Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Global Warming has paused for 17 years

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 11:55:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In a desperate attempt to get Science Forum off of the religious defense of creationism, and also in a desperate attempt to promote interest in by debate with brant.merrell, I offer the topic of climate change:

http://www.debate.org...

My opinion is that the last seventeen years, during which CO2 has increased 54% and global temperatures has shown no increase, demolishes the theory that CO2 is dominating climate. The current climate models account for variations in the direct heating of the sun, which are negligible. The models do not include the magnetic effects of the sun, which are correlated with sunspots, and observed by dramatic variations in cosmic rays. Experiments with the accelerator at CERN show that cosmic rays produce cloud seeding effects, by CO2 theorist discount the cosmic ray theory on the grounds that the droplets formed in the experiments are too small. Still climate variations track sunspots much more closely than CO2.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 1:10:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 11:55:12 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
In a desperate attempt to get Science Forum off of the religious defense of creationism, and also in a desperate attempt to promote interest in by debate with brant.merrell, I offer the topic of climate change:

http://www.debate.org...

My opinion is that the last seventeen years, during which CO2 has increased 54% and global temperatures has shown no increase, demolishes the theory that CO2 is dominating climate. The current climate models account for variations in the direct heating of the sun, which are negligible. The models do not include the magnetic effects of the sun, which are correlated with sunspots, and observed by dramatic variations in cosmic rays. Experiments with the accelerator at CERN show that cosmic rays produce cloud seeding effects, by CO2 theorist discount the cosmic ray theory on the grounds that the droplets formed in the experiments are too small. Still climate variations track sunspots much more closely than CO2.

On an unrelated note, good sir, what do you think of Creationism?
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 2:50:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 1:10:37 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 8/10/2014 11:55:12 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
In a desperate attempt to get Science Forum off of the religious defense of creationism, and also in a desperate attempt to promote interest in by debate with brant.merrell, I offer the topic of climate change:

http://www.debate.org...

My opinion is that the last seventeen years, during which CO2 has increased 54% and global temperatures has shown no increase, demolishes the theory that CO2 is dominating climate. The current climate models account for variations in the direct heating of the sun, which are negligible. The models do not include the magnetic effects of the sun, which are correlated with sunspots, and observed by dramatic variations in cosmic rays. Experiments with the accelerator at CERN show that cosmic rays produce cloud seeding effects, by CO2 theorist discount the cosmic ray theory on the grounds that the droplets formed in the experiments are too small. Still climate variations track sunspots much more closely than CO2.

On an unrelated note, good sir, what do you think of Creationism?

Thanks for asking! I think it's pretty well established.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 2:59:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
On an unrelated note, good sir, what do you think of Creationism?

Thanks for asking! I think it's pretty well established.

Creationism is such an important topic that it exceeds both the Science and Religious forums. It deserves a Everything Depends of Creationism Forum. I hope that starts as soon as possible.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 3:02:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 2:59:17 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
On an unrelated note, good sir, what do you think of Creationism?

Thanks for asking! I think it's pretty well established.

Creationism is such an important topic that it exceeds both the Science and Religious forums. It deserves a Everything Depends of Creationism Forum. I hope that starts as soon as possible.

By the way, I think one of your quotes made it onto the Weekly Stupid. Then again, your name was misspelled, so perhaps he was talking about someone else.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 9:49:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.nasa.gov...

First, it is inaccurate to say there has been no growth in the last 17 years. It just hasn't been consistent, I'll get the numbers when I get to my computer.

Second, it was expected because of the sun spot cycle. Which were on the decline starting in 2000 and are just starting to pick up. I'll dig it up, but I said years ago that the temp would remain level for awhile before shooting up.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 12:28:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 9:49:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.nasa.gov...

First, it is inaccurate to say there has been no growth in the last 17 years. It just hasn't been consistent, I'll get the numbers when I get to my computer.

Second, it was expected because of the sun spot cycle. Which were on the decline starting in 2000 and are just starting to pick up. I'll dig it up, but I said years ago that the temp would remain level for awhile before shooting up.

Okay, thanks to NASA (the 2013 report is previously linked, you can just pull up the past years), the last 20 years looks like this.

http://www.debate.org...

