Just Temperature

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 03:19 PM GMT am 25. März 2012

Share this Blog
16
+

Just Temperature:

The U.S. has just experienced an intense heat event with many records falling in the eastern half of the U.S. Here is Chris Burt’s post on the historic event. There is an excellent discussion of this event and its relation to a warming climate by Andrew Freedman at Climate Central. (Global Warming May Have Fueled March Heat Odds) I have a talk to give next week, and I am sure that the heat will contribute to questions. A question that has been put to me frequently in the past weeks is that should we expect such high temperatures in the future?

Usually when I talk about evidence of a warming, I talk about coherent and convergent evidence. That is, one can’t just look at the global surface temperature data and state that the planet has warmed. But if you look at the surface temperature data along with many other sources of data, then one finds that the evidence of warming is overwhelming. If you add the impacts of this warming to ecosystems, for example, the observations that spring is coming earlier over most of the land area in the Northern Hemisphere, then the evidence becomes smothering. For me and many others this evidence of warming is convincing, but it relies on pulling together information from many sources, explaining their relationships, and presentation of the information. So as people have asked me about the heat in Michigan and Maine this past week, I have thought of what I could do with just temperature. Here is the thread that I put together.

The last month when the global mean monthly average was below the 20th century average was February 1985. Here is a picture of the difference from the 100 year average of temperature data from each February. It has been 324 months since there was a month below the global average temperature. (Not 324 Februarys, 324 consecutive months.) Looking at the graph, the Southern Hemisphere, which is dominated by the ocean, goes back into the 1970s. There have been Februarys in the Northern Hemisphere with little blips below average.



Figure 1: February monthly difference from a 20th century average of all Februarys. From the National Climatic Data Center.

The average in this figure is based on the entire 20th century. Therefore, if you look at the record during the 20th century, there is a balance between the warm and the cold months. This fact comes directly from the definition of calculating the differences from an average. There is a famous 1930s warm period. This warm period is present in the February time series, but compared with a later span centered around 1960, this period in not as intense. A prominent characteristic of the graph is that on the left, in the first part of the 20th century, it is cooler than the average and on the right, the here and now, it is warmer.

To go along with the February graph, I have placed the graph from August 2011. The main part of the story, that in 1900 it was cooler than in 2000 remains the same. Here, in the Northern Hemisphere summer, the 1930s warm period is more prominent and more global than in February. In is easy to conclude from this figure that the spatial extent and the temporal persistent of the current warming are both far larger than in the spurt of warmth of the 1930s.



Figure 2: August monthly difference from a 20th century average of all Augusts. From the National Climatic Data Center.


I started this article with the question is the current heat event in the U.S. what we can expect in the future? Taking this simple argument, looking at the average for the past, almost 30 years, it seems reasonable to expect it be warm. And given, the relentless increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we should expect it to be warmer in the future. To expect otherwise would be betting against the average.

Betting against the average – the next plot, Figure 3, is adapted from a 2009 paper by Jerry Meehl and a host of other authors. (Original Paper, Paper Discussion from NCAR ) What this figure shows, for the U.S., is the number of new record highs divided by the number of record lows – the ratio of highs to lows. In a simplistic, intuitive way, if the average temperature where staying the same, then one would expect the number of new record highs and the number of new record lows to be about the same. What is seen in the figure is as we go from the 1980s to the 1990s to the 2000s, there is trend of record highs out numbering record lows by a factor of 2 to 1. Comparing this with Figures 1 and 2, this evolution of new record highs outpacing new record lows occurs during the time when there has not been a month below the global 20th century average.



Figure 3: Adapted from Meehl et al. (2009) the ratio of U.S. record highs and record lows by decade.

The next figure I show is another version of the global difference figure. This one is calculated as differences from 1950 onwards in order to overlap with the data from the Climate Prediction Center that identify El Nino and La Nina Cycles. El Nino and La Nina are names given to frequently occurring patterns of variation that are concentrated in the tropical Pacific Ocean, but that change the average temperature of Earth for about a year. When there is an El Nino then the globe is warmer and when there is a La Nina the globe is cooler.



Figure 4: Global temperature differences with El Nino (warm) and La Nina (cool) years marked. From National Climatic Data Center.

Looking first at the La Nina years, 1985, the last year when the Earth was cooler that the 20th century average was a La Nina year. One could say that this was the last year when the variation associated with La Nina was strong enough to counter the warming trend enough for the Earth to appear “cool.” What is striking is that the La Nina years in the past three decades are systematically warming. This suggests that in the La Nina cool period, we are seeing a warmer and warmer background, average, temperature evolving.

The warm phase of this variation does not paint as easy a picture. The very strong 1997-1998 El Nino famously raised the Earth’s temperature to a point that many argue was the warmest year observed. The subsequent El Nino events are not as strong as the 1997-1998 El Nino, and each one has temperature maximum that flirts with the 1998 maximum. It is important to note that in 1998 the entire positive anomaly of temperature was not due to the presence of El Nino. The El Nino events take place on a background of increasing temperature, and each event is a burst towards new historic highs in temperature. It is useful to look back earlier in the graph, say 1970 and earlier, to get an idea of the size of variation that can be associated with El Nino and La Nina.

Returning again to the question posed in the beginning, can we expect to regularly see such warm temperatures going forward? Yes, it makes sense that we will see more and more record high temperatures. To not expect that is to bet against the emerging observed trend of warmer and warmer temperatures that is a metric of the warming climate.

I will finish this just temperature story with a map of the Plant Hardiness Zones. Here is the official version from the US Department of Agriculture with an service that lets you pick out your zip code. I show a map of Michigan. In 1990 the green zones, 6, were down around the Ohio River in southern Ohio. This is a measure of not only warming, but also of the definitive changes in the onset of spring. The Washington Post has an excellent graphic that shows the changes between 1990 and 2012.



Figure 5: Plant hardiness zones in Michigan for 2012. From US Department of Agriculture.

We have just experienced in the U.S. a record extreme heat event. This raises the natural questions of climate, weather, and climate change. I have linked a couple of excellent discussions of these issues in the opening paragraph. What I have done in my article is to focus simply on temperature. I have laid out a thread that starts from the globe and the remarkable observation that we have not seen a month below the 20th century global average in more than 25 years. This I followed with the observation that we are in a time when we are setting more than twice as many record highs as record lows. After that I discussed the role of one of the most prominent forms of planetary temperature variations, El Nino and La Nina. The compelling point from this graph was that in the past 30 years during the cool phase, La Nina, the planet shows a warming trend. Finally, I introduce the plant hardiness zones, which show warmer winters, and can be translated to earlier springs. So the question that has been posed to me last week, can we expect such high temperatures in the future? Yes. If we use our experience and observations for the basis of decision making, then the rational answer is yes. We will see more records. We will see an earlier spring. We will see warmer times.


r


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 232 - 182

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Quoting percylives:


Proofs are for mathematics, I just showed a very possible "smoking gun". The one that almost every scientist on the planet agrees on, BTW. Mother Nature doesn't give a hoot what any of us say.


So have I, expect I provided evidence from peer reviewed papers to support my claims wheras you have yet to do so.

Quoting percylives:

You are the one who babbles on and on belaboring a very weak argument. Personally, I hope you are right and my grandchildren won't experience the hell I see coming for them.


It's not a "weak argument." The TSI increase on ACRIM can explain no diurnal temperature change over the last 30 years, it can explain the increasing TSI at the surface, and it can also explain the decrease in Cloud Cover, which I have posted can be directly explained by solar activity, thus strengthening the case for the ACRIM dataset even further.

Quoting percylives:

I do believe I've read that CO2 isn't the primary greenhouse gas, water vapor is.


Good, because CO2 is not the strongest Greenhouse Gas. Water Vapour ranks as number 1 as you've said, and the OLR reduction from Cloud Cover ranks as number 2. That's why it's so crucial to get Cloud Feedbacks less certain, because they play a HUGE role on the Climate.

Quoting percylives:

But again, I hope all the scientists on the planet except the one or two you quote are wrong. Good luck.


I've quoted many more than just one or two...
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Pier16:

Really? That's all you got. Well, since your handle is Neapolitan, couldn't I use your logic and erroneously assume you are inclined to a warm bias, being that the word "Neapolitan" is a native of the city Naples, Florida?

I signed up four minutes ago exactly, with the hope of contributing something positive to the discussion. But I just could not help myself on addressing your comment to snowlover first.

That's all for now. I'll be around.


Welcome to the show, it has been this way for years.
As you can detect, some are disposed to drawing incorrect conclusions with no evidence.
Be careful, with a handle like that you might be accused of Tide Bias, or worse yet, no sea level
increase LOL
Check out some of the regulars, very informative but
mostly on the main Jeff Masters Blog. You know when you read them.


I've always wanted to be a scientist. That way, I could get a bunch of
grants and do research into whether money can really buy happiness."
- Kyannke.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Climate Prediction running predictions using models with varying factors (i.e. sensitivity analysis I guess) predicts 1.4 to 3 degree rise in temperature. --> Note I didn't read it, that headline is taken from the scrapping not the source.

Link

Link
Member Since: Juni 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting Snowlover123:


A lot of the nastiness towards myself by specific members on this board I think has largely to do with their idea that I'm somehow preventing action on reducing CO2 emissions.

I am all for reducing CO2 emissions. I am all for switching to Green Energy like Solar Energy. I agree that we MUST get rid of fossil fuels AS FAST as possible.

Denialists who say that it's too expensive to switch to solar energy haven't lived in a place where pollution is already having its ill-effects on the environment.


The thing is, arguing publically that global warming is not man made is just ammunition for the denialist side.

The effect of what you do is to cause harm to the planet and to America even if your motivation is different.

So i don't understand why you are arguing this. The standard critique of denialists is that if the denialists are right and global warming is a myth, nothing happens if we switch to green energy. If the denialists are wrong (which i think they are) then continuing our oil ways will lead to the death of billions.

Denialists counter this argument with (as you stated) absurd arguments about the cost of changing to a renewable infrastructure.

Since you agree that we should change to renewable infrastructure as soon as possible, this leaves only the academic reason for your arguments. While your argument may be technically sweet to you, the result is counter to the progress that you want to occur.

So I don't understand your motivation. The best I can come up with is some Ralph Naderish/Tea Partish idea of principle regardless of effects... but you seem too smart for that.

So what is your motivation for posting?

Member Since: Juni 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting Birthmark:>

Brevity is the soul of wit


As if I was not confused already. sigh

Now I am not sure if I am lacking soul, wit or both. :-)

Hey! Perhaps I regained some of both? Was this brief? crosses fingers and hopes

I better quit typing, before I blow it again.

Goodnight, to all!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Snowlover123:


Great, the simpler and more concise, the better.



"Yes I was in my blog post. My previous reasoning is flawed, because I had assumed that Co2 has increased in a linear progression over the last 21 years when it has increased exponentially, so the contribution from CO2 is probably much higher than what is stated in the blog post."

Yes, it is easy to get caught up in a blog mode. CO2 was around 355 ppm in 1990. Today's CO2 level is over 393 ppm. This is nearly a 40 point increase over 21 years. This is why I suggest that the next strong, extended period of solar activity, in conjunction with a strong, extended El Nino, will probably bring about a warming of the climate beyond what we have previously observed and beyond what would be expected of such an event. Yes, we will have to wait to see if this comes to be, but I think the odds will not be in our favor. That much heat being trapped by greenhouse gases and the heat being released into the atmosphere by a strong, extended El Nino has to have an impact on the climate. Will more clouds during this period irradiate enough heat back into space to prevent the solar heat from reaching the surface? Since an increase in clouds would require more water vapor in the atmosphere we could still have problems. Water vapor is far more efficient than is CO2 at causing a greenhouse effect. My line of reasoning is that the increased water vapor and the increased cloud cover would, at best, cancel each other out. Is an increased cloud cover enough to overcome the increased water vapor? Should this be true, then it may be our only saving grace. Do you have any studies on this?

