Science Forum - More New Research further implicates Sun and Cosmic Rays

The Science Forum - Scientific Discussion and Debate

Live Chat

FAQ

Usergroups

Science Forum Forum Index » Environmental Issues » More New Research further implicates Sun and Cosmic Rays

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

More New Research further implicates Sun and Cosmic Rays

« View previous topic :: View next topic »

Author

Message

cypress

Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:48 pm Post subject:

Banned (Trolling)

Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Posts: 1219
Location: New Orleans

KALSTER wrote:

Quote:

Not sure overstated its the right term. It is consistently the highest and it continues to diverge from the others over time. Here is a comparison to satellite data back to 1978. In the early '80s the average difference was about 0.11C and now the average difference is about 0.33C

I would like you to take a look at this LINK. The guy gives a short overview of temperature readings and produces a graph superimposing data from GISS, RSS, HadCRU and UAH, not only two of them. They show remarkable similarity if you ask me.

Yes, in the graphic you offer the data has been normalized to the same baseline. So it has been adjusted to remove offsets. You should note that about 0.25C has been removed from the GISTemp in the 2005 timeframe.

Quote:

I might be inclined to not expect absolute convergence of the surface and satellite data due to the fact that satellite and surface measurements differ in what they measure, no?

Agreed, completely.

Quote:

Yet RSS data shows the highest decadal increase of all the data sets. Also, satellite measurements are not free of error. Several corrective adjustments have had to be made in the past due to, for instance, orbital degradation of the satellites and calibration with faulty radiosonde data. Why do you think satellite data would show more accurate trends than surface data?

The RSS data has the greatest average slope over that total time, but remember the data has been adjusted. RSS and UAH uses the same raw data, they apply different algorithms to generate temperature. UAH is still in the process of adjusting for diurnal drift and claim their October and November numbers are still a bit high.

The satellite data shows the most leveling and decline in 2002-2009. Surface numbers suffer most from urbanization and selective inclusion or exclusion of weather stations, two factors that likely figure heavily into the .75C difference between land temperatures and sea surface temperature.

Quote:

Another thing to consider, is that satellite data includes MSU channel 2 measurements, which includes lower stratosphere measurements (which have been cooling, both measured and predicted). I believe this has been taken account of recently, but it just shows that satellite data is not as reliable as you might have thought. Corrective adjustments are common with all the data sets.

True it did in the past. I find the satellite data more difficult to have concealed errors. The fact that these issues are known and in the process of being adjusted is testament to that. The inability to make adjustments in the surface data due to unavailability of the raw set is disturbing to me. Then when you learn that stations are selectively excluded, well I don't think that is the right way to go about compiling a temperature record.

Quote:

Wild Cobra, your MSU graph ends in 2005. In that same year MSU data was adjusted to correct errors that crept in due to the degradation of the satellite's orbits. Was that taken account of?

As I understand it all the previous data has been adjusted. If you look at the adjustments over the years they change monthly numbers at times but the trend is very similar. In 2008 they applied correction for diurnal drift as well. It does appear as if his data set is old.
_________________
The world is incredible

KALSTER

Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:41 pm Post subject:

Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 4571
Location: South Africa

Quote:

But the pertinent question should be why it has been removed. Do you know? Also, there is nothing wrong with adjustments to the same baseline. The purpose of such graphs is after all to compare trends. The presence of offsets or anomalous data points are a given (no measurement can claim complete accuracy right out of the bat) and the factors attributing to data points have to be taken into account to assist producing as reliable data as can be achieved.

Quote:

Yes, RSS has been adjusted, but so has the UAH data. Does that mean UAH is more reliable than RSS? I don't think so. In fact, it was RSS that pointed out the errors due to orbital degradation in the first place. Also, remember that the most important thing to look at is the prevailing trend, rather than short term inconsistencies.

Quote:

The satellite data shows the most leveling and decline in 2002-2009. Surface numbers suffer most from urbanization and selective inclusion or exclusion of weather stations, two factors that likely figure heavily into the .75C difference between land temperatures and sea surface temperature.

Have La Nina events been accounted for? There have been quite a few over that period. Satellite data covers a larger ocean area than GISS and CRU does. Remember that RSS is also satellite data, so saying that satellite data shows lower trends does not represent the whole picture. Surface numbers do suffer from these issues, but attempts are made to account for them and when the source and/or extent of anomalous data is unclear, that data is excluded as I would expect the best practice should be. Including data that has a relatively unknown error margin over time makes no sense. One thing to remember about ocean surface temperatures is that a large part of the gained solar energy is lost from measurements in a short space of time due to evaporation.

Quote:

My point is that satellite data is also prone to error and that the identifying of errors does not exclude the possibility of new ones showing up in the future. Errors are inherent in all data sets. As it pertains to surface measurements; Anthony Watts from wattsupwithat and his band of intrepid researchers did a survey of US based temperature stations and identified a list of stations that minimize potential errors, but subsequent graphs using data from those stations still pretty much followed the previously produced curves exactly.

