Unreliable sources to "balanced" approach to Climate Change

[blizzard1024]

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.

I could have decreased too. that is my point. we don't know and this puts a lot of uncertainty in climate sensitivity to forcing. 

[blizzard1024]

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.  

But doesn't the ISCCP data not have an accurate long term trend? 

[skierinvermont]

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. 

 

This question has already been answered for you.

 

When people say CO2 causes warming "in the pipeline" they do not mean that CO2 forcing has no effect for a magic lag period and then suddenly it causes warming. Warming begins immediately. It just can't warm fast enough, which causes there to be further warming "in the pipeline."

 

 

Contrary to this, deniers like Snowlover propose that solar variables will have no observable effect for 10 or 20 or more years (not even on any physical parameter like clouds, temperature, etc.), and then suddenly have an effect cause warming or cooling. This is what I have termed "magic lags." Lags that are invented to make a hypothesis which otherwise makes no sense fit the data. 

[skierinvermont]

But doesn't the ISCCP data not have an accurate long term trend? 

 

Yes which is why I put several big fat question marks next to clouds "clouds ????."

 

The problem is that solar radiation reaching the surface has been increasing since 1990. Directly contrary to the expected decrease we would see if increasing GCRs caused increased clouds which cause cooling by blocking out the sun.

[skierinvermont]

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

 

False. GCRs have been increasing since 1992 when they reached a record low. That was followed by a maximum, and then an elevated minimum. Neither the maximum nor the elevated minimum appear to have caused the expected decrease in solar radiation reaching the earth's surface which, as your study showed, increased from 1990-2005. 

[blizzard1024]

Yes which is why I put several big fat question marks next to clouds "clouds ????."

 

The problem is that solar radiation reaching the surface has been increasing since 1990. Directly contrary to the expected decrease we would see if increasing GCRs caused increased clouds which cause cooling by blocking out the sun.

where do you get the information about solar radiation increasingly reaching the surface since 1990? curious. 

[Snow_Miser]

where do you get the information about solar radiation increasingly reaching the surface since 1990? curious. 

 

I posted two peer reviewed papers to Skier showing that Solar Radiation reaching the Earth's Surface has generally increased since the late 1980s, thus providing some rough support for the ISCCP Cloud dataset.

 

Contrary to this, deniers like Snowlover propose that solar variables will have no observable effect for 10 or 20 or more years (not even on any physical parameter like clouds, temperature, etc.), and then suddenly have an effect cause warming or cooling. This is what I have termed "magic lags." Lags that are invented to make a hypothesis which otherwise makes no sense fit the data. 

 

Do you have any honesty at all?

 

First you falsely claim that the SLR dataset that Shaviv uses is obscure and used by a "denier" which was blatently false, and you didn't choose to check your facts at all.

 

You claim that Shaviv manipulated the data because some of the data, if correct, would undermine your pet theories.

 

Then you misrepresent my position on the role of lags and equilibrium in the climate system.

 

I ask again, do you have any honesty at all?

[skierinvermont]

where do you get the information about solar radiation increasingly reaching the surface since 1990? curious. 

 

The paper snowlover posted above0

[skierinvermont]

I posted two peer reviewed papers to Skier showing that Solar Radiation reaching the Earth's Surface has generally increased since the late 1980s, thus providing some rough support for the ISCCP Cloud dataset.

 

 

Do you have any honesty at all?

 

First you falsely claim that the SLR dataset that Shaviv uses is obscure and used by a "denier" which was blatently false, and you didn't choose to check your facts at all.

 

You claim that Shaviv manipulated the data because some of the data, if correct, would undermine your pet theories.

 

Then you misrepresent my position on the role of lags and equilibrium in the climate system.

 

I ask again, do you have any honesty at all?

 

 

I do not claim that Shaviv manipulated the data because it undermines AGW. I say that it is manipulated / wrong for unknown reasons because it does not match the actual data from Douglas 1997. Shaviv says he used Douglas 1997. But the data in his paper clearly is not Douglas 1997. What more evidence do you need?

[blizzard1024]

I do not claim that Shaviv manipulated the data because it undermines AGW. I say that it is manipulated / wrong for unknown reasons because it does not match the actual data from Douglas 1997. Shaviv says he used Douglas 1997. But the data in his paper clearly is not Douglas 1997. What more evidence do you need?

It is very interesting that the datasets that snowlover posted do support the ISCCP dataset. The ISCCP dataset pretty much is almost inverse of the global temperature trends. 

This would suggest that GCRs (possibly) or some other sun related amplifying factor is affecting clouds and a big part of the climate variability. But the problem is none of

the invokes CO2 so all the data, theories etc must be wrong. The researchers must not be trustworthy and funded by big oil and all this is reported on FOX news only. 

