Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

Again - I applaud you guys for the tone. Very civilized.

One thing that I think needs to be considered is that solar output in terms of TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) may not be the only solar-related factor to consider. For instance, I know the theory is not fully validated, but Svensmark has hypothesized that the sun has an effect on cosmic rays that reach the earth (basically - if I recall - when the sun is active it blocks more cosmic rays than when it is not active). This in turn affects cloud cover in that cosmic rays are believed to create cloud condensation nuclei (and this has been demonstrated by Svensmark in the lab). Therefore, an active sun blocks more intergalactic cosmic rays, which means fewer CCN's upon which cloud cover forms, which means fewer clouds, which means more sunlight gets through and warming is increased.

So even without a significant change in TSI, it is quite possible that the sun can cause a measurable change in climate. Svensmark's work is serious enough that he is now proceeding with an experiment called C.L.O.U.D. at CERN.

 

Go to bed. You can always learn more about sex!

 

Yeah...we wouldn't want it otherwise.

 

The Darwin airport issue debunked.

Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends



Australian high-quality climate site data

 

Well, curiosity has gotten the best of me. I was lying in bed post-coitally (lol) and something struck me - how did they get this data?

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf

They are comparing solar output to temperatures on earth for the past 1,000 years. I remembered the "hide the decline" graphs and I remember the three tree-ring proxy datasets did not overlap very well. And I also remember all the criticism about the tree ring proxy data. And they're using Mann's data (ugh.) And the solar output has to be taken by proxy data as well. So I see that they are comparing two sets of proxy data and arrived at positive correlations with a confidence interval of 94-98%. (My photoshop pasting was dead on!)

This study did not consider the most recent 30 years in it. They said that had already been handled by another study and they ignored it. They did indicate a "marked (or even dominant) solar effect on climate variability until the middle of the 20th century". But this study did not show why they think the most recent 30 years are too warm for solar irradiance alone.

Also note they did not rule out the sun's influence on climate due to UV light and magnetized plasmas.

I really liked this study. It mentioned Bertrand et al, 2002, that discussed the most recent 30 years of warming being outpaced by solar irradiation.

So I now read Bertrand 2002.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/BertrandEtAlfulltext.pdf

Let's see what they say.

Argh. This kills me. I still don't understand how to justify this. 1850 is a minima of the LIA. Warming is to be expected coming out of it, due to a number of natural cycles, and add in the effects of increasing solar irradiance, UV light, and magnetized plasmas, and we should expect to see a lot of warming. It seems incredibly cherrypicked to start the clock at 1850.

This study does not address the recent 30 years. However, I found the conclusion disturbingly useless:

If I'm reading the bold parts correctly, they are saying that they predict that any global warming that occurs in the 21st century will not be able to be masked by natural occurrences, solar variability, or volcanos. Well how are we blaming the 8-9 years of cooling (or the complete lack of warming) on solar minimums when this study says we can't do that? If we are supposed to be having global warming, but aren't, that means the global warming is masked. But this says that solar variability can't mask it. I know we are not solely blaming the lack of warming on solar minimums, but I guess we can no longer offer that up as a suggestion.

My previous paragraph seems contradicted and nullified by the italics part of the quote. I'm not entirely sure what "externally driven natural climate variability" means, but if it's simply "natural climate variability", it really looks like they actually said "We predict that natural processes will not be enough to mask or counteract global warming. Except for the next 20 years. If it occurs in the next 20 years then it's due to delay and eventually AGW will take over. You can't use this against us in a debate."

Honestly I read that as "Our study is meaningless. If we end up being wrong, no one will remember this study anyway."

I'm a doctor. If you were having a hypertensive crisis, and I gave you a pill and said "Ok take this. It may decrease your BP, but it may not. We won't know until after your dead. But if you die you can't say I didn't warn you that it may not decrease your BP. Basically if it works I want all of the credit, but if it doesn't work then it must be something else's fault." You would be pretty pissed! (So would I!)

I tried to find Stott et al 2003 but I could only get the abstract. Ugh it's full of Hadley authors I am of course extremely naive in climate science. When I read these papers, I try to see things that seem weird or questionable, but I really don't know anything. Now that I fully understand what "hiding the decline" was about, I feel weary trusting fully any of the graphs I see. And now that I know the data had unknown manipulations applied to it I feel leery trusting it. I'm now most cautious and untrusting when I read a paper that uses Mann's data or honestly has any CRU employee tied to it.

On to this one:

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf

From the conclusion:

Is that saying that they do not think the sun's irradiance is driving climate change? I found the first study very convincing, finding very strong positive correlations between solar output and global temperatures. Is this study saying that it's mere correlation and not causation or am I completely misreading it? (It's now almost 1am.) I find it hard to believe, because the earth and the sun are in such a one sided relationship.

Also, this study used a lot of CRU's data. It also seemed to minimize the height of the MWP and minimize the depth of the LIA. I feel this is very fair criticism in light of recent discoveries at HadCRU that we've all read about more than enough times.

The only thing I could find in this study about the most recent 30 years was this sentence:

Interesting article about some cooling possibly coming our way:

Solar geomagnetic activity is at an all time low – what does this mean for climate? Watts Up With That?

Sleep well all.