Now the bigger question is: Why are you so sceptical of surface data when satellite data show close to similar trends and even worse in the case of RSS? Even if you throw out all surface data and only focused on satellite data, you would reach the exact same conclusion. The average between RSS and UAH is the same as the surface data trends. Whatever the reason might have been for NASA to keep the raw data from the public or for CRU to destroy raw data, their published data still closely agree with satellite data.
_________________
Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
"All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work...
I want to achieve it through not dying."
- Woody Allen

KALSTER

Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:58 am Post subject:

Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 4571
Location: South Africa

WildCobra:

Could you point me towards where you discuss your justification for expecting a lag between TSI and atmospheric CO2 of the order you claim? Naming the thread will suffice. You see, I don't understand why you would choose the Maunder minimum as a basis to start from and quote the increase in TSI as the driver of current CO2 trends, when atmospheric CO2 levels haven't been as high as they are now for at least 15 million years. Also, solar forcing of CO2 increase seems to have a lag in the order 800 +-200 years, not anywhere near what you are claiming. Historically ocean outgassing of CO2 have been greatly aided by the ending of glacial periods where more surface water gets exposed. The termination III event of about 240 000 years ago only had an increase in atmospheric CO2 in the range of 100 ppm to 300 ppm. Further, TSI levels of the medieval maximum closely rivals that of today, yet atmospheric CO2 levels never reached today's highs.
_________________
Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
"All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work...
I want to achieve it through not dying."
- Woody Allen

cypress

Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:29 am Post subject:

Banned (Trolling)

Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Posts: 1219
Location: New Orleans

KALSTER wrote:

Quote:

But the pertinent question should be why it has been removed. Do you know?

Sure, the maker of the graphic wanted to make the series seem most similar to each other. The maker was making a relative comparison and chose to adjust them to illustrate the point being made.

Quote:

Also, there is nothing wrong with adjustments to the same baseline. The purpose of such graphs is after all to compare trends. The presence of offsets or anomalous data points are a given (no measurement can claim complete accuracy right out of the bat) and the factors attributing to data points have to be taken into account to assist producing as reliable data as can be achieved.

Agreed. When making relative assessments, absolute values are not important. the most important aspect of reliable adjusted data is the ability to independently reconstruct the adjustments. When raw data is not available, you can't do it. When the raw data includes many sources that show artificial trends due to urbanization or relocation of the station, it becomes very hard to validate the data. Those factors make the data less reliable.

Quote:

Agree.

Quote:

Have La Nina events been accounted for? There have been quite a few over that period.

No adjustments for ocean patterns like El or La Nina. They are real events that alter global surface temperatures.

Quote:

Satellite data covers a larger ocean area than GISS and CRU does. Remember that RSS is also satellite data, so saying that satellite data shows lower trends does not represent the whole picture.

Not lower trends, different trends.

Quote:

Surface numbers do suffer from these issues, but attempts are made to account for them and when the source and/or extent of anomalous data is unclear, that data is excluded as I would expect the best practice should be. Including data that has a relatively unknown error margin over time makes no sense. One thing to remember about ocean surface temperatures is that a large part of the gained solar energy is lost from measurements in a short space of time due to evaporation.

I mischaracterized the .75 as an absolute difference but should have described it as an additional increase. The land temperatures show an additional increase above and beyond the average combined land and sea increase. The additional rise is not easy to effectively explain.

Quote:

My point is that satellite data is also prone to error and that the identifying of errors does not exclude the possibility of new ones showing up in the future. Errors are inherent in all data sets

.

Agree, but when you have the raw data you can correct errors. When you don't , you can't.

Quote:

As it pertains to surface measurements; Anthony Watts from wattsupwithat and his band of intrepid researchers did a survey of US based temperature stations and identified a list of stations that minimize potential errors, but subsequent graphs using data from those stations still pretty much followed the previously produced curves exactly.

Few people still doubt that surface temperatures have been rising so accurate data sources should show a increase from about 1700 through 2000. What I find curious is the divergence in the data sets over the most recent years.

Quote:

Now the bigger question is: Why are you so sceptical of surface data when satellite data show close to similar trends and even worse in the case of RSS? Even if you throw out all surface data and only focused on satellite data, you would reach the exact same conclusion.

I am quite happy to us RSS data and/or UAH data. As you say, they show the same general trend. I like them because the raw data is available, both groups go out of there way to make the data and their methods available, they are quite open to admit errors and make retroactive adjustments to correct the errors. You don't see that from GISS or Hadley/CRU. In fact you see just the opposite.

In addition, you don't reach the same conclusions. The satellite trends, after adjusting for known ocean related events including Oscillations and Nina, show far better alignment with recent changes in sun and cosmic ray activity. The fact that the others don't show this same characteristic is why I think the raw data should be reviewed, but alas, that is not possible. It is why I don't think it should be used as widely as it is. It is not good practice to use data that cannot be independently verified. Do you disagree?

Quote:

The average between RSS and UAH is the same as the surface data trends.