Now, it appears that the last 12 years is pretty flat. And it is, mostly, but not entirely. The average if the last 5 years is 1.066F, while the 5 years before that was 1.046F (minor, but still an increase), and the 5 before that was 0.856F (a very significant increase).

Now, as I said regarding the sun spot cycle, the sun cycle is a well documented cycle of the output of the sun. This cycle effects how much light and energy is getting to the Earth. We are in the bottom of a cycle (well, the bottom was a few years ago, so we are just starting to pick up). Meaning that the sun is going to be sending more energy our way, so we will begin to heat up.

Normally, one would think that if the sun is sending less energy our way, then we should get colder, however, we haven't, we've mostly been level. This is global warming offsetting the expected cooling. Upcoming will be global warming having it's standard warming effect, but with the sun adding more energy. And we will expect to see a consistent up, level, up, level, up, level... pattern.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 9:57:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 12:28:44 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:49:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.nasa.gov...

First, it is inaccurate to say there has been no growth in the last 17 years. It just hasn't been consistent, I'll get the numbers when I get to my computer.

Second, it was expected because of the sun spot cycle. Which were on the decline starting in 2000 and are just starting to pick up. I'll dig it up, but I said years ago that the temp would remain level for awhile before shooting up.

i see you didn't read the debate. As your graph of the NASA data actually confirms it's a straight lime through the past 17+ years. Here is the graph:
http://www.debate.org...

The pause was completely unexpected because sunspots are not included in the official global warming models. To be more precise, sunspots have two effects. there is a negligible effect on the irradiance of the sun, which is basically the direct heat output. That effect is included, but it is so small it does nothing relative to warming or cooling. There is another major effect, which has something to do with the dramatic changes in the Sun's magnetic field. The main theory is that cosmic rays, gated by the sun's magnetic field, cause cloud seeding, but that's not proved, so nothing whatsoever of importance is in the climate models. CO2 increased 54%, and the lack of warming confounds every climate model.

Should such a disparity concern even CO2 theorists? Yes, it should and it does. CO2 believers are desperate for any explanation. In the debate I cited papers by Von Storch, a CO2 believer, and by Mauritsen, showing that existing climate models cannot by tweaked to explain the lack of warming. A news article by Voosen shows that even Hansen is perplexed. He tries to blame it on coal burning in China completely offsetting CO2. Putting sunspots into the model, without knowing how they act, not only explains the current lack of warming, but the pause after the 40s, the cold spell in the 70s, and the dramatic warming from 83-97. It does so well predicting climate, that CO2 becomes a relatively minor factor. CO2 climate sensitivity is probably slightly below 1.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 11:40:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 9:57:21 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/12/2014 12:28:44 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:49:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.nasa.gov...

First, it is inaccurate to say there has been no growth in the last 17 years. It just hasn't been consistent, I'll get the numbers when I get to my computer.

Second, it was expected because of the sun spot cycle. Which were on the decline starting in 2000 and are just starting to pick up. I'll dig it up, but I said years ago that the temp would remain level for awhile before shooting up.

i see you didn't read the debate. As your graph of the NASA data actually confirms it's a straight lime through the past 17+ years. Here is the graph:
http://www.debate.org...

False, that isn't NASA, you can't just through a different source in there and say it is NASA or my source. NASA shows the increase in temp. It is the last 12 years that there is minimal, but still growth. What you've shown is REMSS, not NASA.

But, if we follow the REMSS site, they state, "The reasons for the discrepancy between the predicted and observed warming rate are currently under investigation by a number of research groups. Possible reasons include increased oceanic circulation leading to increased subduction of heat into the ocean, higher than normal levels of stratospheric aerosols due to volcanoes during the past decade, incorrect ozone levels used as input to the models, lower than expected solar output during the last few years, or poorly modeled cloud feedback effects. It is possible (or even likely) that a combination of these candidate causes is responsible."

Let me point out in particular, "lower than expected solar output during the last few years"

So the "the irradiance of the sun is negligible" is bunk unless you can show it.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

"While it appears that the measured solar cycle length tracks the temperature better than the CO2 concentration for the twentieth century up to 1970, this presented data remains quite controversial. When you look at the climate models that seek to show the human influence past 1970, you do see a good correlation of the temperature with the projected CO2 influence included, while the correlation with solar cycle length weakens."