Edit: Lastly, just to note that the vast majority of these studies use Mann's and other HadCRU scientists data. To me this is ... weird ... in light of recent events. The original unaltered data must be recovered and examined. It's crazy that all of these studies are done using process-unknown manipulated data.

F8L - thank you for referring me to those links. They were really great. Do you have any more that discuss why solar irradiation is not useful for the last 30-ish years?

 

Ah, what a coincidence! I just read a little bit about that over at WUWT!

Solar geomagnetic activity is at an all time low – what does this mean for climate? Watts Up With That?

Basically if his work is sounds, we will be having a very cold winter!

 

good god man that was quick!!!

 

Not even Tim Lambert's fans and readers buy his explanation.

(And I didn't see 1880 - 1920 on that graph you posted)

 

Well, I found these graphs this morning. I'll briefly summarize the commentary or paste it directly as found here and here. It is NOAA data from a Greenland ice core.



Above, a hockey stick. How unprecedented is this warming trend?



Above, showing a MWP in central Greenland, (coinciding with the arrival of the Vikings?), and showing a LIA as well. But was the MWP itself unusual?



Well, no — over the period of recorded history, the average temperature was about equal to the height of the MWP. Rises not only as high, but as rapid, as the current hockey stick blade have been the rule, not the exception.



In fact for the entire Holocene — the period over which, by some odd coincidence, humanity developed agriculture and civilization — the temperature has been higher than now, and the trend over the past 4000 years is a marked decline. From this perspective, it’s the LIA that was unusual, and the current warming trend simply represents a return to the mean. If it lasts.







In other words, we’re pretty lucky to be here during this rare, warm period in climate history. But the broader lesson is, climate doesn’t stand still. It doesn’t even stand stay on the relatively constrained range of the last 10,000 years for more than about 10,000 years at a time.

Does this mean that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas? No.

Does it mean that it isn’t warming? No.

Does it mean that we shouldn’t develop clean, efficient technology that gets its energy elsewhere than burning fossil fuels? Of course not.

- End of copy/pasting -

I thought that was pretty interesting. I wish the alarmists would show those graphs. I really feel it is an atrocity to deny the history of the earth. Similarly, creationists say that evolution is false because we don't regularly observe the evolution of a new species. They fail to understand that it takes *long periods of time* for species to evolve. Likewise, climate changes slowly on earth. We weren't put here 150 years ago in a static environment. We are in a constantly changing dynamic environment. I wholly agree with the pasted commentary immediately above this paragraph, with no cause for alarm.

 

Radioprius, you've posted a lot of information that will require more time to read than usual quickie posts but since I am at work and completing a grassland survey report I don't have the time right now but I promise I will get to your posts tonight or tomorrow at worst.

 

All those graphs are from a single core in Greenland, not global temperature. The plots are from a blogpost not a published paper and there is no way to verify the data is properly plotted or interpreted. Hardly a leg to stand on...

 

You can see where the ice core was taken, and you can even see the raw data yourself. If you believe it was plotted unfairly, by all means take the raw data and plot it yourself.

 

You and I can plot those numbers all we want but only a trained climatologist can put it in perspective and add an interpretation. Is this valid data for historical periods or is it only valuable for a specific geologic era? Does it represent global temperature? How does it compare with many others sets of data from other sites and authors?

These are questions that only an expert with time can answer. I don't want to be a climate science dilettante. I want to learn and comprehend what the experts have dedicated a lifetime to learn.

 

Your attempts to minimize and suppress information are uninspiring and disappointing.

Luckily the world does not revolve around your authority. We can all look at those graphs and see that the last 1000 years of them coincide with what we know about solar output (see the study posted by F8L), and the temperature on earth.

Edit: Actually, I believe it is our duty to audit this data and make sure everything adds up. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy because your posts routinely imply that "peer-reviewed data and experts" are infallible in principle and can therefore be exempted from criticism. Recent events have certainly turned the table.

 

LOL. Well, you have to admit "A.L.R.I.C." was kind of humorous. But my comment about "civilized tone" wasn't in defense of either side. It was applauding both. If you have a problem with that, we can return the thread back into snide comments.

 

lol.

 

Here is a fun little chart put together over at Climate Audit, of Mann's "peer reviewed" work that shows the hockey stick. This file shows the profiles of each of the temperature charts Mann relied on to produce the uptick on his chart. Count for yourself how many of the 33 actually show a recent rise significantly above past periods. You can exclude the Finnish lake charts since as CA notes "The proxies with the loudest modern warm period “signal†– a Finnish lake sediment, are said by the author to have been contaminated by non-climatic modern disturbance."

 

Fantastic read, thank you very much!

Honestly, I feel like Mann is a disgusting person. He seems to be trying to completely eliminate the MWP and the LIA. He is cherry picking data. This isn't science. It really screams of agenda.

 

OK, how about some action from you! Provide us some cites, uncontaminated by the Climategate "Team", that document retreating glaciers. Good luck, because the glaciers are doing fine, thank you.

Here are some links that may help you understand that you've been hornswaggled by AlGore and company.

ICECAP

ICECAP

ICECAP

 

When was the last time you were in Glacier Park, MT, or the Ice Fields Parkway in AB, or Glacier Bay in AK?