And if averages were all that were important, then the average of the four would do just fine. Averaging and smoothing artificially drives the data to a trend that one would obtain by CO2 forcing. Those with a bias or prior commitment to AGW would find averaged and heavily smoothed data more significant, and would tend to make use of it over other reporting methods. The skeptic would tend to avoid averaged data sets.

Quote:

Whatever the reason might have been for NASA to keep the raw data from the public or for CRU to destroy raw data, their published data still closely agree with satellite data.

And if close were good enough, then it would not matter. But it does matter and therefore we should use the best practices available. One of them is to use data that is independently verifiable, with any errors that can be adjusted for. Do you agree?
_________________
The world is incredible

iceaura

Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:38 am Post subject:

Forum Bachelors Degree

Joined: 05 Oct 2008
Posts: 432

cobra wrote:

OK, I see this is an example where you get the lack of correlation since the 70's. Here I have offered two highly probable reasons. Lag energy accumulated in the oceans, and the clearing of the skies due to more efficient burning and environmental regulations.

The Chinese and other Asian skies, the Indonesian skies, the African skies, the South American skies, have not been cleared by regulation and efficiency since the 70s.

As far as I can tell, the "lag energy" you hypothesize appears to not exist. I have no idea what you are referring to. Solar warming of the ocean warms the very shallow, surface, upper layer, predominantly. There is no "lag" in the influence of the ocean's surface waters on the air - La Nina, for example, has measurable influence immediately.

cobra wrote:

I read that as Judith Lean saying we have evidence of a 0.55 C increase of the 0.8 C increase by solar irradiance changes. Am I wrong? 0.3 + 0.25 = 0.55... right?

The total increase is .9, not .8. Otherwise correct arithmetic. That kind of analysis is where the IPCC gets its estimate of solar variation accounting for about 25% of the warming since 1900, with greenhouse effects explaining most of the remaining 75%.

cobra wrote:

Remember what I said about not using short term data because of 30 year and less oscillations?

The people claiming to see a cooling trend since 2002 are the ones relying on short term data - not for the first time (recall last year they were heralding a one year return of the Arctic sea ice, "wiping out" the entire loss of ice since the '60s?)

Meanwhile - perhaps a stroll down memory lane, just a few year's worth, will suggest some good reasons to treat the latest iconoclastic, lone wolf, independent minded researcher who has in one study overthrown the bogus IPCC consensus and revealed the true pattern behind global warming. Because the last few didn't stand up to much scrutiny, did they.

KALSTER

Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:56 am Post subject:

Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 4571
Location: South Africa

Quote:

Sure, the maker of the graphic wanted to make the series seem most similar to each other. The maker was making a relative comparison and chose to adjust them to illustrate the point being made.

Again you intimate deliberate fudging.

Quote:

But raw data is not suitable for extracting trends or anything mildly conclusive. The very reason they have been adjusted is to make them more accurate. Who will consider each data point and make the necessary adjustments? Will you? Those researchers have gone through large piles of data and evaluated each of them on their particulars. Will you do the same?

Quote:

No adjustments for ocean patterns like El or La Nina. They are real events that alter global surface temperatures.

Especially global surface ocean temperatures, wouldn't you agree? See where I am going with this?

Quote:

Not lower trends, different trends.

You said: "The satellite data shows the most leveling and decline in 2002-2009.".

Quote:

See the above on the effect of La Nina on ocean surface temps. If a large portion of satellite data is from measurements over ocean waters and the overall trend has been for ocean waters to cool due to La Nina, would you not expect a combined data set to differ from relatively exclusively land based measurements?

Quote:

It might be curious as in interesting, but like I said, RSS data gives the steepest slope of the lot.

Quote:

The satellite trends, after adjusting for known ocean related events including Oscillations and Nina, show far better alignment with recent changes in sun and cosmic ray activity.

Can you provide a reference for this? Remember that your graph needs to come from after 2005, because the data has been adjusted since then. The TSI have leveled out over the last three decades, yet temps have kept increasing. Also the trends of TSI and CO2 never compare as they do now in the last 15 million years. Why believe CO2 all of a sudden increased now due to solar activity only exactly when human contributions have reached the huge levels they have? It seems to me that the only possible way your thoughts would make sense is if CO2 did not play the part in climate that all the trained scientists think it does and how climate models have accurately predicted it to have.

Quote:

It is why I don't think it should be used as widely as it is. It is not good practice to use data that cannot be independently verified. Do you disagree?

I'd say it depends on the context. In many cases keeping records of all collected data becomes impractical and I would think that one would be able to derive the original data from looking at how adjustments have been made in the past. But like I said, what use would it serve to keep all the raw data?

Quote:

I don't think that is the case at all. Averaging means that natural variability is removed. This variability does little more than complicate the issue. Can you seriously extract moderately accurate trends without applying some level of smoothing? I recall the temp graph you linked to at the end of the other thread. Can you seriously easily extract trends from that graph? Also, climate change works on the scale of decades, so the smoothing of natural variability like solar activity makes perfect sense. Inferring nefarious and self serving intentions in the smoothing of data is disingenuous. AWG proponents might counter claim that sceptics purposefully prefer unsmoothed data, because it supports their preconceived notions. The simple fact is that smoothing enhances the usefulness of charts.