"Your reasoning that we have had Clouds for all these years is also flawed, because we have NO IDEA WHAT CLOUDS WERE DOING before 1983, so we cannot make assumptions about what is the driver here."
I would suggest that my reasoning is no so flawed. We know that there was rain for as long as there has been a recorded history. My making an assumption that we had clouds before 1983 is therefore not a flawed assumption. No clouds, no rain. There have been historical floods, even Biblical floods, before 1983.

"A decrease in Tropical Cloud Cover, which has also been observed, would have a greater RF than Global Cloud Cover as a whole, since this is where energy is transferred all throughout the Globe via oceanic currents and through moving air masses."
I agree with you on this, but now, cloud cover in the tropics, prior to 1983, may very well come into play. The equatorial regions of the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans covers a large area of the tropics. While there were ships traversing these areas and they did note the weather conditions, most shipping lanes are well north or south of the Equator. WWII warships observations could probably provide us more data the the then tropical clouds than most commercial shipping lanes could, but this is just my guess. Even the vast majority of commercial air traffic lanes are well north of the tropics. Still, we are not completely void of any information from the tropics prior to 1983.

"I am willing to hypothesize that the recent decrease in Cloud Cover has to do with the recent increase in TSI as shown on the ACRIM dataset, because there is a HUGE and significant correlation between direct solar activity variations and Cloud Cover on Earth."
I am afraid that I am not versed on this and therefore I could not even give you an educated guess on this. Once I have studied this some, I may feel comfortable enough to make a comment on this.

"So I am a "fool" because I don't agree with your conclusions on Climate Change."
You would not be fool simply because you don't agree with my conclusions on climate change. My conclusions, concerning climate change, are based on what the climatologist have concluded concerning climate change. I am not a climatologist. ... Not even close. When you look for the reasons that drive our climate, you would be foolish to ignore the Laws of Physics, the greenhouse effect and basic Chemistry. I did not decide what these are either. ... I am old, but not that old.

"The answer to why CO2 is not a driver of climate is simply because the climate is not sensitive to increased CO2 emissions, and CO2 alone can not explain the warming, simply because the climate is not that sensitive to Carbon Dioxide."
I would have to go back and check, but I believe that I said that CO2 is the initiator of the climate change. I have seen no other evidence to the contrary that a rising CO2 level also saw the warming the warming of the climate. Other players, certainly, have had their influence, but you cannot just dismiss the rising CO2 levels either.

"for example, which found that past changes in climate change can not be ascribed to Carbon Dioxide alone, an indication that the Climate is not sensitive to CO2."
That is a rather strong claim to make based solely on past climate changes. When there have been past climate changes it has usually been the result of solar variations, orbital changes, a change in the tilt of Earth's axis, massive volcanic eruptions, a speed up in tectonic plate movement, increased and more dispersed land area causing a decreased open waters, meteor/asteroid strikes and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. None of these events would dismiss the sensitivity of the climate to a rise in CO2 levels. These are all things that we have not experienced in recent history. What is left? ... BTW, this would also possibly help to explain why past climate warmings were followed by an increase of atmospheric CO2 levels as well instead of the rising CO2 levels having to predate any warming. We do see a rise of CO2 that is also associated with a rise in global temperatures. They seem to go hand in hand. That is my hypothesis on this.

"The plot above shows monthly energy imbalance changes measured by TERRA and compared to temperature anomalies from 2000-2007. The plot above shows two types of energy changes. Radiative spirals and linear striations. The radiative spirals can be attributed to a radiative forcing, primarily the Cloud Forcing, which is responsible for most of the chaos over this timeframe. The linear striations are periods where the radiative forcing was weak. The radiative forcing obscures the true feedback signal by reducing the slope of the true feedback.
Seven years is too short of a time frame to show any long term trends. We need 23 years more data to see a long term trend. Yes, on this, it is wait and see. BTW, should you choose to excel at your future career, then I suggest to not use Spencer as a source. Spencer has long been known to jump the gun on many of his studies. Just saying.

Did I miss anything? I hope not.

I am out, for the night. I am tired and I am not even going to proof read this before I post it. It is what it is. ;-) .. Allow me to make grammatical and/or spelling corrections later?

I enjoyed the conversations. I hope that we may continue them.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting percylives:
Some of you skeptics must be getting paid by the word.

Brevity is the soul of wit, not science, percy. Some of these issues are deep and complex and require far more discussion than even our longest posts here allow.

That said, I will admit to being more windy than necessary on occasion.

But I make up for it by being outrageously pompous, so it all evens out...or something. :)
Member Since: Oktober 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting percylives:


Let's not get too smug about 2012 yet. You may have to eat those words. But, I hope at the end of the year we'll determine that Dr. Hansen was pessimistically wrong and I bet he does too.

This is an important point. I sincerely doubt that there are very many people who want AGW to be true. It's a bad time any way you slice it.

I'd be more than happy to change my opinion on it...again. But the evidence for human-caused AGW is overwhelming.
Member Since: Oktober 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:
What does everyone think about the tornadoes in Texas? Saddening stuff what's going on in the Fort Worth area.

Bad, of course, but it could have been much, much worse. That's what I've been watching all day.

I see a good deal was posted since last night. Some of the issues we were discussing have been discussed since in depth with other posters. So I'll note them but I won't ask you to re-state your case. :)

Quoting Snowlover123:
The SATIRE model that they use is robustly flawed.

I believe Xandra addressed this adequately. I understand that that didn't satisfy you, but you hold a very much minority and speculative position. However, you are correct that the issue hasn't been settled adequately yet.

Quoting Snowlover123:
I'll tell you this- if we warm in the next 30 years, while all of the other natural factors point otherwise, I'll switch sides and become the loudest advocate for Man-Made Global Warming.

I have copied this to my hard drive and will hold you to it...okay, I didn't and I won't. I do hope you'll hold yourself to it...and I don't think you'll have to wait 30 years.

Quoting Snowlover123:
If Fall et. al 2011 is correct in their premise of no diurnal trend in temperatures over the last 100 and 30 years, then there is no way the warming can be attributed to Greenhouse Gases, and it opens the possibility up for ACRIM to be right with its TSI increasing, because increased TSI (which causes warming) does not impact the diurnal temperature range.

If...the biggest word in the English language.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Which of my sources are "dicey?" I have tried to stick to mainly the peer reviewed literature.

Peer-reviewed doesn't mean correct. You have used at least one such paper that is just a couple of weeks old and that goes against the science as it is understood. That doesn't mean it's wrong, of course. However, it can only be taken as speculative until such time that other scientists can read and review it.

Quoting Snowlover123:
I shouldn't have to perform a statistical analysis for your claim.

Then perform one for your claim --that is that there is an increase in solar activity over the last thirty years. You, sir, are the one who is disagreeing with the vast majority of climatologists.

Quoting Snowlover123:
That alone should tell you that there are some robust errors going on with the Benestad and Schmidt 2009 paper.

The source of that complaint is Pielke. To my knowledge, he has not backed up that claim in the peer-reviewed literature. If you can direct to where Pielke's complaint appears in peer-review, I'd appreciate it. If you can't, then I will just assume it is another of Pielke's blog rants with no basis in reality. (Pielke, btw, is one of those "dicey" sources I was referring to {or to which I was referring, if you insist on grammatical correctness}).

Quoting Snowlover123:
I have already adressed the Scafetta Widget link. The attempt at a rebuttal from that website was very poor and flimsy.

I understand that you didn't like it, but that doesn't make it wrong. In point of fact, it was an adequate rebuttal. When Scafetta's model is run into the past it fails epically. Therefore, it can be discarded.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Where is Spencer cherrypicking?

I'll let Spencer answer that: "By requiring all three population classes to be present for grids to be used in the analysis, we get the best ‘apples-to-apples’ comparison between stations of different population densities. The downside is that there is less geographic coverage than that provided in the Jones dataset, since relatively few grids meet such a requirement."

Even if he's right about what he analyzed, it is a very small subset of the data. Basically, Spencer wasted time.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Actually, Antarctica hasn't been warming at all in the satellite record over the past 30 years, as measured by UAH, which probably has something to do with the Ozone Hole impacting the Jet Streams and weather patterns down there.

As measured by UAH, but they're not the only game in town. ;) Fortunately, others have studied the topic and published their results. It's pretty interesting. I've taken the liberty of bolding a couple of the most interesting passages.

Tropospheric temperatures in the Antarctic are retrieved by linearly combining satellite-borne Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) channels 2 and 4 observations. We show good agreement between satellite-inferred temperature trends and radiosonde observations. It is illustrated that the Antarctic troposphere has cooled in the summer and fall seasons since 1979, in agreement with Thompson and Solomon (2002). It is shown that significant tropospheric warming prevails during Antarctic winters and springs, but we also find significant winter cooling over half of East Antarctica. We find the largest winter tropospheric warming of about 0.6 K/decade for 1979–2005 between 120°W and 180°W. Homogeneous winter tropospheric warming over Antarctica from the ERA-40 reanalysis is not supported by the MSU observations. While MSU stratospheric temperatures exhibit the expected large cooling during the spring and summer seasons, we also find large stratospheric warming over half the southern hemisphere high latitudes in the winter and spring seasons.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL02910 8.shtml

If you can, please explain the portions I bolded in the above abstract. How can Antarctica be cooling in the winter if the Sun is the cause while simultaneously warming in the winter when the Sun is completely absent? I doubt it's UHI. :)

Quoting Snowlover123:
With ANY warming, you get melting of snow and ice at the poles. This in turn decreases the amount of ISR being reflected off of the snow and ice and you get more sunlight being absorbed into the snow and ice free land than before, resulting in more warming than before.

Of course. We see that with melting in the summer.

But I didn't ask about warming at the poles alone. I asked why, if the Sun is the primary cause of the current reason, are the poles warming more than the tropics? The tropics have the sun beating down on them all year, and at a much higher angle, too! So, if the Sun is the cause we should see considerable warming of the tropics and very little at the poles. That is the opposite of what is happening (with allowances made for ozone over the Antarctic).

Quoting Snowlover123:
There is no "smoking gun" that most of Global Warming is anthropogenic.

I'm pretty sure I just posted one. :)

But if you need one more, then I have another question for you: If CO2 has such a small effect, then why does the Earth not freeze? What's keeping it warm? The physics that explain the temperature historically and currently on Earth tell us that the warming is primarily due to human activity (and most of that CO2). If our theories about the current warming are wrong, then our theories about the atmosphere have always been wrong and there is another reason why the Earth isn't an 8,000 miles in diameter snowball. What gives?
Member Since: Oktober 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


In 20 years I hope to have my Ph.D in Atmospheric Science, so we can go from there. ;)


I have a feeling that you will do well with your PhD. This also explains why you look at all of the scientific evidence concerning the climate change. I am still confused as to why you seem to easily dismiss what we do know in your quest to learn what we do not yet know. I suspect that as you gain further knowledge that you will see that the AGWT cannot be so easily dismissed. The one climate theory that persists, even with all of the attempts to disprove it. There has to be a reason for this that is beyond anyone's desires for it to persist. Would you not agree?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Snowlover123:


Dr. Hansen was way off on his ENSO prediction, which made him to predict that 2012 would be the warmest year ever. Would you like me to link that up for you?