 

This is a real problem for the AGW crowd so they blast it and discredit it. Something else could be affecting our climate. It not just increasing CO2 levels. That is a BIG problem.

Just like they had to damp out the medieval warm period and little ice age. Mann originally tried to get rid of them but some common sense prevailed thankfully. The whole field of climate

science has become biased and borderline fraudlent in my opinion. This is the reason: when new ideas come up, they squash them completely. I am not saying that GCRs

are the cause of modulating cloud cover but cloud cover changes (according to ISCCP)  could explain the global temperature changes without invoking CO2 levels.

Oh but wait, the ISCCP data is not reliable (because it explains the recent temp trends). Paltridge et al 2009 shows declining upper tropospheric water vapor MEASURED. Oh but wait, can't be true.  Temperature trends are lower the the tropical upper troposphere than other parts of the troposphere which is NOT what the models are showing. So instead we use some indirect method, the thermal wind. which does not even apply to a nearly barotropic atmosphere and we get significant warming. OK that has to be true now. And also we change temperature

trends to make it cooler in the earty 20th century and warmer recently. ALL these adjustments just happen to enhance the warming. And this is consistent with our theory

so OK... it has to be true. 

 

You can see why common sense people (especially with atmospheric science backgrounds) get really skeptical of all this. 

[skierinvermont]

It is very interesting that the datasets that snowlover posted do support the ISCCP dataset. The ISCCP dataset pretty much is almost inverse of the global temperature trends. 

This would suggest that GCRs (possibly) or some other sun related amplifying factor is affecting clouds and a big part of the climate variability.  

 

The absolute last thing it suggests is GCRs caused it. GCRs have been increasing since 1992, which would cause more clouds, which would cause less sunlight to reach the surface. Instead, the exact opposite happened. MORE sunlight is reaching the surface, indicating a possible decrease in clouds and/or aerosols. 

 

 

The data is directly contrary to the GCR hypothesis. 

 

 

 

Instead, it is consistent with El-Nino induced reductions in cloudcover, and a decrease in aerosols. 

[blizzard1024]

The absolute last thing it suggests is GCRs caused it. GCRs have been increasing since 1992, which would cause more clouds, which would cause less sunlight to reach the surface. Instead, the exact opposite happened. MORE sunlight is reaching the surface, indicating a possible decrease in clouds and/or aerosols. 

 

 

The data is directly contrary to the GCR hypothesis. 

 

 

 

Instead, it is consistent with El-Nino induced reductions in cloudcover, and a decrease in aerosols. 

I am not really up on the GCR stuff. But it is worth research. I thought aerosols were increasing now because of China and India...maybe explains why it has been so cold over there and we can't keep the

PV over on our side of the hemisphere. This is pure speculation of course. But the aerosols I do believe have been shown to be dramatically rising over there. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

I am not really up on the GCR stuff. But it is worth research. I thought aerosols were increasing now because of China and India...maybe explains why it has been so cold over there and we can't keep the

PV over on our side of the hemisphere. This is pure speculation of course. But the aerosols I do believe have been shown to be dramatically rising over there. 

 

 

Can that happen?

 

That would be two major atmospheric changes the arctic warming and the Asian mid-level region cooling. 

 

That could make some sense.

 

I think North America is in deep bleep going forward for the cold wall to wall winters with the Pacific warming, the GOM probably warming 3-5C warmer than before soon in winter and the Eastern Coast is toasting all the time now. If that keeps up or get's worse, I can't see how that will help with cold.

 

I am pretty sure just winging it winds around an HP flowing over 2-5C warmth (above normal in spots) will help warm the airmasses moving North eventually, add that to a dryer plains with the down sloping.

 

Wouldn't that aid in ridging.

[blizzard1024]

Were you drunk when you made up bold face lie one after the other in the Sea Ice thread? 

 

What do you think is going to happen when the Earth Warms 3-4C more?

 

Do you even "think" about how warm that is compared to right now? 

 

Thanks for being a a complete **** when I was having a basic conversation with you.

 

FYI....the latest and greatest modeling warm most of us in the CONUS an average of 3C by 2060. 

 

This is not a fairy tale.

I just could not follow your logic and thought you were been sarcastic. my bad. anyway, you are putting your faith in models

good luck with that. The recent couple winters have nothing to do with AGW. Its all patterns. The AGW component likely

adds maybe a degree or so. So instead of being 4F above normal without AGW it probably would be 2-3F above normal.

Still mild and less snowcover like what happened many winters in the so called good old days. However, recent mild winters

are warmer and our colder winters are not as cold. That is the AGW component. But we still can see cold and snowy winters

as it stands now and I would be willing to bet in the future too. However, that is just one person's view. Your view could

be correct too. I am not discounting it. Just  am skeptical of models of the atmosphere. 