Quote:

But they have been adjusted for. Why should raw data be made available to untrained skeptics who have little or no expertise to do a proper job of doing the adjustments themselves?

I still wonder, Cypress, why you assume nefarious intent on the part of AGW proponents? The fact remains that all data sets show a warming trend, especially over the last few decades. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the artificial increase of atmospheric CO2 can have no effect other than to retain extra energy from the sun. WildCobra's solar forcing idea is bunk.
_________________
Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
"All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work...
I want to achieve it through not dying."
- Woody Allen

Wild Cobra

Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:58 am Post subject:

Forum Ph.D.

Joined: 01 Sep 2009
Posts: 901

KALSTER wrote:

Wild Cobra, your MSU graph ends in 2005. In that same year MSU data was adjusted to correct errors that crept in due to the degradation of the satellite's orbits. Was that taken account of?

I don't know if it was or not. My thought was the overlay of ENSO/optical depth and temperature. Other things affect the earths temperature besides CO2.
_________________
Jack of all trades, Xpert at some.

Last edited by Wild Cobra on Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

cypress

Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:23 am Post subject:

Banned (Trolling)

Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Posts: 1219
Location: New Orleans

iceaura wrote:

Oceans are deep and except for the surface generally stratified. In order for the surface to retain a higher (or lower temperature) the lower layers have to come to a new equilibrium so that heat transfer rates stabilize. If the transfer rates are low and total mass is high relative to the energy flux, then it will take a relatively long time to stabilize. This is the nature of the lag. Through differential analysis, the lag time can be estimated. I would guess that this lag would be in the order of tens of years. If I thought it would make a difference to this discussion I might even calculate it. I find that those with prior commitments are rarely swayed. Maybe someone has figured this lag time and posted it on the web.

Quote:

There is no "lag" in the influence of the ocean's surface waters on the air - La Nina, for example, has measurable influence immediately.

There is, but it is fairly short. On the order of weeks or months.

Quote:

cobra wrote:

Remember what I said about not using short term data because of 30 year and less oscillations?

True enough. I see that the trend toward a return to average arctic ice cover continues. The low point was late 2005- mid 2007. Today it is just below the -2 standard deviations from average and continues on a path to recover hampered slightly this year by strong wind patterns in the barents sea rather than higher temperatures.

Quote:

Meanwhile - perhaps a stroll down memory lane, just a few year's worth, will suggest some good reasons to treat the latest iconoclastic, lone wolf, independent minded researcher who has in one study overthrown the bogus IPCC consensus and revealed the true pattern behind global warming. Because the last few didn't stand up to much scrutiny, did they.

I'm not sure about that at all. To what certainty have the previous few alternatives been dismissed? If that certainty is less than 90%, I would say they are still in play. Any ideas on that certainty?
_________________
The world is incredible

Last edited by cypress on Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:12 am; edited 1 time in total

Wild Cobra

Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:13 pm Post subject:

Forum Ph.D.

Joined: 01 Sep 2009
Posts: 901

KALSTER wrote:

WildCobra:

Could you point me towards where you discuss your justification for expecting a lag between TSI and atmospheric CO2 of the order you claim? Naming the thread will suffice.

I'm not going to look for it. The basic concept is that the circulations of the oceans take several hundred years in some places to complete. CO2 is more readily dissolved (sinked) in the polar regions, and more easily expelled (sourced) in the equatorial areas. The oceans very slowly warm or cool to stay in equilibrium with the solar energy. This warming and cooling affects the effectiveness of both sinking and sourcing CO2. With the increase in solar radiation as far back as about 1950, we really don't know how the heat lag through slow circulation affects the ratios of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere. I say it is very probable we still see increased CO2 from the solar warming that basically ended about 1950. We have had no significant increase in solar irradiance since the 1900 to 1950 period.

KALSTER wrote:

You see, I don't understand why you would choose the Maunder minimum as a basis to start from and quote the increase in TSI as the driver of current CO2 trends, when atmospheric CO2 levels haven't been as high as they are now for at least 15 million years.

Well, there are several prominent people that say the lag time is 600 to 100 years in length. Others deny it could possible be that long, then those like Inow claim lag is impossible.

This lag, however long it may be, is not only a lag that controls CO2 respiration, but latent heat also.

KALSTER wrote:

Also, solar forcing of CO2 increase seems to have a lag in the order 800 +-200 years, not anywhere near what you are claiming.

This is true by my understanding for the total values that are completly natural in cause. I figure that much of the effect is seen by about 70 years time, partially because surface water effects are more immediate, and because of the unnatural temperature increases in the arctic polar region that I attribute to the soot-on-ice warming and melting. It could easily be more or less, but 70 years seems to fit, and yes, I an guilty of the correlation/causation thing here. That is just my best guess.