Yes, Globally averaged temperatures have risen since 1983, but that doesn't point to what the cause of this warming is.

In addition, a localized area doesn't prove anything. Antarctica has been cooling over the last 30 years as measured by UAH. Does that mean the globe as a whole is cooling?



I would love to answer your question, but I haven't lived for thirty years yet. ;)


Let's not get too smug about 2012 yet. You may have to eat those words. But, I hope at the end of the year we'll determine that Dr. Hansen was pessimistically wrong and I bet he does too.

You can also fall victim to using too wide a brush. The Antarctic Peninsula has been warming according to most studies so let's just say some parts of Antarctica may have cooled.

In my little part of the world the warming started before 1983. I've been here since then and have never seen the James River frozen over (maybe a skim of ice once) but my neighbors told me that in the early 1900's horse-drawn wagons loaded with railroad ties crossed the river on the ice. I also had an abandoned ice house (kind of cave) on my property where the folks who owned the place back then would bring the blocks of ice they cut out of the frozen river to store for the summer months before refrigeration got here. Sound a lot like some climatic change has occurred in central VA over the past century.

Remembering back to my own youth, I figured you hadn't lived 30 years. I'm guessing you're in the 15-19 range. No matter. But I knew everything back in those years. That's why I asked you to try to learn something from those farmers, foresters, and boatmen I mentioned. Maybe even an avid gardener who has tilled the same backyard for 30+ years can help you. See what they say. One little hint; if they tell you something you disagree with, remember they've seen it, and you haven't, so don't argue with them. Just thank them for their time.
Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 99
Quoting swampdooogggg:
I give you credit Some1Has2BTheRookie. You are very mild mannered, modest, and also intelligent. You'll plus good posts, even if they are by members on the other side of the fence. Kudos. While I often don't agree with what you usually say, I enjoy your insight all the more.


I am very appreciative of your kind words towards me, swampdooogggg. I would be less than honest if I did not admit that the civil conversations I am given in return influences the tone that I will use in my posts.

Nymore, iceageacoming, Snowlover123 and others have shown me respect. My showing them respect becomes that much easier for me because of this.

As far as my giving a "+" to any post is concerned, should the post make a valid point or caused me to use a deeper level of thought, then I have no problem acknowledging this with a deserved "+".

Thank you again, for your kind words, swampdooogggg. I shall strive to help assure that you never have to regret offering them to me.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Snowlover123:


And where did you prove that this is the main cause of the warming? I have shown that the diurnal temperature has not increased nor decreased during the last century and over the last 30 years in the highest quality weather stations, which indicates that Solar Activity could be a cause of the warming that occured in both of these timeframes, since TSI does not impact the diurnal temperature range, and temperature anomalies crept up during both of these timeframes.

Increased TSI has also been reaching the surface, and it is statistically significant in spots.

Ozone Depletion has primarily caused the stratospheric cooling observed, which is seen with temperatures not continuing to cool over the last 15 years while GHG concentrations rose, and the large temperature swings in the stratosphere occured with volcanic eruptions, which have known CFCs, ozone depleting chemicals that reach the stratosphere in unusually strong volcanic eruptions, and Ozone Depletion occurs.

The ACRIM dataset shows that TSI increased by 0.05% between SC 21 and 22, which would explain 70% of the temperature increase during this timeframe.

The fact that the climate is also insensitive to Greenhouse Gas emissions makes it doubtful that CO2 is responsible for most of the warming over the last 50 and 30 years.


Proofs are for mathematics, I just showed a very possible "smoking gun". The one that almost every scientist on the planet agrees on, BTW. Mother Nature doesn't give a hoot what any of us say.

You are the one who babbles on and on belaboring a very weak argument. Personally, I hope you are right and my grandchildren won't experience the hell I see coming for them.

I do believe I've read that CO2 isn't the primary greenhouse gas, water vapor is. But the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is directly related to the atmosphere's temperature so the radiative forcing (warming) from humanity's CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases is magnified by the increased water vapor supported. I think that's called a positive feedback.

But again, I hope all the scientists on the planet except the one or two you quote are wrong. Good luck.
Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 99
Quoting swampdooogggg:
It's very simple. He can't keep up with you, and he knows it. It explains to resorting to the ad hominem attacks, doesn't it? You seem to be one person he refuses to debate out of fear of getting his butt handed to him just like the first time. So it's no wonder why he doesn't want to put his gloves on and jump into the ring. I bet it's times like this when he kicking himself in the head saying to himself over and over "Dammit, why didn't I copy and paste MichaelSTL's blogs into my Excel workbook when I had the chance before he was banned?"

What a travesty I tell you.


Hi swamp.

It would definitely explain the ad-homs he was throwing at me earlier, and the lack of peer reviewed papers to back up any of his points.

And BTW I forgot about STL!
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
What does everyone think about the tornadoes in Texas? Saddening stuff what's going on in the Fort Worth area.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Note: I edited the first part of the post Rookie, so the first part is actually below the second part of my reply to you.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Perhaps it is not reading comprehension that you suffer from, in general. Perhaps you just cannot comprehend what I write. I shall try to keep it simple, for you.


Great, the simpler and more concise, the better.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

That would be sloppy reasoning, if that is what I said. You were making a case for clouds as being a factor, perhaps the primary factor, in the warming over the past 30 years. I merely stated that we have had clouds for, well much longer than 30 years. What we have not had is the rise to the degree of CO2 over the past 30 years that we do have. Now, if you wish to say that this a claim that the warming over the past 30 years is because of the CO2, then you are free to say so. I was more directly stating that we have always had clouds and without the warming/cooling effect on our current climate that you seem to imply that it has. In other words, why do you place so much emphasis on the clouds and ignore the rising CO2 levels? You nearly claim that the CO2 had no impact at all on our climate. It's the clouds, right? ... Keep it simple. What has changed over the past 30 years? The clouds, or the amount of atmospheric CO2? Does this make a claim that one is responsible for the warming and not the other? No, but one of the keys to troubleshooting a system is asking, "What was the last thing that has changed?".



Yes I was in my blog post. My previous reasoning is flawed, because I had assumed that Co2 has increased in a linear progression over the last 21 years when it has increased exponentially, so the contribution from CO2 is probably much higher than what is stated in the blog post.

Clouds have in fact been decreasing, according to ISSCP, they've decreased by about roughly 3-4%, although it's hard to tell if it's a legitimate decrease or not, since there is no data for clouds before 1983.



Your reasoning that we have had Clouds for all these years is also flawed, because we have NO IDEA WHAT CLOUDS WERE DOING before 1983, so we cannot make assumptions about what is the driver here. A decrease in Tropical Cloud Cover, which has also been observed, would have a greater RF than Global Cloud Cover as a whole, since this is where energy is transferred all throughout the Globe via oceanic currents and through moving air masses.



I am willing to hypothesize that the recent decrease in Cloud Cover has to do with the recent increase in TSI as shown on the ACRIM dataset, because there is a HUGE and significant correlation between direct solar activity variations and Cloud Cover on Earth.


Quoting paper:

To investigate whether galactic cosmic rays (GCR) may influence cloud cover variations, we analyze cloud cover anomalies from 1900–1987 over the United States. Results of spectral analyses reveal a statistically significant cloud cover signal at the period of 11 years; the coherence between cloud cover and solar variability proxy is 0.7 and statistically significant with 95% confidence. In addition, cloud data derived from the NCAR Climate System Model (CSM) forced with solar irradiance variations show a strong signal at 11 years that is not apparent in cloud data from runs with constant solar input. The cloud cover variations are in phase with the solar cycle and not the GCR. Our results suggest that cloud variabilities may be affected by a modulation of the atmospheric circulation resulting from variations of the solar‐UV‐ozone‐induced heating of the atmosphere.

If the ISSCP Cloud datasets are correct, this could help to validate ACRIM even further, if the Cloud Cover Changes are simply not a response to the changing indicies of the PDO and AMO.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

Now this is an example of direct claim. A claim without any supporting evidence for the claim. Do you wish to provide such evidence now?



Sure.

Solheim et. al 2011

Quoting Paper:

Some of the cycles appear to correspond to known
cyclic variations in the Moons' orbit around Earth, while others
may correspond to solar variations.
Notwithstanding the
physical explanation for such cyclic variations, which is not
the main focus of the present study, wavelet analysis of climatic
and meteorological records represents a potentially
useful means for climate analysis, as a supplement to Fourier
analysis. In contrast to Fourier analysis, the wavelet analysis
provides information on the time-dependant dynamics of
observed recurrent climate variations, which is especially important
to understand the physical explanation for observed
variations and to evaluate the future development.
(2) The present warm period following the Little Ice Age since
about 1800 AD can be reproduced by a simple three input
period only approach, based on the Greenland GISP2 temperature
record. Apparently the present period of warming
since the LIA to a high degree may be the result of natural climatic
variations, known to characterise at least the previous
4000 years.
(3) Both investigated records show high natural variability and
exhibits long-term persistence, although on different time
scales. The strength and persistence of several of the identified
natural cyclic variations suggests that a natural cycle based
forecasting of future climate may be potentially feasible, at
least for limited time ranges. Our empirical experience suggests
a realistic forecasting time range of about 10–25% of
the total record length. In the case of Greenland, such forecasting
suggests that the present post LIA warm period is likely
to continue for most of the 21st century, before the overall
Late Holocene cooling may again dominate, but this being
dependant on the magnitude of the anthropogenic greenhouse
enhancement.
(4) Fourier and wavelet analyses deconstruct data series into their
fundamental components. Natural cycles that have remained
strong over several decades or centuries are likely to continue
without major changes into at least the near future, and will
therefore be essential for forecasting any future climatic development.


Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

I do not ignore natural forcing and I do look for other causes than AGW. Only a fool would suggest that natural variations, minus man's efforts, has no play in the climate. Equally, only a fool would suggest that AGW is a minor player beyond the natural causes for climate change. Something initiated the climate change. Ask yourself, what has changed in the environment to account for the climate change? Was there a super volcano? Was there a more pronounced increase in volcanic activities? Has there been a sudden increase in the movement of tectonic plates? Has there been more prolonged and intense solar activity? Has there been a meteor/asteroid strike that would alter our climate? Has Earth tilted on its axis? Has Earth's orbit around the sun changed? .. What has changed, Snowlover123, that would initiate a change in the climate? KISS. Why do you so quickly try to omit the one change we are certain of when it comes to finding the initiator of a climate change? Why do you so quickly dismiss CO2? Simply because it fits your purpose?


So I am a "fool" because I don't agree with your conclusions on Climate Change.

The answer to your question lies in the bolded section of your quoted post.

The answer to why CO2 is not a driver of climate is simply because the climate is not sensitive to increased CO2 emissions, and CO2 alone can not explain the warming, simply because the climate is not that sensitive to Carbon Dioxide.

Take Zeebe et. al 2009 for example, which found that past changes in climate change can not be ascribed to Carbon Dioxide alone, an indication that the Climate is not sensitive to CO2.

Or take the NASA TERRA satellite for example, which has been measuring radiative energy imbalances and changes on Earth for 12 years now.