This suggests that rather than being driven by a single dominating force, it is now two forces, but the sun spots are still an active force. You can, and should, argue that our models are imperfect and need to be improved.


The pause was completely unexpected because sunspots are not included in the official global warming models. To be more precise, sunspots have two effects. there is a negligible effect on the irradiance of the sun, which is basically the direct heat output. That effect is included, but it is so small it does nothing relative to warming or cooling. There is another major effect, which has something to do with the dramatic changes in the Sun's magnetic field. The main theory is that cosmic rays, gated by the sun's magnetic field, cause cloud seeding, but that's not proved, so nothing whatsoever of importance is in the climate models. CO2 increased 54%, and the lack of warming confounds every climate model.

Should such a disparity concern even CO2 theorists? Yes, it should and it does. CO2 believers are desperate for any explanation. In the debate I cited papers by Von Storch, a CO2 believer, and by Mauritsen, showing that existing climate models cannot by tweaked to explain the lack of warming. A news article by Voosen shows that even Hansen is perplexed. He tries to blame it on coal burning in China completely offsetting CO2. Putting sunspots into the model, without knowing how they act, not only explains the current lack of warming, but the pause after the 40s, the cold spell in the 70s, and the dramatic warming from 83-97. It does so well predicting climate, that CO2 becomes a relatively minor factor. CO2 climate sensitivity is probably slightly below 1.

You're disagreeing with yourself.

"there is a negligible effect on the irradiance of the sun, which is basically the direct heat output. That effect is included, but it is so small it does nothing relative to warming or cooling."

"Putting sunspots into the model, without knowing how they act, not only explains the current lack of warming, but the pause after the 40s, the cold spell in the 70s, and the dramatic warming from 83-97. It does so well predicting climate, that CO2 becomes a relatively minor factor."

or from your debate (which I did read, but I argue from my own points, not from another member's) said, "solar activity correlates well with global temperature for the past 17 years, for the entire 20the century and for as long as records of sunspot activity have been kept, which is back through the Middle Ages."

So, as I've already said (and you already agreed), the slow down in warming is expected.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Though, also, as I said, it is a 2 force method (actually, there are a ton of factors). But as you know, CO2 is a green house gas. It traps energy from leaving. Obviously, one would expect, that less energy coming from the sun would undermine that effect, not just work against it.

However, there are plenty of models that have been easily adjusted.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

"the fact that the current stagnation was not accurately encompassed by the models did pose an inconvenient truth for climate change scientists. In the latest paper scientists from Spain and France seem to have located the reason for the failure; it seems that the models were underestimating the contribution of the oceans in acting as a sink for the heat. Heat absorption by the ocean is a long established mechanism for the cessation or slowing down of atmospheric warming but it seems that the models were not accounting for this natural variability well enough. "

They had an imperfect model, and made corrections. That doesn't debunk the theory. EVERY theory, goes through phases where it is slowly ironed out. Atomic structure is one of my favorites. I'm sure you're aware of all the different phases that the structure of an atom was believed to be. We found a model that fit what we knew, as we learned more, we adjusted the model to make it more accurate. At no point did we say "this particular model isn't perfect, I guess that proves that were are not made of atoms at all."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 11:44:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 11:55:12 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
In a desperate attempt to get Science Forum off of the religious defense of creationism, and also in a desperate attempt to promote interest in by debate with brant.merrell, I offer the topic of climate change:

http://www.debate.org...

My opinion is that the last seventeen years, during which CO2 has increased 54% and global temperatures has shown no increase, demolishes the theory that CO2 is dominating climate. The current climate models account for variations in the direct heating of the sun, which are negligible. The models do not include the magnetic effects of the sun, which are correlated with sunspots, and observed by dramatic variations in cosmic rays. Experiments with the accelerator at CERN show that cosmic rays produce cloud seeding effects, by CO2 theorist discount the cosmic ray theory on the grounds that the droplets formed in the experiments are too small. Still climate variations track sunspots much more closely than CO2.

http://rationalwiki.org...
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 1:05:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 11:44:40 PM, jh1234l wrote:
http://rationalwiki.org...

Read the debate. Your graph shows Arctic sea ice decline. Good for you. However, Antarctic sea has increased so much that total sea ice is at a record high. How does CO2 theory explain that? It doesn't. The pattern of low Arctic Ice and high Antarctic ice, alternating with the reverse high/low levels has repeated every 40-60 years for a very long time. It's now called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 2:02:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 11:40:15 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

If RMSS is not a NASA satellite, who owns it? There are two NASA satellites that measure temperature. The HadCRU surface data also shows no global warming, and HadCRU issued a press release admitting it. The data you showed is virtually identical to RMSS, they just decided not to fit a line that include the high and low years at the start of the sequence. Von Storch was claiming in the 2006 that CO2 dominated climate, but he published a paper recent saying that nothing could be done to tweak the models to match the observed data. I gave you the reference to Hansen, et al, in which they all admit CO2 models are not working. So now everyone is lying skeptic?

But, if we follow the REMSS site, they state, "The reasons for the discrepancy between the predicted and observed warming rate are currently under investigation by a number of research groups. ...

Yes, exactly my point. The model of CO2 dominated climate is a failure, so there is an attempt to figure out why. There is no way to have a 54% increase in CO2 with no increase in temperature and at the same time say that CO2 dominates climate. Whatever the explanation, the unknown factor is at least as large as CO2.

Let me point out in particular, "lower than expected solar output during the last few years"

But irradiance is already in the models. So if it were just irradiance, the models would track. It has to be some aspect of solar output, like magnetic effects, that isn't in the models. It cannot be the case that they haven't looked at irradiance for 17 years and are going to look for the first time to see if it was low. The models cannot be made to work in retrospect, even knowing the irradiance data.

So the "the irradiance of the sun is negligible" is bunk unless you can show it.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Your reference says, "The solar output is very nearly constant, as shown in the plot below. The range of variation is about 0.2%, so reproducible that it is often referred to as the "solar constant"." that is the part that is included in the climate models.

The part related to sunspots is not in any of the models, which is why the models do not track and cannot be made to track,

"While it appears that the measured solar cycle length tracks the temperature better than the CO2 concentration for the twentieth century up to 1970, this presented data remains quite controversial. When you look at the climate models that seek to show the human influence past 1970, you do see a good correlation of the temperature with the projected CO2 influence included, while the correlation with solar cycle length weakens."

Absolutely false. There is good CO2 correlation from 1970 to 2000, which is when both CO2 and temperature were increasing monotonically. Of course there is equally good correlation with anything monotonic over that period. Since 2000, flat temperature does not correlate at all with increasing temperature, and even the CO2 fanatics admit it. I referenced graphs in debate that show the correlation with sunspots remains up to the present. The CO2 theory also does not correlate before 1970, so various fudge factors were introduced to make the data fit. The favorite fudge factor is atmospheric aerosols, since there is no good theory of the effects. The claim that correlation with solar activity has weakened is based on only using the irradiance measurements, which you source identifies as barely varying. The correlation is very strong with sunspot activity.

This suggests that rather than being driven by a single dominating force, it is now two forces, but the sun spots are still an active force. You can, and should, argue that our models are imperfect and need to be improved.

Yes, that is correct. The models absolutely suck. Climate crisis theory depends upon the effects of CO2 being dramatically multiplied the warming having positive feedback through increasing water vapor. The only "proof" was the rapid warming in 83-97 or thereabouts. But no warming since 2000 means there is no such dramatic multiplication.

No one is arguing that CO2 has no effect. It is in the mix, and will probably produce about 0.8 degree of warming in the next century. But don't you remember reaching the tipping point whereby we would all fry by 2010? That type of CO2-dominated model is simply dead. Actual temperatures are below the 95% confidence bounds of all the CO2 models, and there is no tweak that will fix them.

The ocean circulation effects, like the PDO and El Nino effects, are also not in the models. The ocean effects are most likely driven by solar effects. No has another explanation I've heard of. Those will have to be included in the models as well.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 2:30:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 11:40:15 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
or from your debate (which I did read, but I argue from my own points, not from another member's) said, "solar activity correlates well with global temperature for the past 17 years, for the entire 20the century and for as long as records of sunspot activity have been kept, which is back through the Middle Ages."

So, as I've already said (and you already agreed), the slow down in warming is expected.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...


I think I see your point. The people who believe that sunspots affect climate expected a slowdown. However, the people who construct and run the IPCC models do not include any sunspot effects, so those people did not expect any slowdown. They were completely surprised by the slowdown. Recall the global warming hockey stick controversy. The hockey stick "proved" that nothing but CO2 has affected climate for more than a thousand years, because the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were local to Europe. There were never any sunspot effects, so there was no reason to model them, and that is why they are not in the models. Many skeptics, of course, did not buy the hockey stick derivations, but they were all dismissed. Now claiming that the skeptics were right as a way of justifying erroneous models is truly a work of debate art.

Though, also, as I said, it is a 2 force method (actually, there are a ton of factors). But as you know, CO2 is a green house gas. It traps energy from leaving. Obviously, one would expect, that less energy coming from the sun would undermine that effect, not just work against it.

It isn't the energy coming from the sun, That's irradiance, which is measured, is nearly constant, and is in all the models that are below the 95% confidence limits. The effects are likely in cloud cover, which is not easily measured and which a few percent variation would account for all the observed climate change. The idea is that cloud cover variation is induced by cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar magnetic activity of sunspots.

However, there are plenty of models that have been easily adjusted.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Your reference cites exactly one model that the author claims can be fudged to fit past data. Sure, no doubt of it. The "heat going into the ocean model" has a huge problem with the south oceans not warming like the model predicts. The burning-coal-in-China fudge is another one. Why would one seek bizarre explanations, when it is obvious that temperatures are varying lockstep with sunspot activity? The CO2 theory depends entirely on the claim that climate is a solved problem, so the models justify imposition of absolute dictatorship style control of every aspect of society. We're supposed to by in even though the models fail miserably.

"In the latest paper scientists from Spain and France seem to have located the reason for the failure; it seems that the models were underestimating the contribution of the oceans in acting as a sink for the heat. ... "

They had an imperfect model, and made corrections. That doesn't debunk the theory. EVERY theory, goes through phases where it is slowly ironed out.

The difference is that in this case we were asked to trust that the theory was perfect. Any skeptic was denounced as not just wrong, but as an infidel opposed to true science. It is absurd to claim that 54% increase in CO2 with no increase in atmospheric temperature is just a little bitty tweak. The failure is 100%, a predicted large increase was no increase at all. Why is it so incrediby important to completely deny sunspot effects, when for centuries, through to the present, temperature has been tracking sunspot activity?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2014 8:11:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 2:02:23 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/12/2014 11:40:15 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

If RMSS is not a NASA satellite, who owns it?

It is not a single satellite. It has various channels on various satellites. Only one is owned by NASA (though many different parties have different channels on them), AUQA (which wasn't providing data until 2003. One is owned by EUMETSAT (which does the same, but for Europe), MetOp-A. But most are operated by NOAA.

There are two NASA satellites that measure temperature. The HadCRU surface data also shows no global warming, and HadCRU issued a press release admitting it. The data you showed is virtually identical to RMSS, they just decided not to fit a line that include the high and low years at the start of the sequence.

Except the NASA satellites show only 12 years of minimal growth, not 17 of none.

Von Storch was claiming in the 2006 that CO2 dominated climate, but he published a paper recent saying that nothing could be done to tweak the models to match the observed data. I gave you the reference to Hansen, et al, in which they all admit CO2 models are not working. So now everyone is lying skeptic?

3 of the models used by CMIP have accurately predicted the last 14 years (meaning that we are within their projection range). Granted, that is only 3 out of tons, but there were some back in 1998 (and the CMIP only started in 1995, so naturally their models are not going to be perfect and will improve with time) that have been accurate.

Scientists are now finding out in what aspects they under-estimated (as I already sourced, they believe they underestimated the oceanic heat sink, and when adjusted, the models work).

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov...

Despite the surface temp not changing much recently, the heat is increasing in the oceans, supporting the adjusted theory that it was being underestimated in the past.


But, if we follow the REMSS site, they state, "The reasons for the discrepancy between the predicted and observed warming rate are currently under investigation by a number of research groups. ...

Yes, exactly my point. The model of CO2 dominated climate is a failure, so there is an attempt to figure out why. There is no way to have a 54% increase in CO2 with no increase in temperature and at the same time say that CO2 dominates climate. Whatever the explanation, the unknown factor is at least as large as CO2.

54% is pulled from I don't know where. The CO2 levels in 1999 (15 years ago) was 369.5 ppm, and it is now (as of 2013) 399 ppm, an 8% increase. Even if we extend to the 17 years you've been referring to, then it is only 9.4%. No one is saying (except for perhaps political pundits) that CO2 is a bigger factor for temperature than everything else combined.


Let me point out in particular, "lower than expected solar output during the last few years"

But irradiance is already in the models. So if it were just irradiance, the models would track. It has to be some aspect of solar output, like magnetic effects, that isn't in the models. It cannot be the case that they haven't looked at irradiance for 17 years and are going to look for the first time to see if it was low. The models cannot be made to work in retrospect, even knowing the irradiance data.

It can easily be that they have miscalculated the effects of it. Its not as simple as "it is in" and that is all it takes.


So the "the irradiance of the sun is negligible" is bunk unless you can show it.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Your reference says, "The solar output is very nearly constant, as shown in the plot below. The range of variation is about 0.2%, so reproducible that it is often referred to as the "solar constant"." that is the part that is included in the climate models.

The part related to sunspots is not in any of the models, which is why the models do not track and cannot be made to track,

"While it appears that the measured solar cycle length tracks the temperature better than the CO2 concentration for the twentieth century up to 1970, this presented data remains quite controversial. When you look at the climate models that seek to show the human influence past 1970, you do see a good correlation of the temperature with the projected CO2 influence included, while the correlation with solar cycle length weakens."

Absolutely false. There is good CO2 correlation from 1970 to 2000, which is when both CO2 and temperature were increasing monotonically. Of course there is equally good correlation with anything monotonic over that period. Since 2000, flat temperature does not correlate at all with increasing temperature, and even the CO2 fanatics admit it. I referenced graphs in debate that show the correlation with sunspots remains up to the present. The CO2 theory also does not correlate before 1970, so various fudge factors were introduced to make the data fit. The favorite fudge factor is atmospheric aerosols, since there is no good theory of the effects. The claim that correlation with solar activity has weakened is based on only using the irradiance measurements, which you source identifies as barely varying. The correlation is very strong with sunspot activity.

https://www.google.com...

Actually, you can see that the correlation between sun spots and temp starts to die in the 70's (this chart only goes to the mid 2000's, but it is still accurate for the earlier decades).

http://climatereview.net...

Though from here, you can see from recently, the sun spots have been dropping significantly (which would normally cause a cooling). What we likely have is the dropping sun spots balancing out the rising CO2, causing a mostly neutral temp change. However, you know that CO2 will keep rising, but the Sun Spots will not continue dropping. They will come back up again, and then both forces will be pushing warming. (of course, there are other forces at work too).


This suggests that rather than being driven by a single dominating force, it is now two forces, but the sun spots are still an active force. You can, and should, argue that our models are imperfect and need to be improved.

Yes, that is correct. The models absolutely suck. Climate crisis theory depends upon the effects of CO2 being dramatically multiplied the warming having positive feedback through increasing water vapor. The only "proof" was the rapid warming in 83-97 or thereabouts. But no warming since 2000 means there is no such dramatic multiplication.

No one is arguing that CO2 has no effect. It is in the mix, and will probably produce about 0.8 degree of warming in the next century. But don't you remember reaching the tipping point whereby we would all fry by 2010? That type of CO2-dominated model is simply dead. Actual temperatures are below the 95% confidence bounds of all the CO2 models, and there is no tweak that will fix them.

The 1999 IPCC (right after the hottest year on record that sparked much of the public concern) predicted a temperature increase between 1 - 3.5 C by 2100. So I don't know who was claim we would fry by 2010, but it wasn't the IPCC and I'd bet it was, at most, a few "scientists" that were going the shock route for attention (like most political pundits do). It was certainly not the majority of the scientific community.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 2:00:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/13/2014 8:11:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/13/2014 2:02:23 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/12/2014 11:40:15 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

If RMSS is not a NASA satellite, who owns it?

...But most are operated by NOAA.

And why do you care?

Except the NASA satellites show only 12 years of minimal growth, not 17 of none.

There are four temperature databases, two ground and two satellite databases. Hansen at NASA fudges, um adjusts, one of the data sets. The others show the long hiatus. And if it is 12 years, does that make all the models with predictions outside the 95% error band somehow correct?

Von Storch was claiming in the 2006 that CO2 dominated climate, but he published a paper recent saying that nothing could be done to tweak the models to match the observed data. I gave you the reference to Hansen, et al, in which they all admit CO2 models are not working. So now everyone is lying skeptic?

3 of the models used by CMIP have accurately predicted the last 14 years (meaning that we are within their projection range). Granted, that is only 3 out of tons, but there were some back in 1998 (and the CMIP only started in 1995, so naturally their models are not going to be perfect and will improve with time) that have been accurate.

There are about 150 models. One common convention is to use the mean prediction of the model set. If CO2 theorists like Von Storch and Hansen are claiming the models are not working and cannot be tweaked to make them, claiming they are working is, well, bold.

Despite the surface temp not changing much recently, the heat is increasing in the oceans, supporting the adjusted theory that it was being underestimated in the past.

The surface temperature of the ocean is actually decreasing. The deep ocean sink theory has been around for quite a while. It seems to now be less favored than atmospheric aerosols as the fudge factor.

But, if we follow the REMSS site, they state, "The reasons for the discrepancy between the predicted and observed warming rate are currently under investigation by a number of research groups. ...


54% is pulled from I don't know where. The CO2 levels in 1999 (15 years ago) was 369.5 ppm, and it is now (as of 2013) 399 ppm, an 8% increase. Even if we extend to the 17 years you've been referring to, then it is only 9.4%. No one is saying (except for perhaps political pundits) that CO2 is a bigger factor for temperature than everything else combined.

You have forgotten the whole hockey stick debate. CO2 theorist acknowledge that millions of years ago solar effects, orbital effects, and other things affected climate, but for the past 1500 years, nothing has significantly affected climate except CO2 and maybe cooling from aerosols (soot). Until recently, every CO2 theory climate scientist believed that. It's why future climate was said to be solily predictable. Everything was accounted for.

Let me point out in particular, "lower than expected solar output during the last few years"

But irradiance is already in the models.

It can easily be that they have miscalculated the effects of it. Its not as simple as "it is in" and that is all it takes.

No, the variation in irradiance is about 0.1%, and since it is direct heating it's effects are easy to calculate. At the max variation the effect was negligible, so if it turned out to be half, it's still negligible. The models do not come close to working when the observed data is plugged in.

Actually, you can see that the correlation between sun spots and temp starts to die in the 70's (this chart only goes to the mid 2000's, but it is still accurate for the earlier decades).

http://climatereview.net...

The trick is that the graph that doesn't correlate uses the number of sunspots. What correlates well is the sunspot cycle length: http://www.debate.org...

Though from here, you can see from recently, the sun spots have been dropping significantly (which would normally cause a cooling). What we likely have is the dropping sun spots balancing out the rising CO2, causing a mostly neutral temp change. However, you know that CO2 will keep rising, but the Sun Spots will not continue dropping. They will come back up again, and then both forces will be pushing warming. (of course, there are other forces at work too).

I think you are right that the drop in sunspots has offset CO2. But once a sunspot effect is acknowledged as existing, then one must soon acknowledge that most of the rise from the 83-97 was actually due to the sun, not CO2, so there is plenty of room for decline. There are three basic sunspot cycles, and two of the three are headed downward. The Little Ice Age was a minimum of all three cycles. Predicting solar activity is still chancy, but the likelihood is that temperatures will continue to decline for about thirty years, then slowly rise to the end of the century.

The 1999 IPCC (right after the hottest year on record that sparked much of the public concern) predicted a temperature increase between 1 - 3.5 C by 2100. So I don't know who was claim we would fry by 2010, but it wasn't the IPCC and I'd bet it was, at most, a few "scientists" that were going the shock route for atten

Here is a history of predictions of doom: http://www.climatedepot.com... in 2007, the IPCC chief said that the climate problem would have to be solved by 2012 to avoid doom. NASA's Hansen made one of the earliest tipping point doom predictions. Al Gore, not a scientist, won a Nobel Prize with roaring accolades from scientists for his doom prediction.