Dr. Glassman's assessment is that the half-life of CO2 is 0.65 years, 1.83 years, or 3.0 years, depending on who's data you look at. Sinking and sourcing are rather fast. However, a change in equilibrium because of pH, salinity, or temperature can sink or source will This means that the changes that goes through the whole Thermohaline Cycle, which can take as much as a 1600 years to complete a circuit.

from CO2: "WHY ME?":

Quote:

Regardless of which way one poses the problem, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere has a mean residence time of 1.5 years using IPCC data, 3.2 years using University of Colorado data, or 4.9 years using Texas A&M data. The half lives are 0.65 years, 1.83 years, and 3.0 years, respectively. This is not "decades to centuries" as proclaimed by the Consensus. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 25.

That is one more piece of information that makes me believe the warming is hindering the natural CO2 sinking. The IPCC claims ridiculously long years, without looking at it in half-life terms.
I will claim that solar energy is the single major influence on the ocean temperature. The oceans cover 71% of the earths surface and absorb 92% of the solar energy they receive. They are so much more massive than the atmosphere, that the atmospheric temperatures have little influence on them, but they, a great deal on the atmosphere.

Now if we assume we had no variations in solar energy for more than 1000 years, I think it's safe to say sinking and sourcing will be very close to equal, in teerms of equilibrium, based on Henry's Law. Since the oceans contain more than 98% of the ocean and atmospheric carbon budget, without a changing sea temperature, it would take our current output of CO2 more than 1500 years to accumulate the amount of CO2 that we have since 1750. This is why there is no reason to ignore the way temperature affects equilibrium. This is based on the NASA/GISS carbon cycle model in wiki. I based the 750 GtC to correspond with 350 ppm. That means 2.14 GtC per ppm. The ratio between the 39120 GtC ocean CO2, and carbon forms of it, to the atmosphere is more than 52:1. Today's levels are about 387 ppm, or 107 ppm higher than about 1750. 107 x 2.14 = 229 GtC increase. For ever 53 parts, 52 is absorbed by the ocean and one remains in the atmosphere. At 8 GtC annually, it takes 1517 years. 229/8 x 53.

KALSTER wrote:

Historically ocean outgassing of CO2 have been greatly aided by the ending of glacial periods where more surface water gets exposed. The termination III event of about 240 000 years ago only had an increase in atmospheric CO2 in the range of 100 ppm to 300 ppm. Further, TSI levels of the medieval maximum closely rivals that of today, yet atmospheric CO2 levels never reached today's highs.

I don't have all the answers, only possible causes for that claim. First of all, I would say the major place for sinking are the polar regions. This black ice on soot causes too much unnatural warming. It very likely reducing the sinking of CO2 far more than any slow natural warming. I would also point out that temperature reconstruction that long ago by ice core samples exceeds hundreds of years between data points. In the case of CO2 even longer yet. Dr. Glassman this nout in the same link I referenced:

Quote:

Check the Vostok data. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt {Err. 12/8/09}.

The CO2 samples number 283, covering 414,085 years. The average spacing is 1463 years. The chances of sampling an epoch like the present 50 year record, if it existed, is about 50/1463 or 3.4%.

That translates into a 3.4% confidence level for the statement that the present CO2 trend was unprecedented in the last 420 Kyears. That confidence level does not begin to rise to an acceptable standard for a scientific conclusion.

This unprecedented claim is a mantra of the Consensus. It made a normal scatter plot of the Vostok data, but then seduced itself by connecting the dots!

9. The Vostok record (Figure 3.2(d)) shows five peaks in 420,000 years. What are the chance that the peaks shown are below the true maximum given that the average sample interval is a millennium and a half? A. The chances are about 96.6%. Thus the confidence is greater than 95% that any measured maximum is more than 50 years from the peak CO2.

_________________
Jack of all trades, Xpert at some.

Wild Cobra

Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:37 pm Post subject:

Forum Ph.D.

Joined: 01 Sep 2009
Posts: 901

iceaura wrote:

cobra wrote:

The Chinese and other Asian skies, the Indonesian skies, the African skies, the South American skies, have not been cleared by regulation and efficiency since the 70s.

First of all, older data was only available from industrialized nations. We really don't have a good idea of 3rd world temperature data of the past. Even though other nations may lack the scrubbers to remove black carbon, they don't generate very much power compared to the USA of the 60's, with the exception of Asia. Without looking at circulation patterns, I believe these other nations also have most their pollution carried over the oceans, rather than large land masses. China is the primary problem in my view because so much of their black carbon ic carried over and deposited on ice. That then reflecting I think 85% to 90% of the solar energy, they now reflect less than 60%. 40% or more of that energy is melting the ice rather than 10% to 15%, that would do so little with ambient temperatures.

iceaura wrote:

As far as I can tell, the "lag energy" you hypothesize appears to not exist. I have no idea what you are referring to. Solar warming of the ocean warms the very shallow, surface, upper layer, predominantly. There is no "lag" in the influence of the ocean's surface waters on the air - La Nina, for example, has measurable influence immediately.