The plot above shows monthly energy imbalance changes measured by TERRA and compared to temperature anomalies from 2000-2007. The plot above shows two types of energy changes. Radiative spirals and linear striations. The radiative spirals can be attributed to a radiative forcing, primarily the Cloud Forcing, which is responsible for most of the chaos over this timeframe. The linear striations are periods where the radiative forcing was weak. The radiative forcing obscures the true feedback signal by reducing the slope of the true feedback. This was documented in Spencer and Braswell 2010.

Since the linear striations are periods where radiative forcings were minimal, we can find the true feedback of the climate system from these striations. The true feedback has a significantly higher slope than if one were to take the contaminated feedback with the radiative spiral.

This gives a value of 8 w/m^2 per Degree C which is a VERY strong negative feedback, compared to the traditional method, which would give you strong positive feedback of 0.7 w/m^2 per Degree C.


Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

Fine. Name one large positive feedback that has offset the other large positive feedbacks. All observations has shown that the climate is still warming. Where is the offsetting feedback that should have canceled out the warming? Is this another, "Well, give it another 20 years and we shall see?" answer?


Name one *hypothetical* positive feedback? Okay, how about declining snow cover in the polar ice caps creating a large positive feedback that creates methane releases that creates even more warming? This has not been obsevered, but it would be a tipping point if it were to happen.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

Do you mind sharing your reading choices with us? ... When you have finished reading this sentence you will have read that water consists of a combination of mercury and silicon atoms. Do you wish to cite this as evidence of such? If not, do you resort to selective reading choices that most fits what you want to believe?


Let's start with Ban-Weiss et. al 2011...

Land use and land cover changes affect the partitioning of latent and sensible heat, which impacts the broader climate system. Increased latent heat flux to the atmosphere has a local cooling influence known as 'evaporative cooling', but this energy will be released back to the atmosphere wherever the water condenses. However, the extent to which local evaporative cooling provides a global cooling influence has not been well characterized. Here, we perform a highly idealized set of climate model simulations aimed at understanding the effects that changes in the balance between surface sensible and latent heating have on the global climate system. We find that globally adding a uniform 1 W m − 2 source of latent heat flux along with a uniform 1 W m − 2 sink of sensible heat leads to a decrease in global mean surface air temperature of 0.54 ± 0.04 K. This occurs largely as a consequence of planetary albedo increases associated with an increase in low elevation cloudiness caused by increased evaporation. Thus, our model results indicate that, on average, when latent heating replaces sensible heating, global, and not merely local, surface temperatures decrease.

Or this multi-institutional study group...

Superparameterization is a recently developed form of global modeling in which the parameterized moist physics in each grid column of an AGCM is replaced by a small cloud-resolving model (CRM). It holds the promise of much more realistic simulations of cloud fields associated with moist convection and turbulence. Superparameterization is computationally expensive, but multiyear simulations are now feasible. The Colorado State University and UW cloud CPT groups collaborated on the first climate sensitivity analysis of a superparameterized AGCM (Wyant et al. 2006b). The Khairoutdinov-Randall (2001, 2005) superparameterized CAM3, hereafter CAM-SP, was used. Each CRM in CAM-SP has the same vertical levels as CAM3, 4 km horizontal resolution, and one horizontal dimension with 32 horizontal gridpoints.

Following Cess et al. (1989), climate sensitivity was assessed by examining the TOA radiative response to a uniform SST increase of 2K, based on the difference between control and +2K 3.5 year CAMSP simulations. Fig. 2 compares the results to standard versions of the NCAR CAM3, GFDL AM2 and GMAO AGCMs. All these models have similar clear-sky responses, so we just plot the +2K changes in longwave (greenhouse) and shortwave (albedo) cloud radiative forcings (ΔLWCF and ΔSWCF). Since ΔSWCF tends to be larger than ΔLWCF. boundary-layer cloud changes (which have little greenhouse effect compared to their albedo enhancement) appear to
be particularly important. The CAM-SP shows strongly negative net cloud feedback in both the tropics and in the extratropics, resulting in a global climate sensitivity of only 0.41 K/(W m-2), at the low end of traditional AGCMs (e.g. Cess et al. 1996), but in accord with an analysis of 30- day SST/SST+2K climatologies from a global aquaplanet CRM run on the Earth Simulator (Miura et al. 2005). The conventional AGCMs differ greatly from each other but all have less negative net cloud forcings and correspondingly larger climate sensitivities than the
superparameterization. The coarse horizontal and vertical resolution of CAM3-SP means that it highly under-resolves the turbulent circulations that produce boundary layer clouds. Thus, one should interpret its predictions with caution. With this caveat, cloud feedbacks are arguably more naturally simulated by superparameterization than in conventional AGCMs [conventional climate models], suggesting a compelling need to better understand the differences between the results from these two approaches.


Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Correct! I am jumping for joy! Do you also know that when methane breaks down that CO2 is one of the components produced? Are you aware that CO2 has decades of staying power in the atmosphere? Time for a little more reading, perhaps?
Your graphic shows methane levels for two regional zones. Do you suggest that this is true globally? Are you also aware that the graphic ends mid 2009? Would you like to extend this beyond mid 2009?


Yes, one near Iceland and one near the equator, just to give a general sense of the Methane releases going on.

Your link is only half a year after this graph was last updated, so there is really nothing impressive going on with your link that is somehow radically different than the graph that I posted.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


LOL! Yes, these posts do seem to grow in size. When I consider the lengths of your posts, and combine that with the lengths of my posts, I begin to wonder if we should not coauthor a book together. May I suggest that we first decide upon a title and then we just fill in the blanks from there? ;-)

At least one of us should try to keep the dog entertained. There is no telling how it will react, should it become bored. The two of us working in conjunction with each other should be able to manage to keep the dog entertained. Hopefully, we do not need to wait another 20 years to see what happens?

I will be heading home soon. I will be back later. I will attempt to answer your posts then.


In 20 years I hope to have my Ph.D in Atmospheric Science, so we can go from there. ;)
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:
Good grief, I think my post was too long to fit into one actual post.


LOL! Yes, these posts do seem to grow in size. When I consider the lengths of your posts, and combine that with the lengths of my posts, I begin to wonder if we should not coauthor a book together. May I suggest that we first decide upon a title and then we just fill in the blanks from there? ;-)

At least one of us should try to keep the dog entertained. There is no telling how it will react, should it become bored. The two of us working in conjunction with each other should be able to manage to keep the dog entertained. Hopefully, we do not need to wait another 20 years to see what happens?

I will be heading home soon. I will be back later. I will attempt to answer your posts then.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting percylives:


Like Dr. James Hansen I think the warmer weather outliers will be much warmer, such as the weather in Europe 2003, Russia 2010, Texas 2011, or the Midwest and East in March 2012 in a warmer climate.


Dr. Hansen was way off on his ENSO prediction, which made him to predict that 2012 would be the warmest year ever. Would you like me to link that up for you?

Quoting percylives:

No single winter or summer makes a climate but I've been living in this one spot since 1983 and I can tell you in the past 29 years the weather has gotten warmer.


Yes, Globally averaged temperatures have risen since 1983, but that doesn't point to what the cause of this warming is.

In addition, a localized area doesn't prove anything. Antarctica has been cooling over the last 30 years as measured by UAH. Does that mean the globe as a whole is cooling?

Quoting percylives:


I'm curious. Has it gotten colder, warmer or stayed the same in your neighborhood over the past 30 years? Have you asked anyone? When you do ask a farmer, forester, or boatman, someone who has had to deal with 30 years of weather.


I would love to answer your question, but I haven't lived for thirty years yet. ;)
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting percylives:


Snowlover,

Humanity puts over 3 additional cubic miles of fossilized CO2 into the atmosphere everyday from just the petroleum we burn for energy.

That's not counting the additional CO2 from coal and natural gas we burn, or the massive changes in the CO2 cycle we have caused by deforestation.

Humanity is holding the "smoking" gun, not much question about that.


And where did you prove that this is the main cause of the warming? I have shown that the diurnal temperature has not increased nor decreased during the last century and over the last 30 years in the highest quality weather stations, which indicates that Solar Activity could be a cause of the warming that occured in both of these timeframes, since TSI does not impact the diurnal temperature range, and temperature anomalies crept up during both of these timeframes.

Increased TSI has also been reaching the surface, and it is statistically significant in spots.

Ozone Depletion has primarily caused the stratospheric cooling observed, which is seen with temperatures not continuing to cool over the last 15 years while GHG concentrations rose, and the large temperature swings in the stratosphere occured with volcanic eruptions, which have known CFCs, ozone depleting chemicals that reach the stratosphere in unusually strong volcanic eruptions, and Ozone Depletion occurs.

The ACRIM dataset shows that TSI increased by 0.05% between SC 21 and 22, which would explain 70% of the temperature increase during this timeframe.

The fact that the climate is also insensitive to Greenhouse Gas emissions makes it doubtful that CO2 is responsible for most of the warming over the last 50 and 30 years.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


You have confused weather and climate to epic proportions in this post.


If you read the first sentence in the third paragraph perhaps you'll recognize I give weather and climate both their respective dues.

Like Dr. James Hansen I think the warmer weather outliers will be much warmer, such as the weather in Europe 2003, Russia 2010, Texas 2011, or the Midwest and East in March 2012 in a warmer climate.

No single winter or summer makes a climate but I've been living in this one spot since 1983 and I can tell you in the past 29 years the weather has gotten warmer. And that's getting very close to a climatic comment. For example, when I first moved here we went below zero almost every year. In the last five years we had one below zero cold outlier morning. In the last decade the ground has rarely frozen to any depth at all but when I first moved here we had to endure a week or two of slop and ruts in the driveway every spring when it defrosted.

I'm curious. Has it gotten colder, warmer or stayed the same in your neighborhood over the past 30 years? Have you asked anyone? When you do ask a farmer, forester, or boatman, someone who has had to deal with 30 years of weather.
Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 99
Quoting Snowlover123:


.....

And what is this "smoking gun?" What's the evidence to support it?
..............



Snowlover,

Humanity puts over 3 additional cubic miles of fossilized CO2 into the atmosphere everyday from just the petroleum we burn for energy.

That's not counting the additional CO2 from coal and natural gas we burn, or the massive changes in the CO2 cycle we have caused by deforestation.

Humanity is holding the "smoking" gun, not much question about that.
Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 99
Quoting greentortuloni:


You're starting to lose me. If this graph of mathane is your idea of methane that is leveling off, then I disagree.


Would you say it's increasing at the same rate as what it was in 1984?

If it has slowed down to nearly no trend since 1998 (but an apparent slight increase) then it has leveled off from what the initial rate of increase was. That is my terminology for "leveling off."

Quoting greentortuloni:

I don't agree with everything Nea has to say, or any of the others for that matter, but keep it real or you'll come across as just another denialist nutcase.


Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by "leveling off."

I certainly do not want to come off as a "denialist nutcase."
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting percylives:
Some of you skeptics must be getting paid by the word. Any writers of monstrous posts should realize that brevity is much more affective.

All I have to do is look out at the black walnut tree in my backyard that is leafing out in the first week of April to know that things have changed around here.

Or to recognize that this past winter in central Virginia while an outlier is part of the new warmer climate. It was not unlike some of the more vigorous winters on the southeastern tip of Louisiana during the 1950's and 60's.

I wish it weren't so, but things are a'changin', 'round here, big time.

Maybe you'll get the message in the summer if the temps get to 25 degrees above normal. Maybe.