[skierinvermont]

I am not really up on the GCR stuff. But it is worth research. I thought aerosols were increasing now because of China and India...maybe explains why it has been so cold over there and we can't keep the

PV over on our side of the hemisphere. This is pure speculation of course. But the aerosols I do believe have been shown to be dramatically rising over there. 

 

The period of increasing sunlight reaching the surface risings was 1990-2005 (directly contrary to what it would be doing if GCRs caused clouds). I think aerosols have been more increasing post 2005. I'm guessing if we found a more recent version of the paper it would show a decrease 2005-present (it was published 2005). 

[Snow_Miser]

The period of increasing sunlight reaching the surface risings was 1990-2005 (directly contrary to what it would be doing if GCRs caused clouds). I think aerosols have been more increasing post 2005. I'm guessing if we found a more recent version of the paper it would show a decrease 2005-present (it was published 2005). 

 

The surface solar radiation according to Pinker et al. has been increasing steadily since the early to mid 1980s:

 

 

If the sun isn't responsible for such an increase in Solar Radiation, then what could be causing such an increase?

[skierinvermont]

The surface solar radiation according to Pinker et al. has been increasing steadily since the early to mid 1980s:

 

 

If the sun isn't responsible for such an increase in Solar Radiation, then what could be causing such an increase?

 

 

The increase 1984-1990 is extremely slow - basically flat. 

 

1990-2002 is a significant increase.

 

It is most likely caused by a decline in aerosols, and a decline in cloud cover due to El Nino. 

[Jonger]

I am not really up on the GCR stuff. But it is worth research. I thought aerosols were increasing now because of China and India...maybe explains why it has been so cold over there and we can't keep the

PV over on our side of the hemisphere. This is pure speculation of course. But the aerosols I do believe have been shown to be dramatically rising over there. 

 

The period of increasing sunlight reaching the surface risings was 1990-2005 (directly contrary to what it would be doing if GCRs caused clouds). I think aerosols have been more increasing post 2005. I'm guessing if we found a more recent version of the paper it would show a decrease 2005-present (it was published 2005). 

World wide I would he shocked.... Europe and American diesel trucks have had particulate filters and SCR emission controls in place since 2007... The entire fleet of diesel trucks has gone from high SO2 and NO2 to virtual trace emissions since 2007. This same tech is now required in electrical generation. I would guess that's a huge reduction in aerosols.

[skierinvermont]

World wide I would he shocked.... Europe and American diesel trucks have had particulate filters and SCR emission controls in place since 2007... The entire fleet of diesel trucks has gone from high SO2 and NO2 to virtual trace emissions since 2007. This same tech is now required in electrical generation. I would guess that's a huge reduction in aerosols.

 

Coal consumption began to skyrocket around 2005. China.

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

 

 

[Jonger]

 

 

That's about what I expected to see.

[Mallow]

The surface solar radiation according to Pinker et al. has been increasing steadily since the early to mid 1980s:

 

 

If the sun isn't responsible for such an increase in Solar Radiation, then what could be causing such an increase?

 

Can you update this chart through 2013? This ends more than ten years ago.

[TerryM]

Mallow

 

I'm relieved that the powers that be have decided to try a new monitoring regime.

 

A little civility can make a huge difference.

 

Terry

[skierinvermont]

That's about what I expected to see.

 

Hmm you were right. SO2 has continued to decrease since 2005. I wonder if global brightening has continued? Need to find an update to the pinker paper.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The surface solar radiation according to Pinker et al. has been increasing steadily since the early to mid 1980s:

 

 

If the sun isn't responsible for such an increase in Solar Radiation, then what could be causing such an increase?

 

 

 

Well there should have been some influence by sun.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Hmm you were right. SO2 has continued to decrease since 2005. I wonder if global brightening has continued? Need to find an update to the pinker paper.

 

 

That was a model's result's based on said China and India safety regulations so it might be a bit low.  But it's probably accurate that we have been cleaner with coal burning.

[Jonger]

 

Well there should have been some influence by sun.

 

Looks quite high during the years where most of the warming occurred.

[Jonger]

Hmm you were right. SO2 has continued to decrease since 2005. I wonder if global brightening has continued? Need to find an update to the pinker paper.

 

I remember during the 1980's, acid rain was destroying all the higher elevation forests in the Apps... You rarely hear the term "Acid Rain" anymore.

[skierinvermont]

Looks quite high during the years where most of the warming occurred.

 

Is this trolling or for real?

[Jonger]

Is this trolling or for real?

 

Does the total solar irradiance graph account for aerosols? If it doesn't, we have been in a period of high solar irradiance and low aerosol solar blocking since around 1990.