How far do the various spectra of light go before being completely absorbed? i don't recall, but especially in the northern summer, it's added energy that sinks as it cools. It just isn't as cold as it would otherwise be. This is latent stored energy for decades to centuries in length. As for what stays in the surface layer, it's still not immediate. Any large system has longer time lags and oscillations than small systems.

iceaura wrote:

cobra wrote:

I read that as Judith Lean saying we have evidence of a 0.55 C increase of the 0.8 C increase by solar irradiance changes. Am I wrong? 0.3 + 0.25 = 0.55... right?

Well, I have pointed out how they are wrong. They are only using values that equal direct changes in radiative forcing. They obviously discount the added forcing that geenhouse gasses do since they are a feedback of the increased longwave radiation that the sun's shortwave radiation creates.

What ever percentage you want to use, the increased greenhouse gas radiative forcing is nearly linear to the change in solar irradiance. That change, to be properly placed, should be added as total solar radiative forcing change. Please not they cleverly, and purposely use the word "direct" for solar irradiance changes, adding the indirect to changes for CO2 I suspect.

iceaura wrote:

cobra wrote:

Remember what I said about not using short term data because of 30 year and less oscillations?

Yes, but we are just pointing it out, and we suspect the trend to continue because of solar irradiance decreases. We are not hanging our hat on that short term change, but would be a good statistical bet.

iceaura wrote:

I agree that many things said could be disputed. However, I have never seen dismantling of 'denier' reasons as any better science than the correlation used by alarmists. There are too many factors, and you can almost always find one factor to dispute another. Thing is, how many hold up to the whole picture.
_________________
Jack of all trades, Xpert at some.

Wild Cobra

Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 1:46 pm Post subject:

Forum Ph.D.

Joined: 01 Sep 2009
Posts: 901

KALSTER wrote:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the artificial increase of atmospheric CO2 can have no effect other than to retain extra energy from the sun. WildCobra's solar forcing idea is bunk.

How can you say that? I do not say that added CO2 doesn't add to the greenhouse effect. I only say it doesn't add as much as anyone is saying.

CO2 already is about 95% opaque to the spectra it absorbs.

What I claim is that the radiative forcing is about equal to the irradiance change of the sun. Do you disagree?

From about 1700 to about 2000, we have seen about a 0.24% increase in solar radiation. Between the years the IPCC uses, about 0.18%. Do you disagree with this assessment:

Click to view this image at its original size

Click on the image to view it at its original size

I used this model to assume 2005 levels, and added what the levels would be if the irradiance was 0.18% higher in 2005 than in 1750. The IPCC claims a 0.12 watt direct solar radiative forcing. We see that with the 67 - 66.88 number. We also see a 451.19 to 452, or 0.81 watt increase of the direct longwave heat and greenhouse effect cause by the increased solar energy. Because of this, my assessment is that the total change in radiative forcing from the sun is 0.93 watts. Considering the IPCC model has 1.66 watts attributed to CO2 and about a 1.6 watt total, to properly place that 0.81 watts into the sun category means reducing the CO2 watts, probably by half.

If you see a problem with this theory, please explain.

As for me claiming that CO2 can do so little more, how am I wrong? How about looking at this:

Click on the image to view it at its original size

What is between the two sets of lines I added is a coverage of about 95%. there is so little radiative increase for CO2 to have, especially since it is logarithmic in nature. The smaller areas I didn't include do have quite a bit of room for growth, but it takes so much more CO2 to see much difference there.

If we go by what Al Gore says in "An Inconvenient Truth", then by using this chart:

Then we see that CO2 has an approximate 26.4 watt forcing (265.4 - 230) at 280 ppm and about a 28 watt forcing at 387 ppm, or what ever level he is using. This is about the 1.66 IPCC estimate, causing about 1/2 degree of CO2 warming. With me saying the radiative forcing is actually half under this example, then we can attribute 1/4 degree warming to CO2. I still say it's smaller because evidence in the past few years does recognize a greater effect of soot on ice. I don't recall for sure, but I thing the value was raised from 0.1 watt to 0.3 watts. What is the effect of CO2 is only about 0.6 watts?

IPCC chart:

Click on the image to view it at its original size
_________________
Jack of all trades, Xpert at some.

cypress

Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:39 pm Post subject:

Banned (Trolling)

Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Posts: 1219
Location: New Orleans

KALSTER wrote:

Quote:

Sure, the maker of the graphic wanted to make the series seem most similar to each other. The maker was making a relative comparison and chose to adjust them to illustrate the point being made.

Again you intimate deliberate fudging.

Not at all. Perhaps you just don't care for my prose, or maybe you suspect my motives. I assure you if I meant a particular viewpoint I would state it directly.

Quote:

But raw data is not suitable for extracting trends or anything mildly conclusive. The very reason they have been adjusted is to make them more accurate.