You have confused weather and climate to epic proportions in this post.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
201. Snowlover123
04:36 PM GMT am 03. April 2012
Quoting Xandra:
it is important to use the appropriate SATIRE-based reconstruction , which we do here, employing a reconstruction based on magnetograms. The accuracy of this model on months to years timescales is significantly higher than that of a model developed for long-term reconstructions used by the ACRIM team for such an analysis. The constructed ‘mixed’ ACRIM — SATIRE composite shows no increase in the TSI from 1986 to 1996, in contrast to the ACRIM TSI composite.


And they got that result because their SATIRE model was callibrated to the PMOD dataset. They then claimed that this somehow disproved the analysis in Scafetta and Willson 2009.

If it was calibrated to the ACRIM dataset, the paper would have had a different conclusion.

Quoting Xandra:

Lee et al. (1995) compares the ERBS satellite data with the Nimbus HF data and found the HF data drifted significantly over the period of the ACRIM gap while the ERBS data shows a slight cooling.



When Scafetta and Willson 2009
used Kirvova's Magnetic Proxy model to bridge the ACRIM Gap to see which one is more reliable, they came to the conclusion that it matches up more with the ERB/NIMBUS7 data, not the ACRIM data.

From the paper:

The relative difference between Nimbus7/ERB and
KBS07 during the ACRIM gap (Figure 2a) changed by
0.023 % (+0.31 W/m2) across the gap, significantly less
than the 0.063 % (0.86 W/m2) assessed by Fro¨hlich in the
PMOD composite.
Additionally there is a virtually insignificant
ERB-KBS07 TSI difference of 0.006 % (+0.08 W/m2)
for the one year intervals before and after the 29th of
September 1989, the date of Fro¨hlich’s proposed Nimbus7/
ERB ‘glitch’. Clearly Fro¨hlich’s step function sensitivity
shift of 0.034 % (±0.47 W/m2) that day is not supported by
the KBS07 proxy model.
[19] We can apply the KBS07 model as an independent
test of ERBS/ERBE uncorrected degradation during the
ACRIM gap [Willson, 1997; Willson and Mordvinov,
2003]. The ERBE-KBS07 ratio changes by 0.034 %
(0.47 W/m2) between the pre- and post ACRIM gap
comparisons (Figure 2b). This is approximately equal to the trend difference between ACRIM and PMOD composites
during solar cycles 21–23, within computational
certainty, and clearly supports the contention of uncorrected
ERBE degradation during the ACRIM gap.
[20] The ERB and ERBE comparisons with KBS07
provide strong, independent evidence contradicting the
claims of Lee et al. [1995], Fro¨hlich [2004, 2006] and
Fro¨hlich and Lean [1998] that (1) ERBS/ERBE is the most
reliable comparison database during the ACRIM gap;
(2) that
Nimbus7/ERB experienced a large increase of sensitivity
during the ACRIM-Gap and (3) that Lean’s proxy reconstruction
can faithfully reconstruct the TSI.


So why has Kirvova's Magnetic Proxy model had more of a discrepency with ERBE/ERBS instead of NIMBUS7/ERB? Also note that when KBS07 is filled in for the ACRIM Gap, the PMOD dataset suddenly displays a secular trend, like ACRIM, at approximately at a 0.05% increase per minimas, indicating this proxy is more in line with the ACRIM dataset than the PMOD dataset, and that the NIMBUS7/ERB data is more reliable than the ERBE/ERBS data because of a smaller discrepency between NIMBUS7/ERB and KBS07 than ERBE/ERBS.

Quoting Xandra:

Krivova & Solanki (2003) compares TSI to UV levels. UV levels fluctuate more than TSI - a trend would be more visible. As UV correlates closely with TSI, Krivova concludes PMOD is more accurate and there has been little secular trend in TSI over the past few decades.


No, they didn't "comapre TSI to UV levels" since we have not been measuring UV levels during the timeframe that TSI increased between minimas as a whole. They used a reconstruction, their SATIRE model, which had already been callibrated to the PMOD dataset beforehand, and since they find that " UV correlates closely with TSI" then they claim that since PMOD shows TSI not going up between minimas over the last 30 years, then the UV irradiance is not going up, therefore refuting ACRIM.

Circular reasoning at its finest.

Quoting Xandra:

A reconstruction of TSI using sunspot numbers Krivova et al. (2007) found the minimum of cycle 23 was lower than the minimum of cycle 22, in contrast to the ACRIM composite.


Scafetta and Willson 2009 showed that when you apply this magnetic flux proxy model to the ACRIM Gap, where there is not certain data, you get an increase in TSI in both the ACRIM and PMOD datasets.

Why?

Quoting Xandra:

Frohlich (2005) compared the results of all three composites – PMOD, ACRIM and IRMB - to a proxy reconstruction of TSI based on magnetograms observed at the Kitt Peak solar observatory. The PMOD composite correlates with the magnetogram-reconstructed TSI with common variance 0.83, significantly better than ACRIM (0.62) or IRMB (0.63).


And I could say that there could be something wrong with PMOD, because it is the only composite to actually agree significantly more with this proxy than ACRIM and IRMB, having a correlation coefficient of 0.83 since two proxies are in a disagreement with it. (The same two composites that show an increase in TSI between minimas.)

Quoting Xandra:

since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone"


And this is not according to the ACRIM composite, but three TSI proxies, so therefore you may want to revise your original post.

Scafetta and West 2008, using the ACRIM composite came to the conclusion that nearly up to 70% of the warming could be solar induced over the last 50 years, if the ACRIM dataset is to be used.

We estimate that the Sun
could account for as much as 69% of the
increase in Earth’s average temperature,
depending on the TSI reconstruction
used.5


Quoting Xandra:

In september 2008, Qing-Bin Lu predicted that the Antarctic ozone hole would be the biggest ever that year. Unfortunately for Lu, the hole was merely about average for the decade – a result that wasn't too supportive for his theory.



It could also be due to the fact that his lag time could be slightly off.

Quoting Xandra:

When it comes to PDO and AMO so are these just natural oscillations and example of internal variability, not an external radiative forcing. They just move heat around from oceans to air and vice-versa and have not the ability to either create or retain heat. Therefore they're not capable of causing a long-term warming trend, just short-term temperature variations.


Wrong.

The PDO and the AMO are indicies of Global Weather patterns across the globe. When they go negative, there is a tiny shift up in Global Cloud Cover, reflecting sunlight and cooling the Globe off slightly.

This is in fact a radiative forcing, but these oceanic cycles are oscillations, so you were only half wrong.

Spencer 2008

Quoting Xandra:

As long as you take your information from anti-scientific blogs such as this, this and this you will have a hard time getting a Ph.D. in atmospheric science.


That's telling.

The images whose URLs did come from blogs were present in the very peer reviewed papers that I had linked you to.

Therefore your attempt at a "diss" failed to epic proportions, and you have only embaressed yourself by revealing to everyone that you didn't even bother to open the links to the peer reviewed papers, or else you would have seen the images present in the peer reviewed papers.

Quoting Xandra:

Learn some basic physics instead.


Learn how to click on a link with your mouse first before you accuse anyone of not knowing "basic physics."
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
200. Some1Has2BtheRookie
04:01 PM GMT am 03. April 2012
Quoting Snowlover123:


So because CO2 has risen and because temperatures have risen over the last 30 years, that means that CO2 is the cause?

That is really sloppy reasoning.



Natural Forcings are responsible for most of the warming over the last 30 years. CO2 definitely has contributed some, but natural forcings definitely are in control.

You can't simply ignore a factor like increasing TSI at the surface, Rookie. Or the fact that diurnal temperatures have not increased, while temperature anomalies have gone up in the best sited stations. If you have to ignore such factors to come to the conclusion that "AGW fits" there are some seriously wrong things going on with that theory already.



A large positive feedback that offsets other large positive feedbacks.




That's determined by the sensitivity of the Climate, which from what I've researched and read, appears to be much less sensitive than the IPCC suggests.



Methane levels have significantly leveled off from the rate that they were increasing in 1984. Methane does not last as long in the atmosphere as Carbon Dioxide does (only about 10 years).





What's your evidence that the decrease in Sea Ice Extent over the last 30 years is due to AGW?

What's your evidence that most of the decrease in Sea Ice Extent isn't due to variability with the AMO?

Quoting Paper:

Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.



Like I said, we'll see if you are right or not. I'm willing to bet that you are not right. If we see temperatures increasing over the next 20-30 years and all natural forcings point the opposite direction, we'll have our answer. Until then, uncertainties still remain, and they still need to be addressed.


Perhaps it is not reading comprehension that you suffer from, in general. Perhaps you just cannot comprehend what I write. I shall try to keep it simple, for you.

"So because CO2 has risen and because temperatures have risen over the last 30 years, that means that CO2 is the cause?"
That would be sloppy reasoning, if that is what I said. You were making a case for clouds as being a factor, perhaps the primary factor, in the warming over the past 30 years. I merely stated that we have had clouds for, well much longer than 30 years. What we have not had is the rise to the degree of CO2 over the past 30 years that we do have. Now, if you wish to say that this a claim that the warming over the past 30 years is because of the CO2, then you are free to say so. I was more directly stating that we have always had clouds and without the warming/cooling effect on our current climate that you seem to imply that it has. In other words, why do you place so much emphasis on the clouds and ignore the rising CO2 levels? You nearly claim that the CO2 had no impact at all on our climate. It's the clouds, right? ... Keep it simple. What has changed over the past 30 years? The clouds, or the amount of atmospheric CO2? Does this make a claim that one is responsible for the warming and not the other? No, but one of the keys to troubleshooting a system is asking, "What was the last thing that has changed?".

"Natural Forcings are responsible for most of the warming over the last 30 years. CO2 definitely has contributed some, but natural forcings definitely are in control."
Now this is an example of direct claim. A claim without any supporting evidence for the claim. Do you wish to provide such evidence now?

"You can't simply ignore a factor like increasing TSI at the surface, Rookie. Or the fact that diurnal temperatures have not increased, while temperature anomalies have gone up in the best sited stations. If you have to ignore such factors to come to the conclusion that "AGW fits" there are some seriously wrong things going on with that theory already."
I do not ignore natural forcing and I do look for other causes than AGW. Only a fool would suggest that natural variations, minus man's efforts, has no play in the climate. Equally, only a fool would suggest that AGW is a minor player beyond the natural causes for climate change. Something initiated the climate change. Ask yourself, what has changed in the environment to account for the climate change? Was there a super volcano? Was there a more pronounced increase in volcanic activities? Has there been a sudden increase in the movement of tectonic plates? Has there been more prolonged and intense solar activity? Has there been a meteor/asteroid strike that would alter our climate? Has Earth tilted on its axis? Has Earth's orbit around the sun changed? .. What has changed, Snowlover123, that would initiate a change in the climate? KISS. Why do you so quickly try to omit the one change we are certain of when it comes to finding the initiator of a climate change? Why do you so quickly dismiss CO2? Simply because it fits your purpose?

"A large positive feedback that offsets other large positive feedbacks."
Fine. Name one large positive feedback that has offset the other large positive feedbacks. All observations has shown that the climate is still warming. Where is the offsetting feedback that should have canceled out the warming? Is this another, "Well, give it another 20 years and we shall see?" answer?

"That's determined by the sensitivity of the Climate, which from what I've researched and read, appears to be much less sensitive than the IPCC suggests."
Do you mind sharing your reading choices with us? ... When you have finished reading this sentence you will have read that water consists of a combination of mercury and silicon atoms. Do you wish to cite this as evidence of such? If not, do you resort to selective reading choices that most fits what you want to believe?

"Methane levels have significantly leveled off from the rate that they were increasing in 1984. Methane does not last as long in the atmosphere as Carbon Dioxide does (only about 10 years)."
Correct! I am jumping for joy! Do you also know that when methane breaks down that CO2 is one of the components produced? Are you aware that CO2 has decades of staying power in the atmosphere? Time for a little more reading, perhaps?
Your graphic shows methane levels for two regional zones. Do you suggest that this is true globally? Are you also aware that the graphic ends mid 2009? Would you like to extend this beyond mid 2009?

National Science Foundation

Oops! Now what? Has a tipping point been reached?

"What's your evidence that the decrease in Sea Ice Extent over the last 30 years is due to AGW?"
Sea ice extent? The sea ice extent is variable from year to year and is largely due to winds and currents moving the ice around and temperature. Why not take a look at the sea ice volume? You know, surface area and thickness combined. We have seen an increase in the loss of volume and there is no other theory that explains this better than the AGWT. There are other forces at play, but these forces are more easily exercised once the ice has thinned. Winds, currents and warmer waters have a much greater impact on thin, broken ice than it does on thick, packed ice. Mass and friction being what it is.

"What's your evidence that most of the decrease in Sea Ice Extent isn't due to variability with the AMO?
I could cheat and simply ask for your evidence that the variability in sea ice extent is not caused by AGW. But, that it tit for tat, isn't it? First, I never said that sea ice extent was effected by factors other than AGW. In fact, I never mentioned sea ice extent at all to you, until this response to your post. I am actually less concerned about sea ice extent than I am with the total volume of sea ice. This winter we have seen sea ice extent reach near normal conditions, but with a caveat. Last summer's sea ice melt left both the north and south passages open. Do you have any suggestions about how thick this ice is going to be this summer. A single year of ice growth compared to decades, if not centuries, of multi seasonal ice? ... Read post #10 of this blog. ... Sea ice extent! How do you compare a lake frozen over with one inch of ice as opposed to the same lake with 12 inches of ice? Wow! We have the same amount of ice as last year! ... Do we?

You are using every trick you can think of to explain the observations of the climate that have been made and these observations show a warming climate. Everything you suggest has already been noted and taken into consideration by climatologist. Yet, the observations made cannot be fully explained until you also factor in the human element.

Here is what you fail to to do:

1. Rewrite the Laws of Physics.

2. Change basic Chemistry.

3. Show that man's activities have not introduced any greenhouse gases, at a rate of tons/day, into the atmosphere.

4. Show that natural causes can account for all the observed warming.

5. Eliminate CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

6. Show that adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has no effect on the climate.


Until you have done these things, you have only engaged in circular thinking. "Yes, but...", "What if?" and "Well there are other considerations." do not change the facts. They are questions to be considered, have been considered and have been shown to not be enough of a forcing of the climate, until you also factor in AGW. You have failed to eliminate AGW as part of the warming climate. Even though you may suggest that it is a small part, it is remains a large enough part to change our climate. Without AGW there is no reason to believe that our climate would not still be in some state of equilibrium since we have not seen any abnormalities to the natural processes that would explain the warming that is being observed. Is this not all correct and, if not, are you able to bring forth the evidence that would negate any of these?

Have heart. You are still keeping the dog entertained. At least, for now.

Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
199. Snowlover123
03:29 PM GMT am 03. April 2012
Quoting greentortuloni:
>However, it also comes down to the argument about action or not: are you simply making an academic point? Or are you arguing against action to combat CO2?

The argument is that changing to renewable energy is good for the environment regardless of CO2 and is good for America and that therefore whether global warming is caused by deforestation, solar cycles or whatnot isntead of CO2, we should get rid of oil et al and use renewables.

What is your opinion on that?


A lot of the nastiness towards myself by specific members on this board I think has largely to do with their idea that I'm somehow preventing action on reducing CO2 emissions.

I am all for reducing CO2 emissions. I am all for switching to Green Energy like Solar Energy. I agree that we MUST get rid of fossil fuels AS FAST as possible.

Denialists who say that it's too expensive to switch to solar energy haven't lived in a place where pollution is already having its ill-effects on the environment.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
198. greentortuloni
02:32 PM GMT am 03. April 2012
Quoting Snowlover123:

Good grief, I guess I have to post this graph again...



You're starting to lose me. If this graph of mathane is your idea of methane that is leveling off, then I disagree.

This is a serious subject and while the slope may be less, declaring that this graph makes a point methane is argumentative at best.

I don't agree with everything Nea has to say, or any of the others for that matter, but keep it real or you'll come across as just another denialist nutcase.
Member Since: Juni 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
197. percylives
02:03 PM GMT am 03. April 2012
Some of you skeptics must be getting paid by the word. Any writers of monstrous posts should realize that brevity is much more affective.

All I have to do is look out at the black walnut tree in my backyard that is leafing out in the first week of April to know that things have changed around here.

Or to recognize that this past winter in central Virginia while an outlier is part of the new warmer climate. It was not unlike some of the more vigorous winters on the southeastern tip of Louisiana during the 1950's and 60's.

I wish it weren't so, but things are a'changin', 'round here, big time.

Maybe you'll get the message in the summer if the temps get to 25 degrees above normal. Maybe.
Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 99
196. Snowlover123
01:43 PM GMT am 03. April 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Ad hominem attack? I do not think that term means what you think it means; mentioning that your chosen handle indicates that you prefer cooling is not an ad hominem attack. (At any rate, you've been the master of such attacks, and what's that they say about turnabout and fair play


That's ironic, because you've just demonstrated you don't know the weakest form of debating.

From Wikipedia...

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it

Is that not what you just did by suggesting that I am a skeptic of AGW because I "like wintry precipitation?"

Quoting Neapolitan:

--"There is no "smoking gun" that most of Global Warming is anthropogenic."

False.


And what is this "smoking gun?" What's the evidence to support it?


Quoting Neapolitan:

--"That's determined by the sensitivity of the Climate, which from what I've researched and read, appears to be much less sensitive than the IPCC suggests"

False.


Evidence?


Quoting Neapolitan:

--"Methane levels have significantly leveled off from the rate that they were increasing in 1984."

False.


Good grief, I guess I have to post this graph again...



Quoting Neapolitan:

--"A slight part of it is due to anthropogenic causes, it's AGW... if you're trying to argue AGW as being most of the warming that occured over the last 30 years, then you need to account for why these uncertainties can not possibly be causing the warming."

False.


Evidence to support that these discrepencies have magically been resolved overnight?


Quoting Neapolitan:

--"How can the diurnal temperature has remained the same in the best kept weather stations all throughout the United States if man is the cause of the warming?"

False.


How is it false? That's the conclusion Fall et. al 2011 concluded in their paper for the best sited weather stations.

Quoting Neapolitan:


So my question is: does your denialism come from a simple (and amply demonstrated) lack of scientific understanding? Or is it intentional, driven by ideology or something worse?


A better question would be, where does your inability to read a graph come from? Why do you not have the ability to support evidence for your claims? Why can you not read what is stated so clearly in the Fall et. al 2011?

It's obvious who is losing here. And it's not me. I did not start the personal, ad-hominem, attacks.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
195. Xandra
01:30 PM GMT am 03. April 2012
Quoting Snowlover123:

In 2009, Scafetta claimed the ACRIM composite was independently confirmed by the SATIRE model. This is a model of TSI created by Krivova and Solanki. In response, Krivova and Solanki published this paper.

From the paper:

...”it is important to use the appropriate SATIRE-based reconstruction , which we do here, employing a reconstruction based on magnetograms. The accuracy of this model on months to years timescales is significantly higher than that of a model developed for long-term reconstructions used by the ACRIM team for such an analysis. The constructed ‘mixed’ ACRIM — SATIRE composite shows no increase in the TSI from 1986 to 1996, in contrast to the ACRIM TSI composite.”

Other independent studies:

Lee et al. (1995) compares the ERBS satellite data with the Nimbus HF data and found the HF data drifted significantly over the period of the ACRIM gap while the ERBS data shows a slight cooling.

Krivova & Solanki (2003) compares TSI to UV levels. UV levels fluctuate more than TSI - a trend would be more visible. As UV correlates closely with TSI, Krivova concludes PMOD is more accurate and there has been little secular trend in TSI over the past few decades.

A reconstruction of TSI using sunspot numbers Krivova et al. (2007) found the minimum of cycle 23 was lower than the minimum of cycle 22, in contrast to the ACRIM composite.

Frohlich (2005) compared the results of all three composites – PMOD, ACRIM and IRMB - to a proxy reconstruction of TSI based on magnetograms observed at the Kitt Peak solar observatory. The PMOD composite correlates with the magnetogram-reconstructed TSI with common variance 0.83, significantly better than ACRIM (0.62) or IRMB (0.63).


Comparison of the three composites with a reconstruction of TSI from Kitt-Peak magnetograms
(by Wenzler 2005)


Conclusion:


The close agreement with the reconstruction from Kitt-Peak magnetograms by Wenzler (2005), and with the 3-component proxy model supports the PMOD composite as the most reliable representation of the solar irradiance variability for the last 25 years.”

FYI, in 2006, Scafetta using the ACRIM trend and concludes in his paper:

"since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone"

The study “Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion” by Professor Qing-Bin Lu is worthless.

Quote Neil Harris of the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit in Cambridge, UK:

showing a statistical correlation is not enough to prove the validity of the cosmic-ray mechanism since there could be other causal factors varying throughout the solar cycle. In any case, Lu is wrong to compare cosmic ray intensity against total ozone because measurements of the latter depend on the movement of ozone around the atmosphere as well as the actual disappearance of ozone.

In september 2008, Qing-Bin Lu predicted that the Antarctic ozone hole would be the biggest ever that year. Unfortunately for Lu, the hole was merely about average for the decade – a result that wasn't too supportive for his theory.

Compare it with the large ozone hole in.2006

When it comes to PDO and AMO so are these just natural oscillations and example of internal variability, not an external radiative forcing. They just move heat around from oceans to air and vice-versa and have not the ability to either create or retain heat. Therefore they're not capable of causing a long-term warming trend, just short-term temperature variations.

Quoting Snowlover123:

I aspire to get my Ph.D in atmospheric science, and if I do, I will try and resolve thi discrepency, to make this uncertainty less uncertain.

As long as you take your information from anti-scientific blogs such as this, this and this you will have a hard time getting a Ph.D. in atmospheric science.

Here is some information about Roy Spencer

...and stop filling Dr. Roods blog with already debunked papers. Learn some basic physics instead.

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
194. greentortuloni
12:20 PM GMT am 03. April 2012
Quoting Snowlover123:Like I said, we'll see if you are right or not. I'm willing to bet that you are not right. If we see temperatures increasing over the next 20-30 years and all natural forcings point the opposite direction, we'll have our answer. Until then, uncertainties still remain, and they still need to be addressed.


I'm not going to argue with you for the moment. I understood from what I remember reading from a few years ago that you are wrong about the radiation and the clouds but I am not going to do the research to back that up, I simply don't have the time or the interest really. I beleive global warming is caused by CO2 and I would need to see much stronger arguments than yours to change my belief.

However, it also comes down to the argument about action or not: are you simply making an academic point? Or are you arguing against action to combat CO2?

The argument is that changing to renewable energy is good for the environment regardless of CO2 and is good for America and that therefore whether global warming is caused by deforestation, solar cycles or whatnot isntead of CO2, we should get rid of oil et al and use renewables.

