglas is not an obscure denier source.

 

However, the actual data from douglas doesn't look like the data Shaviv presents. Again, there is no other conclusion other than Shaviv manipulated the data.

 

 

This is the actual data from Douglas 1997. Again, it looks nothing like Shaviv's and there is no 11-yr periodicity. In short, Shaviv did not use the data he said he did. 

 

 

At least you admit that your attempt to debunk Shaviv's data by falsely claiming the datasource was "obscure" was futile and incorrect.

 

You're not making a logical comparison to the Shaviv paper.

 

In the Shaviv paper, he detrended the Douglas data and scaled the ordinate in such a way to best fit the detrended data.

 

Pretty amazing that you're still willing to claim that Shaviv manipulated the data.

[Snow_Miser]

As you said GCRs peaked record low in 1992. If increasing GCRs increased clouds, then we would see radiation reaching the surface begin to decrease following 1992.

 

Not necessarily. Again, solar activity only really started decreasing in the late 1990s, so we really wouldn't expect a decrease until then.

[blizzard1024]

As you said GCRs peaked record low in 1992. If increasing GCRs increased clouds, then we would see radiation reaching the surface begin to decrease following 1992. Instead, it began to increase consistent with decreasing aerosols and decreasing cloud cover associated with the frequent El Ninos that occurred 1990-2005. 

 

The correlation is exactly the opposite of what one would expect if increasing GCRs caused less clouds and more radiation to the surface. It is consistent with ENSO-related clouds and aerosols. 

But solar radiation affects the oceans and there is a lag.... decades???....there is warming in the "pipeline" for CO2? Then why not solar? No one ever comes close to answering this especially

if there is an amplifying factor and that is an IF. I agree that there is uncertainty in this whole cosmic ray stuff. 

[blizzard1024]

Knowingly using data in an analysis for which it is unsuitable is fundamentally dishonest.  I just went and looked at Ole's site and nowhere did I see a caveat about the ISCCP data, nor any discussion of the uncertainty bars for the data.  Those are further examples of his dishonesty.  The GISS plot you posted (btw, thanks for finding that) gives the uncertainty of the monthly values as +- 1.48%, which is a significant difference in the plots.  Much of the observed variability could be simple measurement uncertainty - a fact which Ole neglected to address and which Blizzard seems to not understand.

 

Blizzard also conflates variability with trends by asserting that short-term cloud variability explains the observed long-term global warming trend.  That's not true at all.  Without a solid record of cloud changes over the same period as the instrumental temperature record his whole premise is just rhetorical hand-waving.  

You completely misrepresented what my intent was. There is uncertainty in long term cloud measurements and there could be variations that we don't know of because of the lack of a good long term measure. period. enough of this harassment. I am sick of it.