Sure, and it is appropriate to do so as long as the raw data and the methods of adjustment are available. GISS and CRU don't make either available. Why do you suppose that is?

Quote:

Who will consider each data point and make the necessary adjustments? Will you? Those researchers have gone through large piles of data and evaluated each of them on their particulars. Will you do the same?

I would if I were sufficiently motivated. But there are plenty of funded groups who will do this work if the data were available. The primary point though is that data that can be independently verified is far more valuable and useful than data that cannot. Do you doubt this?

Quote:

No adjustments for ocean patterns like El or La Nina. They are real events that alter global surface temperatures.

Especially global surface ocean temperatures, wouldn't you agree? See where I am going with this?

Sure but I find it short sighted and generally in the wrong direction. Mean global surface temperature is not the ultimate issue. The near surface global energy budget is because it is this that influence surface climate. Ocean oscillations influence this energy budget and are therefore significant. Those with a bias to one or another particular conclusion would improperly include it (those who cite the peak as a record high point or alternatively those who want to remove it).

Quote:

Not lower trends, different trends.

You said: "The satellite data shows the most leveling and decline in 2002-2009.".

Right a different trend. Do you see the difference?

Quote:

Sure, but La Nina is a short term event lasting a few years at most and it is a mechanism to bring stratified ocean layers into equilibrium more quickly when they get out of balance. The divergency of land verses sea temperatures in the GISS and CRU data sets is over a 50+ year period and lacks any good physical explanation other than urban heat island effects. Maybe you have a better explanation?

Quote:

It might be curious as in interesting, but like I said, RSS data gives the steepest slope of the lot.

Yet it does not show any divergence between land and sea area troposphere readings, and average long term slope is of strong interest if you are prejudicially looking for a pattern that matches CO2 concentration. Far more interesting is the empirical correlations the unadjusted values have to various known influencers. On this point the RSS data seems to tell a good story and it can be independently validated. It is a data set that can be adjusted to take in any number of independent and dependent input variables in figuring a near surface energy budget. The GISS and CRU data cannot because they cannot and/or will not provide the raw data and calculation methods.

Quote:

The satellite trends, after adjusting for known ocean related events including Oscillations and Nina, show far better alignment with recent changes in sun and cosmic ray activity.

I'll see if I can't dig this up again. The data cited by Lu in his original report address the correlation with sun and cosmic activity to a fair degree. I'll have a look around.

Quote:

Also the trends of TSI and CO2 never compare as they do now in the last 15 million years. Why believe CO2 all of a sudden increased now due to solar activity only exactly when human contributions have reached the huge levels they have?

I don't think too many skeptics discount the contribution of CO2 by human causes. Clearly the addition has altered short term and dynamic state concentrations. The question is what influence does this dynamic state of decreased hydrocarbon and coal sequestering of carbon have on climate? In short I do not believe the elevated CO2 levels are solely due to ocean temperature increases driven by solar influences. Clearly steady state closed system conditions have been altered by human activity.

Quote:

It seems to me that the only possible way your thoughts would make sense is if CO2 did not play the part in climate that all the trained scientists think it does and how climate models have accurately predicted it to have.

Most people with an understanding of heat transfer, physical chemistry an and thermodynamics will agree that CO2 alters radiant transfer. I do as well. So we can safely say that CO2 does have a role in the atmospheric climate conditions. The question is how significant is that role. The direct effect of radiant forcing as CO2 concentration increases from 280 to 380 ppm and on up to 700 ppm when any further increase is nearly insignificant is far less than the 2-3C limit being proposed by UN negotiators. Then when you consider that at equilibrium, about 95% of any CO2 released into the atmosphere will be absorbed by the sea, it causes me to question the concern.

Climate models, like all software models produce the results that are coded into them by their designers. If the designer codes in an impact for CO2, then it will exhibit that behavior. This is true for all software that rely on empirical correlations rather than known physical properties and relationships. Do you believe the models are correct? If so why?

Quote:

I would think you would be accusing me of sounding like a broken record by now. The usefulness of keeping the raw data is be able to independently validate the results and conclusions. Without the raw data, if the results are questioned, one can not properly rely on it. Record keepers are well aware of this and do not dispose of raw data without cause.

Quote:

Sorry, no I disagree completely. Averaging depends on the time range of the effect you are interested in evaluating. Short term inputs can be completely masked by long term averaging to the point one could conclude it had no effect while an inconsequential long term influencer could be improperly identified as the cause.

Yes you can extract very accurate trends from non-averaged data by applying a host of statistical techniques to generate confidence intervals and isolate empirical correlations of multi-dimensional analysis.

Quote:

I recall the temp graph you linked to at the end of the other thread. Can you seriously easily extract trends from that graph?

Yes, as I explained above. Do you have any training in statistical analysis of experimental data?

Quote:

Also, climate change works on the scale of decades, so the smoothing of natural variability like solar activity makes perfect sense.

For presentation purposes, I completely agree. Also to mask over short term influences that are not interesting or are understood, sure.