What is your opinion on that?
Member Since: Juni 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
193. Neapolitan
12:09 PM GMT am 03. April 2012
Quoting Pier16:

Really? That's all you got. Well, since your handle is Neapolitan, couldn't I use your logic and erroneously assume you are inclined to a warm bias, being that the word "Neapolitan" is a native of the city Naples, Florida?

I signed up four minutes ago exactly, with the hope of contributing something positive to the discussion. But I just could not help myself on addressing your comment to snowlover first.

That's all for now. I'll be around.
Wow, great first post! You not only come across as a bit creepy/stalkerly, but you deduced that my handle means that I'm from Naples. Gold star, buddy! Can't wait to hear more of your brilliant insight. Now, maybe next time you can bring something about climate to the discussion. Whattaya say?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13473
192. Neapolitan
12:07 PM GMT am 03. April 2012
Quoting Snowlover123:


I was wondering how long it would take before the ad-hominem attacks would start coming out. It didn't take very long.

If you ignore every single other factor imaginable, I guess you could say that warming will take shape over the next 30 years.

The Arctic Sea Ice should gradually get larger because of the PDO/AMO reversing to their negative states.

Your PIOMAS graph that you have posted everywhere on Dr. Master's blog is not an actual observation, FYI and the preliminary Cryosat images may indicate that PIOMAS is running on the low side of things.
Ad hominem attack? I do not think that term means what you think it means; mentioning that your chosen handle indicates that you prefer cooling is not an ad hominem attack. (At any rate, you've been the master of such attacks, and what's that they say about turnabout and fair play?)

Now, I try to wade through your piles of info, and have to tell you that I have a very difficult time keeping a straight face while doing so because of the nonsense you so frequently drop in. It's almost as though you're awkwardly attempting some subliminal Jedi mind trick kind of thing. Do you truly believe that interpersing scientific observations with falsehood one liners is going to make folks subcionciously say, "I don't understand what he's saying, but he must be right!"? Here, allow me to line up a few samples from your last few comments:

--"There is no "smoking gun" that most of Global Warming is anthropogenic."

False.

--"Natural Forcings are responsible for most of the warming over the last 30 years. CO2 definitely has contributed some, but natural forcings definitely are in control."

False.

--"That's determined by the sensitivity of the Climate, which from what I've researched and read, appears to be much less sensitive than the IPCC suggests"

False.

--"Methane levels have significantly leveled off from the rate that they were increasing in 1984."

False.

--"A slight part of it is due to anthropogenic causes, it's AGW... if you're trying to argue AGW as being most of the warming that occured over the last 30 years, then you need to account for why these uncertainties can not possibly be causing the warming."

False.

--"How can the diurnal temperature has remained the same in the best kept weather stations all throughout the United States if man is the cause of the warming?"

False.

...and on and on and on. Many of us can sit here and take the time to answer each of these again, but they've all been answered numerous times in both peer-reviewed literature and in fora like this one. So my question is: does your denialism come from a simple (and amply demonstrated) lack of scientific understanding? Or is it intentional, driven by ideology or something worse?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13473
190. Snowlover123
10:15 AM GMT am 03. April 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Where to begin?

Obviously I do not know what I said. Refresh my memory, if you will. When did I attempt to forecast anything with significant accuracy? When did I say that CO2 is the only driver to our climate? I remember saying that there is still some uncertainty concerning the climate. This does not negate what we do know about the climate. ... We have had clouds for more than just 30 years. What we have not had is a rising anthropogenic increase in CO2, to the level that we have seen over the past 30 years. Do you think that there may be a connection between this and the increased warming we have seen over the past 30 years? No, way! That would be impossible, right? Clouds, on the other hand, explains everything, doesn't it


So because CO2 has risen and because temperatures have risen over the last 30 years, that means that CO2 is the cause?

That is really sloppy reasoning.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

I hate to answer a question with a question, but when did anyone, specifically me, say that there were no natural forces involved with a climate change? Who doubts that there would be many papers concerning the natural causes for a climate change? I certainly would not contest this. Since, as you said, this does not invalidate the AGWT, then why is this significant to the conversation? Unless, of course, you are suggesting that any warming we have experienced is due strictly to natural causes. Is this what you are suggesting? Should this be the case, then it is your responsibility, not mine, to show the warming has been due to natural causes and not AGW. The reasoning behind my saying that AGWT accounts for the warming, and I did not, as opposed to natural causes creating the warming, is simply because we have not observed any natural causes to account for the warming that has been observed. Are you able to supply this evidence? Should you not be able to do so, then you will need to suggest something else to explain the warming we have observed. I have a suggestion for you. Try factoring the AGWT, since it fits.


Natural Forcings are responsible for most of the warming over the last 30 years. CO2 definitely has contributed some, but natural forcings definitely are in control.

You can't simply ignore a factor like increasing TSI at the surface, Rookie. Or the fact that diurnal temperatures have not increased, while temperature anomalies have gone up in the best sited stations. If you have to ignore such factors to come to the conclusion that "AGW fits" there are some seriously wrong things going on with that theory already.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

Are you now suggesting that we have not reached any tipping points? Perhaps we need to clarify something. What do you consider to be a tipping point?


A large positive feedback that offsets other large positive feedbacks.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

Is it not the reality that if we stopped emitting CO2 today then the climate would continue to warm until sequestration has caught up with the excess CO2 in the atmosphere now? The best evidence is that this would take around 2-3 decades and the climate would continue to warm until then. Guess what. We have not stopped emitting CO2 into the atmosphere and, in fact, have increased the rate of doing so.



That's determined by the sensitivity of the Climate, which from what I've researched and read, appears to be much less sensitive than the IPCC suggests.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

Is it the fact that methane is now escaping from the frozen tundra and from the sea floor?



Methane levels have significantly leveled off from the rate that they were increasing in 1984. Methane does not last as long in the atmosphere as Carbon Dioxide does (only about 10 years).



Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

Is it the Arctic sea ice having less volume now and that by all appearances now the Arctic will soon be ice free during the summer months? What do you think will happen once the Arctic is ice free during the summers? I suggest that we have not seen anything yet, once this happens.


What's your evidence that the decrease in Sea Ice Extent over the last 30 years is due to AGW?

What's your evidence that most of the decrease in Sea Ice Extent isn't due to variability with the AMO?

Quoting Paper:

Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

We have more than one problem here. I never said the next El Nino will cause a faster and more pronounced warming to our climate. Although, that is possible. What I suggested was that the next strong, extended El Nino, in conjunction with a strong, extended solar activity, will possibly bring a faster and more pronounced warming than we have seen so far.


Like I said, we'll see if you are right or not. I'm willing to bet that you are not right. If we see temperatures increasing over the next 20-30 years and all natural forcings point the opposite direction, we'll have our answer. Until then, uncertainties still remain, and they still need to be addressed.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
189. Some1Has2BtheRookie
04:32 AM GMT am 03. April 2012
Quoting Snowlover123:


And how can you forecast with significant accuracy when the feedbacks of the climate system, primarily the Cloud Feedbacks are even more uncertain than what's actually causing Climate Change to occur over the last 30 years?



What are you trying to argue here? I have shown many papers that document natural forcings in the Climate System. That doesn't mean that AGW suddenly becomes invalid. A slight part of it is due to anthropogenic causes, it's AGW... if you're trying to argue AGW as being most of the warming that occured over the last 30 years, then you need to account for why these uncertainties can not possibly be causing the warming.




And what evidence are you using to come to that conclusion? How can the diurnal temperature has remained the same in the best kept weather stations all throughout the United States if man is the cause of the warming? How can you ignore papers that show an increase in TSI reaching Earth's surface, indicating that the ACRIM dataset may be in fact valid, and 70% of the warming we have seen over the last 30 years is due to TSI alone? How can you ignore that we don't even know what TSI has done over the last 30 years when you come to that conclusion?



I have posted many papers that suggest that the sun and its feedbacks are the drivers of the current climate change, not CO2. The sun is the most likely driver in my opinion. You have yet to post a study using ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS that shows CO2 as being the main driver of the Climate over the past 30 years.

The sensitivity is what will determine if we reach any "tipping points" and from what I've read, climate sensitivity to Greenhouse Gases appears to be very low, hence another reason why CO2 is a minor factor for climate change.The sensitivity is what will determine if we reach any "tipping points" and from what I've read, climate sensitivity to Greenhouse Gases appears to be very low, hence another reason why CO2 is a minor factor for climate change.




One problem, I have no idea if you are right or not, because the next El Nino has not occured yet, which is why I said "we'll see."




Where to begin?

"And how can you forecast with significant accuracy when the feedbacks of the climate system, primarily the Cloud Feedbacks are even more uncertain than what's actually causing Climate Change to occur over the last 30 years?

Obviously I do not know what I said. Refresh my memory, if you will. When did I attempt to forecast anything with significant accuracy? When did I say that CO2 is the only driver to our climate? I remember saying that there is still some uncertainty concerning the climate. This does not negate what we do know about the climate. ... We have had clouds for more than just 30 years. What we have not had is a rising anthropogenic increase in CO2, to the level that we have seen over the past 30 years. Do you think that there may be a connection between this and the increased warming we have seen over the past 30 years? No, way! That would be impossible, right? Clouds, on the other hand, explains everything, doesn't it?

"What are you trying to argue here? I have shown many papers that document natural forcings in the Climate System. That doesn't mean that AGW suddenly becomes invalid. A slight part of it is due to anthropogenic causes, it's AGW... if you're trying to argue AGW as being most of the warming that occured over the last 30 years, then you need to account for why these uncertainties can not possibly be causing the warming."

I hate to answer a question with a question, but when did anyone, specifically me, say that there were no natural forces involved with a climate change? Who doubts that there would be many papers concerning the natural causes for a climate change? I certainly would not contest this. Since, as you said, this does not invalidate the AGWT, then why is this significant to the conversation? Unless, of course, you are suggesting that any warming we have experienced is due strictly to natural causes. Is this what you are suggesting? Should this be the case, then it is your responsibility, not mine, to show the warming has been due to natural causes and not AGW. The reasoning behind my saying that AGWT accounts for the warming, and I did not, as opposed to natural causes creating the warming, is simply because we have not observed any natural causes to account for the warming that has been observed. Are you able to supply this evidence? Should you not be able to do so, then you will need to suggest something else to explain the warming we have observed. I have a suggestion for you. Try factoring the AGWT, since it fits.

"And what evidence are you using to come to that conclusion? How can the diurnal temperature has remained the same in the best kept weather stations all throughout the United States if man is the cause of the warming? How can you ignore papers that show an increase in TSI reaching Earth's surface, indicating that the ACRIM dataset may be in fact valid, and 70% of the warming we have seen over the last 30 years is due to TSI alone? How can you ignore that we don't even know what TSI has done over the last 30 years when you come to that conclusion?"

The evidence that I use to come this conclusion is your inate behavior of suggesting that natural causes could account for most of, if not all of, the warming climate we have been observing. You have made every attempt to explain the warming short of using AGW. Should you be able to provide the evidence that AGW has had minimal play in the warming we are observing, then I am listening.

"The sensitivity is what will determine if we reach any "tipping points" and from what I've read, climate sensitivity to Greenhouse Gases appears to be very low, hence another reason why CO2 is a minor factor for climate change.

Are you now suggesting that we have not reached any tipping points? Perhaps we need to clarify something. What do you consider to be a tipping point?

Is it not the reality that if we stopped emitting CO2 today then the climate would continue to warm until sequestration has caught up with the excess CO2 in the atmosphere now? The best evidence is that this would take around 2-3 decades and the climate would continue to warm until then. Guess what. We have not stopped emitting CO2 into the atmosphere and, in fact, have increased the rate of doing so.

Is it the fact that methane is now escaping from the frozen tundra and from the sea floor?

Is it the Arctic sea ice having less volume now and that by all appearances now the Arctic will soon be ice free during the summer months? What do you think will happen once the Arctic is ice free during the summers? I suggest that we have not seen anything yet, once this happens.

Should these not be tipping points for you, then what is that you would consider a tipping point?



We have more than one problem here. I never said the next El Nino will cause a faster and more pronounced warming to our climate. Although, that is possible. What I suggested was that the next strong, extended El Nino, in conjunction with a strong, extended solar activity, will possibly bring a faster and more pronounced warming than we have seen so far. We will have to wait and see if this comes to be, but waiting to see is what you seem to stress concerning AGW. An opft used delay tactic to not respond with the evidence and knowledge we do know now. "Let's just wait another 20 years and see what there is to see then." It is always wait another 20 years and conditions have worsened each time we wait another 20 years. Sooner or later, you must look at the obvious. Do I need to repeat the obvious again?

Should we have evidence in how a fire starts, should we wait until we know all the ways a fire will start before we try to prevent fires? No way! We should wait until we know all the ways that start a fire before we try to prevent fires! ... If you do not mind, I will take preventive measures against fires in my home now with the knowledge we have now. I will add to these preventative measures as more ways are learned. You may wait to prevent fires at your home until you have learned all the ways that start fires. Wait! In the case of climate change, do we not all share the same home?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
188. Snowlover123
01:44 AM GMT am 03. April 2012
We have quite a bit of warming to do for this to verify...

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/10/01/206810/h ansen-extreme-events-2010-2012-record-high-global- temperature/?mobile=nc
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
187. Snowlover123
12:06 AM GMT am 03. April 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


No one doubts the uncertainties of the AGWT. Without the uncertainties scientist would be able to tell you exactly what the global climate will be like in 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, 2070 and so forth. Since there are uncertainties, "unknowns" as you may prefer to use, scientist are able to use models that will show probabilities of what the global, or even regional, climate will be. Scientist will express their degree of confidence in these probabilities by assigning a percentage of likelyhood that these probabilities will be observed as true.


And how can you forecast with significant accuracy when the feedbacks of the climate system, primarily the Cloud Feedbacks are even more uncertain than what's actually causing Climate Change to occur over the last 30 years?

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

Since you have not shown any repeatable tests that would give evidence that the AGWT is invalid, you simply have not shown anything that would undermine the AGWT. So, given this, my premise is preciously on point. You continuously show that there are variables that are not fully understood, yet you have not shown that the AGWT is invalid. You have engaged in using circular debating points and without any scientific reason for doing so. When you are able to bring forth testable, repeatable evidence that the AGWT is an invalid theory, then you will not only have my profound, "Thank you!", but you will also have gained riches and recognition beyond your greatest fantasies. The dog will simply become bored with watching you since you no longer provide it any entertainment value. ... So, if you will, explain to me how my premiss is off.


What are you trying to argue here? I have shown many papers that document natural forcings in the Climate System. That doesn't mean that AGW suddenly becomes invalid. A slight part of it is due to anthropogenic causes, it's AGW... if you're trying to argue AGW as being most of the warming that occured over the last 30 years, then you need to account for why these uncertainties can not possibly be causing the warming.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

What I have implied is that you simply do not seem to recognize the amount of greenhouse gases that man emits, how many of the natural sinks man has interfered with, and of the degree of impact that this will have on our global climate. You try to circumvent all of this by simply pointing out that we do not yet know all of the variables associated with our climate. Fine, but you must almost also show that what we do know is invalid.



And what evidence are you using to come to that conclusion? How can the diurnal temperature has remained the same in the best kept weather stations all throughout the United States if man is the cause of the warming? How can you ignore papers that show an increase in TSI reaching Earth's surface, indicating that the ACRIM dataset may be in fact valid, and 70% of the warming we have seen over the last 30 years is due to TSI alone? How can you ignore that we don't even know what TSI has done over the last 30 years when you come to that conclusion?

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

What brings you to the determination that CO2 is not a large contributor? You do not even attempt to quantify this statement. I can assume that since the subject is concerning climate change that you suggest that CO2 is not a large contributor towards any climate change. I will even grant you that CO2 is but the primer for further, more extreme climate change. What I cannot assume is that you have any evidence to support your claim that CO2 is not a large contributor. Show us the evidence that you have that will support your claim. Certainly you have taken in consideration of "tipping points" and "the domino effect", have you not? ... Should you be suggesting that I believe that the amount of CO2 in atmosphere is the only factor that will drive our climate, then your premiss is off. CO2 is one primer. We have not fully realized what it will detonate. ... Although, we do have an idea.


I have posted many papers that suggest that the sun and its feedbacks are the drivers of the current climate change, not CO2. The sun is the most likely driver in my opinion. You have yet to post a study using ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS that shows CO2 as being the main driver of the Climate over the past 30 years.

The sensitivity is what will determine if we reach any "tipping points" and from what I've read, climate sensitivity to Greenhouse Gases appears to be very low, hence another reason why CO2 is a minor factor for climate change.


Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

When you say, "We will see what happens over the coming years." you are, yet again, engaging in circular thinking. This is precisely what others, that do not want to take actions now, will say as nothing more than a delaying tactic towards acting on what we do know now. I also did not even try to suggest that the next strong El Nino alone would cause a spike in global temperatures. I specifically suggested that the next strong, extended El Nino, in conjunction with a strong, extended solar cycle, will probably bring about a warming beyond what we would otherwise believe it would be. I should have also added that this warming would be stronger and faster than what would be expected without factoring in the AGWT


One problem, I have no idea if you are right or not, because the next El Nino has not occured yet, which is why I said "we'll see."


Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
186. Snowlover123
10:23 PM GMT am 02. April 2012
.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
185. Snowlover123
10:21 PM GMT am 02. April 2012

.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
184. Snowlover123
10:17 PM GMT am 02. April 2012
.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
183. Pier16
09:17 PM GMT am 02. April 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Given your handle--snowlover--it's easy to see how your longing for icy precipitation could be clouding your judgement. But, your profound wishful thinking aside, total global ice volume is shrinking year after year. The planet is not cooling, nor is it about to. Normal variations in solar insolation have only a small effect on global temperatures when compared to GHGs. CO2 and other GHGs are the only mechanism that's been found that fits the current observed warming. Willie Soon's persistent cloud theory of cooling is a well-debunked myth, and is in fact no longer even seriously discussed among climate scientists. And, as much as some might wish it were otherwise, the verdict is clear, and getting clearer: the planet is warming, it's because of us, and it's gonna get a lot worse before it starts getting better.

Really? That's all you got. Well, since your handle is Neapolitan, couldn't I use your logic and erroneously assume you are inclined to a warm bias, being that the word "Neapolitan" is a native of the city Naples, Florida?

I signed up four minutes ago exactly, with the hope of contributing something positive to the discussion. But I just could not help myself on addressing your comment to snowlover first.

That's all for now. I'll be around.
Member Since: April 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
182. Some1Has2BtheRookie
09:01 PM GMT am 02. April 2012
Quoting Snowlover123:
Some1hastobetherookie...

I can't quote posts at the moment because of Oracle de Atlantis' post, but your premise is totally off.

I am highlighting the uncertainties in the AGW argument, because there are actually uncertainties, and the science is not as settled as some claim it to be. Because of these uncertainties, I am a skeptic, since there is nothing definite, but I have my own theories to explain these uncertainties, and possibly show evidence that supports the less looked at option for the uncertain point.

You and Birthmark both say that I am arguing that Greenhouse Gases don't exist and CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas, but you both are totally wrong in your premise.

CO2 contributes, it's just not a large contributor.

We will see what happens over the coming years. We just had a large MJO wave move through Octant 7, removing Oceanic Heat Content through convection and transferring it into the atmosphere. Therefore, the March 2012 Global Temp anomaly on UAH/RSS should probably be positive, and the next El Nino should not have as much of a spike in Global temperatures as the previous El Ninos. A -PDO also supports more and stronger La Ninas in the future, so expect the Ninos to be weaker, and less impactful than the La Ninas.


No one doubts the uncertainties of the AGWT. Without the uncertainties scientist would be able to tell you exactly what the global climate will be like in 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, 2070 and so forth. Since there are uncertainties, "unknowns" as you may prefer to use, scientist are able to use models that will show probabilities of what the global, or even regional, climate will be. Scientist will express their degree of confidence in these probabilities by assigning a percentage of likelyhood that these probabilities will be observed as true.

Since you have not shown any repeatable tests that would give evidence that the AGWT is invalid, you simply have not shown anything that would undermine the AGWT. So, given this, my premise is preciously on point. You continuously show that there are variables that are not fully understood, yet you have not shown that the AGWT is invalid. You have engaged in using circular debating points and without any scientific reason for doing so. When you are able to bring forth testable, repeatable evidence that the AGWT is an invalid theory, then you will not only have my profound, "Thank you!", but you will also have gained riches and recognition beyond your greatest fantasies. The dog will simply become bored with watching you since you no longer provide it any entertainment value. ... So, if you will, explain to me how my premiss is off.

No one, that I have seen here, has ever said that you believe greenhouse gases do not exist. What I have implied is that you simply do not seem to recognize the amount of greenhouse gases that man emits, how many of the natural sinks man has interfered with, and of the degree of impact that this will have on our global climate. You try to circumvent all of this by simply pointing out that we do not yet know all of the variables associated with our climate. Fine, but you must almost also show that what we do know is invalid.

What brings you to the determination that CO2 is not a large contributor? You do not even attempt to quantify this statement. I can assume that since the subject is concerning climate change that you suggest that CO2 is not a large contributor towards any climate change. I will even grant you that CO2 is but the primer for further, more extreme climate change. What I cannot assume is that you have any evidence to support your claim that CO2 is not a large contributor. Show us the evidence that you have that will support your claim. Certainly you have taken in consideration of "tipping points" and "the domino effect", have you not? ... Should you be suggesting that I believe that the amount of CO2 in atmosphere is the only factor that will drive our climate, then your premiss is off. CO2 is one primer. We have not fully realized what it will detonate. ... Although, we do have an idea.

When you say, "We will see what happens over the coming years." you are, yet again, engaging in circular thinking. This is precisely what others, that do not want to take actions now, will say as nothing more than a delaying tactic towards acting on what we do know now. I also did not even try to suggest that the next strong El Nino alone would cause a spike in global temperatures. I specifically suggested that the next strong, extended El Nino, in conjunction with a strong, extended solar cycle, will probably bring about a warming beyond what we would otherwise believe it would be. I should have also added that this warming would be stronger and faster than what would be expected without factoring in the AGWT. My omission to do so allows me a certain degree of leniency with your response to this. Since I feel that you should have caught the jest of what I was saying, I am not certain as to how much leniency I should allow you. You do, however, deserve a degree of leniency from me, on this point. How much value you will place on this is up to you.

I will imagine that all that post, or lurk, on this blog have seen enough attempts by those that would use circular thinking to no longer be fooled by such circular thinking. I know that I no longer am fooled by such circular thinking and that was an accomplishment, of sorts, in of itself.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737

Viewing: 232 - 182

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.