Quote:

Inferring nefarious and self serving intentions in the smoothing of data is disingenuous.

NO sorry, I disagree.

Quote:

AWG proponents might counter claim that sceptics purposefully prefer unsmoothed data, because it supports their preconceived notions

.

As they should.

Quote:

The simple fact is that smoothing enhances the usefulness of charts.

Sometimes as explained above.

Quote:

But they have been adjusted for. Why should raw data be made available to untrained skeptics who have little or no expertise to do a proper job of doing the adjustments themselves?

They claim that best practices were followed but how do we verify this is the case unless an independent analysis is done? Raw data should be made available to anyone who wants to review it. The trained and unbiased person will treat it fairly, while the trained skeptic will work hard to find gaps, errors and omissions. Then the proponent will independently adjust for them and make corrections. After a few cycles the final product will be much better. The untrained skeptic will muck up their conclusions and few will take them seriously, with only a slight cost to the overall improved product.

Quote:

I still wonder, Cypress, why you assume nefarious intent on the part of AGW proponents?

I don't think you and I are on the same plain. I find them generally to be good intentioned, I just think they are likely wrong.

Quote:

The fact remains that all data sets show a warming trend, especially over the last few decades. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the artificial increase of atmospheric CO2 can have no effect other than to retain extra energy from the sun. WildCobra's solar forcing idea is bunk.

Had our technology been in place in the 900's you would have been able to say the same thing. The only difference would have been the 60 or so extra ppm due to emissions and the resulting dynamic imbalance from equilibrium. You would have been wrong, and then after a while, temperatures would have cooled again. How can you be so sure you are correct? Why did you pretend to be undecided when in fact you are not?
_________________
The world is incredible

Geo

Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:42 pm Post subject:

Forum Sophomore

Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 171
Location: New Zealand

cypress wrote:

This is the nature of the lag. Through differential analysis, the lag time can be estimated. I would guess that this lag would be in the order of tens of years. If I thought it would make a difference to this discussion I might even calculate it. I find that those with prior commitments are rarely swayed. Maybe someone has figured this lag time and posted it

When our planet is in a warming cycle it takes the surface layers of the ocean about three decades to absorb heat from the atmosphere, and a 1000 years or more to reach the ocean depths.

Stouffer, R.J. 2004. Time Scales of Climate Response. Journal of Climate 17, pp. 209-17.

Last edited by Geo on Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:31 pm; edited 1 time in total

inow

Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:49 pm Post subject:

Forum Professor

Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1795
Location: Austin, TX

Source?
_________________
iNow

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ Pale Blue Dot ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition."
~C. Sagan

inow

Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:28 am Post subject:

Forum Professor

Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1795
Location: Austin, TX

Returning now to one of the central themes of the work shared in the OP... specifically the claim that the earth has been cooling... The context below shows just how ridiculous such an assertion is. I will ignore for the moment how they are cherry-picking some of the warmest years on record to suggest that the years that follow present a cooling trend, and just end with the statement that measurements indicate that 2009 is among the top 5 warmest years, and that the past decade has been the warmest on record.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html

Quote:

The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

<...>

The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989).

<...>

This preliminary information for 2009 is based on climate data from networks of land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, as well as satellites. The data are continuously collected and disseminated by the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs) of the 189 Members of WMO and several collaborating research institutions. The data continuously feed three main depository global climate data and analysis centres, which develop and maintain homogeneous global climate datasets based on peer-reviewed methodologies. The WMO global temperature analysis is thus based on three complementary datasets.

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news-nz/20091012-20384-2.html

Quote:

Prof Martin Manning, Director of NZ Climate Change Research Institute at Victoria University of Wellington, comments:

“This is an important statement for the WMO to make. Given the amount of criticism that has been aimed recently at one of the groups doing careful summaries of temperature data, it shows that our knowledge of the increasing global temperatures is widespread and certainly not reliant on any individual organisation.

“This update on recent global temperatures shows that those arguing that there was a peak in temperatures in the 1990s are not making a balanced interpretation of the available data.

<...>

Professor Tim Flannery is Professor of Environmental and Life Sciences at Macquarie University, Chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council and Australian of the Year (2007), comments:

“A central plank of the climate sceptics’ creed has been that the Earth has been cooling since 1998. They have misled many, and damaged public policy as a result. Here is the definitive proof that they are wrong. Unfortunately the warming trend continues, and will continue as long as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to grow”.

Professor Andy Pitman is Joint Director of the Climate Change Research Centre a the University of NSW, comments:

“Given we are in a period of low solar activity, and have been through a sustained La Nina, 2009 should have been a cool year. The fact it ranked in the top 5 since 1850 is actually frightening. The heatwaves in NSW, Victoria and South Australia that occurred in 2009 are also frightening and do not bode well for 2010 and beyond”.

_________________
iNow

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ Pale Blue Dot ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition."
~C. Sagan

Display posts from previous:

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Page 2 of 4

Science Forum Forum Index » Environmental Issues » More New Research further implicates Sun and Cosmic Rays

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum