Models are Everywhere:

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:56 PM GMT on July 30, 2012

Share this Blog
13
+

Models are Everywhere: Models, Water, and Temperature (3)

This is a series of blogs on models, water, and temperature (see Intro). I am starting with models. In this series, I am trying to develop a way to build a foundation for nonscientists to feel comfortable about models and their use in scientific investigation. I expect to get some feedback on how to do this better from the comments. In order to keep a solid climate theme, I am going to have two sections to the entries. One section will be on models, and the other will be on a research result, new or old, that I think is of particular interest.

Doing Science with Models 1.0: I have written a number of entries over the years introducing the role of models in climate science (Uncertainty (Model Types), Predictable Arguments). You will also find in those entries links to a couple of chapters in books, where I have written introductions to atmospheric modeling for scientists. (most recently, standalone chapter). There are several websites that offer an introduction to climate modeling, for example, We Adapt, climateprediction.net, NASA Earth Observatory, and Koshland Science Museum. A discussion I particularly like is Spencer Weart’s Simple Models of Climate Change. My friends who are expert in education tell me, however, that models, modeling, and the use of models are among the most difficult concepts to both grasp and teach. Often people do not feel comfortable with models as a representation of real things or, in the case of climate, with the real world. The consequences of this discomfort for climate change are far reaching, ranging from challenging how to use the information from models to providing an easy way to grow the political arguments of selective doubt.

Looking at the online resources that introduce climate models, many of them start with words such as “theory,” “numerical,” “computer,” and “mathematical.” They talk about representing the “physics” of the atmosphere, ocean, land, and ice as “coupled systems.” There are different ways that “complexity” is discussed. I often state that climate models are a way to “manage the complexity” of the Earth’s climate or that they are a “comprehensive expression of our accumulated knowledge.” Others talk about complexity in way that comes across as the climate and climate models are complex, and hence, it takes scientists to understand models. I can even find online resources that say that the climate is so complex that it is unreasonable to imagine that humans can build credible climate models. This cloak of complexity is one I will try remove in the series.

When I think about models, the first thing that comes to mind is the half hull of ships that ship builders used to inform the design and building of their ships. Following that thought, there are the models of buildings and shopping centers that are tools of architects and urban planners. These models not only allow seeing how a new building might fit into the environment, but they also serve as a way to, for instance, identify traffic congestion because of placement of parking lots and to communicate the design in the designer’s mind to clients and the public. Another practical example of this form of model is the mockup of, say, the electrical and plumbing systems in a big building to see how things fit together. Similarly, when NASA builds a satellite, there are engineering mockups that are used in design and planning that serve as basic tools to guide thinking about the construction of a complex system and to communicate to others in the project.



Figure 1: Half hulls of boats, a type of model. From Halfhull.com.

This type of model fits into the definition of a work or structure used in testing or perfecting a final product. As described, these are often touchable, real constructions that look like little versions of the real thing. Professionals in the field might call them “toy models,” which is not in any way meant to convey that they are less than serious. Increasingly, these models are represented digitally, using computers, to provide three-dimensional video worlds that you can walk through (Rick Kaplan’s 1963 Mickey Mantle Homerun). All of the details mentioned in this paragraph will, ultimately, be related to climate models; however, the initial point I want to make is that models are everywhere in our world. Rather than models being abstract ideas that are alien, models are, in fact, quite intuitive. They are one of the devices that we use to help think about our complex world. And perhaps more simply, they help in the quick construction of a picnic bench that can sit firmly on the ground and hold up three 200-hundred-pound men.

Interesting Research: Changes in the Arctic: Steering of Storms - Often when we talk of the Earth warming, we talk about the average temperature of the surface of the Earth increasing. It has already been observed, and climate models predict that the Arctic will warm far more and far faster than this average temperature. This is often called “Arctic Amplification.” There are many consequences of the enhanced warming of the Arctic, such as vast changes in northern forests, thawing of the permafrost, and, potentially, the release of large amounts of storages of the greenhouse gases methane and carbon dioxide. (WWF’s Arctic Feedbacks Review)

The specifics of the Earth’s climate are strongly related to the tilt of the Earth on its axis of rotation, the rate of rotation, the distribution of land and water, and the mountains on the land. It is because of these defining attributes of the Earth that we get different regional climate characteristics such as tropical and polar climate zones. In the United States, we mostly live in what atmospheric scientists call the middle latitudes. In the middle latitudes, storms are always working to even out the temperature differences between the tropics and the poles. As the climate warms, it is intuitive that the area of the tropics is likely to get larger, that is, tropical climates will extend closer to the poles. As mentioned above, there are already huge changes in the Arctic.

As the Arctic and tropics change, the jet streams change, and the characteristics of the storms that transport heat from the tropics to the polar region change. There is a very nice recent paper in Geophysical Research Letters by Francis and Vavrus, Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes. If there is a simple takeaway message from this paper, it is that weather features such as storms are moving more slowly and often of greater amplitude. Amplitude? Middle latitude storms are waves and well modeled as waves, and the amplitude of the waves are increasing. The impact of these changes is that weather events are more persistent, leading to more extremes of weather: floods, droughts, heat waves, and cold spells. All of these impacts occur when the weather gets stuck in a particular pattern.

What I specifically like about this paper is how they bring the observations back to fundamental theories and models of atmospheric motion (Holton: Dynamical Meteorology). Dynamical meteorology is a mature field of science with its principles checked in weather forecasting, observational field studies, and numerical modeling. When observations and models and theory are combined in a way that paints a consistent picture, we develop a form of scientific investigation that identifies processes, isolates cause and effect, and help us understand the ingredients of the complexity of the Earth’s climate.

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: 327 - 277

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

327. BobWallace
8:43 PM GMT on August 07, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I see what you are saying. I will work on that aspect of it. The only way to get someone interested in reading a book is to capture their attention with the first few paragraphs. Or, in this case, the first few sentences. ..... Do you want to help me write my novel? ;-)


Stick your draft(s) up here and let people give you input if they have some.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
326. BobWallace
8:41 PM GMT on August 07, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


We have to harden the infrastructure. Just shutting down the grid until the storm passes does not save the grid because any unprotected electronics would still be fried. The sigh of relief comes from the fact that it would take a massive solar storm making a direct hit on Earth to bring about the major grid failures some fear. The uncomfortable feeling comes from the fact that it still could happen. Until our electronics are hardened against the ionized charged particles of a massive solar storm, our grids are at risk.


I didn't read about a storm that severe in the article. They talk about disruption lasting for a while but the actual damage seems to be limited to overheated large transformers.

A report by the NAS estimated that about 365 high-voltage transformers in the continental United States are at risk of failure or permanent damage requiring replacement in the event of a solar superstorm.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC, which oversees North America's power grid, disputed the academy's estimate that hundreds of high-voltage transformers could be lost in a solar superstorm.


Perhaps I missed something...
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
325. OldLeatherneck
8:04 PM GMT on August 07, 2012
Greenland's 2012 Melting Continues
LINK: Dr. Jason Box's Meltfactor

While we've all been absorbed with the recent arctic storm tearing up the arctic ice-cap, we can't forget that the high levels of melting on Greenland are continuing unabated.

early-August 2012 Greenland ice reflectivity dips again below 2 standard deviations



And for those who doubt about warming (past/recent past/current) here is some more scientific data, courtesy of Dr. Box.

Greenland ice sheet summer surface air temperatures: 1840-2011
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
324. cyclonebuster
7:59 PM GMT on August 07, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Shhhhh! I was saving that part for later. ;-) Dr. Spencer did mention that quality drinking water was a bigger concern than climate change, but I was wanting to hit him with water shortages all around being a problem. This will be an even greater problem as a warming climate helps to bring about droughts where hydroelectric facilities already exist. Hoover Dam would be a prime example of this.


Tell him carbonic acid doesn't only occur in sea water. Fossil fuels add many different types of acid to our drinking water such as Nitric acid Sulfuric acid.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20217
323. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:56 PM GMT on August 07, 2012
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
322. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:52 PM GMT on August 07, 2012
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
321. BobWallace
7:48 PM GMT on August 07, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


We can see the storm coming at us.

Couldn't we do a big short-term grid shutdown an avoid the damage?



On the second page of the newspaper article -

Replacing one of these transformers can take up to two years. However, three smaller transformers can take the place of one big one, and a transformer trio can be put in place in less than a week, according to the Electric Power Research Institute.

Other possible solutions include installing resisters on high-voltage transformers to keep the transformers from heating up. A systemic fix involves an early warning to power companies that a solar event is coming, so managers could switch to locally generated power, avoiding the use of long-distance transmission lines.


Possible solution: Be ready to dial back (brownout) in order to reduce overheating the big boys. And have a bunch of "trios" positioned around the country, ready for installation if the worst happens.

If we had our smart grid up and going then we could cut all non-essential use and keep essential (hospital, life support, elevator, etc.) use supplied during the storm.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
320. BobWallace
7:35 PM GMT on August 07, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Bob, thank you for your input.

Yes, I agree that it is a bit wordy. I will see if I can trim some of the fat and still retain the context of the message.

Since I am offering a rebuttal to his comments, I knew I would have to bring in as much detail as he did in his interview. Should I have given him too little detail I sense he would have been too willing and to able to seek a run around on the topic. Offering as much specifics as I could was the approach I felt I could take. ... Do you have any suggestions on how I may trim the fat? Using fewer descriptive words will not trim much.

Breaking down the true costs of each energy source would have to be very detailed and quantified.

I seriously doubt that he will not just trash can the whole thing, even if he does read it all. Since I could not find an email address for him, I thought I would post it on his blog at drroyspencer.com and see if he allows it to remain. I prefer that he submits his own rebuttal to this, but I rather doubt it and for the very reasons that you have mentioned. People hate to admit when they wrong. Most assuredly when it puts their reputation as a scientist at risk. ... I will say, to his credit, he did not come across a Monkton, but rather more as someone that actually knows something about what he is talking about. Then he blew it all by using misdirections, misinformation and unsubstantiated comments.

Does anyone here know his email address? Else, I feel compelled to post it on his blog. ;-)


Possibly make your main facts in the first few lines and then flesh them out in the rest of the post.

Start with something like "Heard you on (whatever that was) and it seems to be that you did not answer the question(s) about ....."

Then go on to "You were asked ... and you seemed to dodge that question by ...." "It seems to me that you should have answered ...."

Perhaps set each topic off somehow. Then if he quits reading one topic because it's making him uncomfortable he might light on the next.

Just thinking here....

--

I hope you send it. I'd check the (University of South Alabama?) site for faculty email addresses.

Perhaps it would help if he were to be reminded that he is not operating as an honest scientist when he fails to address direct questions. As a scientist and faculty member I would hold him to a higher standard of honesty than just some guy making a living by talking on the radio.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
319. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:30 PM GMT on August 07, 2012
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
318. BobWallace
7:27 PM GMT on August 07, 2012
Quoting RevElvis:
Solar superstorm could knock out US power grid - experts



We can see the storm coming at us.

Couldn't we do a big short-term grid shutdown an avoid the damage?

Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
317. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:23 PM GMT on August 07, 2012
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
316. cyclonebuster
7:12 PM GMT on August 07, 2012

Makes sense doesn't it more droughts less available water for hydro electrical power!!! Especially during peak hours this will cause us to burn more coal and fuel oil which will exacerbate the problem. California's Hydro power Stations to G
enerate Less Electricity in Summer as Climate Warms ScienceDaily (Aug. 7, 2012) — California's hydropower is vulnerable to climate change, a University of California, Riverside scientist has advised policymakers in "Our Changing Climate," a report released July 31 by the California Natural Resources Agency and the California Energy Commission (CEC). "Climate change is expected to affect the quantity and timing of water flow in the state," explained Kaveh Madani, a former postdoctoral research scholar in UC Riverside's Water Science and Policy Center (WSPC), who led a research project on climate change effects on hydropower production, demand, and pricing in California. "Under dry climate warming, the state will receive less precipitation, with most of it as rain instead of snow, impacting hydropower supply and operations."

On average, 15 percent of California's electricity comes from hydropower, a cheap and relatively clean energy source. About 75 percent of this hydropower comes from high-elevation units, located above 1,000 ft. The state has more than 150 high-elevation units, with most of them located in Northern California and the Sierra Mountains. The majority of the high-elevation reservoirs are small in terms of their storage capacity, being built only for hydroelectricity production and no other benefits, such as water supply and flood control.



Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20217
315. BobWallace
5:59 PM GMT on August 07, 2012
Some1 - just read the first part.

You might point out that we are now paying around $0.28/kWh for electricity produced by burning coal. That number includes what we pay in tax and health insurance premiums to cover the damage of coal emissions.

Renewable energy is cheaper than coal.

If we're wrong about AGW and go forward with renewable energy, the worst that happens is that we live in a cleaner, healthier environment.

--

Overall - seems very long. I would expect him to toss it before he gets to the end. Spencer is fighting a loosing battle and I'm sure he recognizes it. I've seen these old academics get themselves out a limb and fight for survival as new data saws off the branch they stand on. Part of survival is shutting off criticism.

Can you figure out how to smack him with a dose of facts quicker?
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
314. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:40 PM GMT on August 07, 2012
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
313. JohnLonergan
4:17 PM GMT on August 07, 2012
Research Links Extreme Summer Heat Events to
Global Warming



"A new statistical analysis by NASA scientists has found that Earth's land areas have become much more likely to experience an extreme summer heat wave than they were in the middle of the 20th century. The research was published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

There are some nice animations of the graphics in Dr. Hansen's new paper.

Link
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2741
312. OldLeatherneck
2:02 PM GMT on August 07, 2012
Quoting RevElvis:
New Study Suggests Pacific Ocean is Polluted With… Coffee?

InHabitat.com

People aren’t the only ones getting a jolt from caffeine these days; in a new study published in Marine Pollution Bulletin, scientists found elevated concentrations of caffeine in the Pacific Ocean in areas off the coast of Oregon. With all those coffee drinkers in the Pacific Northwest, it should be no surprise that human waste containing caffeine would ultimately make its way through municipal water systems and out to sea – but how will the presence of caffeine in our oceans affect human health and natural ecosystems?



That should be enough information for our friend Bob Wallace to put down his coffee cup and start drinking beer earlier in the day!
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
311. RevElvis
1:22 PM GMT on August 07, 2012
New Study Suggests Pacific Ocean is Polluted With… Coffee?

InHabitat.com

People aren’t the only ones getting a jolt from caffeine these days; in a new study published in Marine Pollution Bulletin, scientists found elevated concentrations of caffeine in the Pacific Ocean in areas off the coast of Oregon. With all those coffee drinkers in the Pacific Northwest, it should be no surprise that human waste containing caffeine would ultimately make its way through municipal water systems and out to sea – but how will the presence of caffeine in our oceans affect human health and natural ecosystems?


Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
310. RevElvis
1:15 PM GMT on August 07, 2012
Solar superstorm could knock out US power grid - experts

ChicagoTribune.com


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. weather has been lousy this year, with droughts, heat and killer storms. But a solar superstorm could be far worse.

A monster blast of geomagnetic particles from the sun could destroy 300 or more of the 2,100 high-voltage transformers that are the backbone of the U.S. electric grid, according to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Even a few hundred destroyed transformers could disable the entire interconnected system.

Some U.S. experts estimate as much as a 7 percent chance of a superstorm in the next decade, which seems a slight risk, but the effects would be so wide-ranging - akin to a major meteorite strike - that it has drawn official concern.


NO POWER FOR A YEAR?

The academy's report noted that replacements for transformers might not be available for a year or more, and the cost of damage in the first year after a storm could be as high as $2 trillion. The most vulnerable areas are the eastern one-third of the country, from the Midwest to the East Coast, and the Northwest, as far east as Montana and Wyoming and as far south as California.

The national grid was built over decades to get energy at the lowest price from where it is generated to where it is used. A solar superstorm has the capacity to bring that network down, the academy's report said.

"Historically large storms have a potential to cause power grid blackouts and transformer damage of unprecedented proportions, long-term blackouts and lengthy restoration times, and chronic shortages for multiple years are possible," the report said.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
309. BobWallace
4:28 AM GMT on August 07, 2012
Snowlover " I have been continuing to do more and more research, and finding that there is a substantial amount of peer reviewed research that disagreed with the hypothesis that most of the warming over the last 100 years was due to increases in Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas concentrations. "

How are you doing your research? Are you in the library digging through the top rated journals or are you harvesting things from the web? If relying on second hand versions from the web are you ever checking original sources to make sure that the web version is accurately reported?

What method have you settled on for determining what is credible work and what is not? Are you, for example, checking to see how the papers you cite are treated in subsequent works? Are you doing forward searches?

Are you looking to see what are the highest regarded scientific organizations and reading what they are publishing? What is your criteria for the "most trustworthy and knowledgeable" in the field?

Are you starting with a supposition and seeking papers which support your belief, or are you starting from what the field, in general, holds to be the best version of the facts and working back to see if the data supports those holdings?

Do you understand that there is always a certain amount of "noise" in science and scientific publications? That sometimes things get published that just do not stand the test of time? That sometimes scientists make mistakes and sometimes reviewers and editors make mistakes? That there are second rate journals with low publication standards, journals that are more about letting someone keep their publication rate high for tenure purposes than for forwarding the cause of high quality work?

Do you grasp the fact that a peer-reviewed article can be a piece of crap if the reviewing peers are incompetents?

Inquiring minds have so many questions....
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
308. Daisyworld
4:02 AM GMT on August 07, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123:


There are many papers out there that disagree with the alleged "mainstream hypothesis" that Carbon Dioxide is responsible for most of the warming over the last 100 years, and even the last 50 years. I have been continuing to do more and more research, and finding that there is a substantial amount of peer reviewed research that disagreed with the hypothesis that most of the warming over the last 100 years was due to increases in Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas concentrations.

This of course, would also imply an insensitive climate system, and small amounts of future warming.

I am willing to concede that I am wrong about this issue... I will become an advocate to AGW being the dominant cause of the warming and not the sun, if we do not cool 0.1-0.3 Degrees C by 2030-2040. If we do, then it confirms skeptics who are arguing that the sun is responsible for most of the previous warming over the last 100-150 years. Certainly the halt in the warming over the last 10-15 years does not bode well for CAGW at all, since we have warmed less than predicted by models, and have warmed much less than Dr. Hansen's forecast back in 1988. I was very surprised to see that Andrew Dessler conceded that the reason for halted warming over the last 10 years was due to strong net negative feedbacks (Dessler 2012)(though he still argues a positive cloud and water vapor feedback). These strong net negative feedbacks confirm a more insensitive climate system.



Snowlover123... wow. I continue to be impressed with your ability to twist the facts every which way til Sunday. Whatever "research" you engage in, I'm not sure it has served you well. You've made several substantial errors/omissions in your analysis that a first year graduate student would be ashamed of. Yet, you still press on; confusing yourself about albedo, misinterpreting solar activity, misunderstanding feedback mechanisms, and (most amazingly) ignoring the basic physics behind greenhouse gases.

If these errors are intentional, you've shown yourself to be a classic denialist, marching to the banner of the Manufactured Doubt industry, and spinning yarns of deception all over the internet. If these errors are unintentional, then you've shown yourself to be quite scientifically illiterate. Either way, it comes down to one simple fact: You're wrong.

Good day, sir.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 785
307. cyclonebuster
12:57 AM GMT on August 07, 2012
Unacceptable............Just out today......Tunnels restore the balance....



A most interesting Arctic summer
August 6, 2012

Arctic sea ice extent declined quickly in July, continuing the pattern seen in June. On August 1, ice extent was just below levels recorded for the same date in 2007, the year that saw the record minimum ice extent in September. Low sea ice concentrations are present over large parts of the western Arctic Ocean. Warm conditions dominated the weather for most of the Arctic Ocean and surrounding lands. For a brief period in early July, nearly all of the Greenland ice sheet experienced surface melt, a rare event.

Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent for July 2012 averaged 7.94 million square kilometers (3.07 million square miles). This was 2.12 million square kilometers (819,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent. July 2012 ice extent was 20,000 square kilometers (7,700 square miles) above the 2011 record July low.



Link





Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20217
306. OldLeatherneck
11:10 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Question???

I just posed the following question on Neven's blog:

Anyone want to venture any guesses as to how much this storm will decrease the albedo across the arctic?
My thoughts are these:
1. To begin with there will be less ice period, due to what will have been melted.
2. The winds and rain will wipe off any remnants of snow from the ice pack.
3. If the storm broke up enough of the ice into smaller pieces, there are likely to be more rugged surfaces and jagged edges which will be less reflective than flat smooth surfaces. (That's if my knowledge of reflection, deflection and absorption in the radar bands applies to these wavelengths)


Any thoughts and/or better information??
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
305. Neapolitan
11:06 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123:


So I can take two points from your post.

1)Stratospheric Cooling can only be expected with the GHG Forcing

2) Dr. Scafetta and Dr. Soon are not correct because you say so.

Your second post is just simply ridiculous, so I won't even address that in great detail at all.
Well, if those are the two points you take from my post, that would explain a lot. (For starters, underdeveloped reading comprehension skills.) But since you brought it up, I'll answer thusly: Scafetta and Dr. Soon are not incorrect because I say so; they're incorrect because they say so. Every time they open their mouths. They are both--though Soon more than Scafetta--quickly receding into the laughbin of climate science for the illogical and easily dismissed things they throw out. Imminent cooling? Only if the known laws of physics are rewritten.

Now, as to your claim that the stratosphere isn't cooling:

stratosphere

I suppose if some were to cherry-pick, they could convince themselves that stratospheric cooling had "stopped". That is, they could draw a straight line from the bottom of the cool dip in 1996 to the top of the "warm" spike in 2010, then point at it and exclaim, "A-ha!" But even without any visual aids, the overall downward trend in this graph (and others like it) is pretty unavoidable.

Here's another for you.

CO2

Now, I'd be interested in hearing how stratospheric temperatures "have actually increased" since 1996, because, according to the data, they haven't.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13256
304. BobWallace
9:29 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Snowlover - Planet hasn't warmed in the last 15 years.

Let me copy a bit more for you...

"In addition to removing the ENSO signlal, Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to remove the effects of solar and volcanic activity from the surface and lower troposphere temperature data. Their results are shown in Figure 5.





Figure 5: Average of all five data sets (GISS, NCDC, HadCRU, UAH, and RSS) with the effects of ENSO, solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions removed (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011)

When removing these short-term effects, the warming trend has barely even slowed since 1998 (0.163°C per decade from 1979 through 2010, vs. 0.155°C per decade from 1998 through 2010, and 0.187°C per decade for 2000 through 2010)."

Read the entire piece here - http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-sto pped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

Perhaps the big question you should ask is how trustworthy your information source is. If your source is telling you that the planet hasn't warmed for 15 years when it clearly has, that Hansen way over predicted warming when he didn't, then might there be a flaw in your source?

Is it possible that you've stumbled into a pool of disinformation?
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
303. BobWallace
9:11 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Snowlover
Certainly the halt in the warming over the last 10-15 years does not bode well for CAGW at all




The last 15 years of that red line does not look flat to me. And those data points are not adjusted for ENSO and solar cycles.

You can read a lot more about it here. Link


Snowlover -
since we have warmed less than predicted by models, and have warmed much less than Dr. Hansen's forecast back in 1988

Let's go to Skeptical Science once more and see if that dog hunts...

"Hansen et al. (1988) used a global climate model to simulate the impact of variations in atmospheric greenhouse gases and aerosols on the global climate.

Unable to predict future human greenhouse gas emissions or model every single possibility, Hansen chose 3 scenarios to model.

Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth. Scenario B assumed a reduced linear rate of growth, and Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000.

The 'Hansen was wrong' myth originated from testimony by scientist Pat Michaels before US House of Representatives in which he claimed "Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted....The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure."

This is an astonishingly false statement to make, particularly before the US Congress. It was also reproduced in Michael Crichton's science fiction novel State of Fear, which featured a scientist claiming that Hansen's 1988 projections were "overestimated by 300 percent." Moreover, Michaels has continued to defend this indefensible distortion."

and after data presentation...

"As you can see, Hansen's projections showed slightly more warming than reality, but clearly they were neither off by a factor of 4, nor were they "an astounding failure" by any reasonably honest assessment. Yet a common reaction to Hansen's 1988 projections is "he overestimated the rate of warming, therefore Hansen was wrong.""

Read the whole piece here... Link
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
302. Birthmark
9:10 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


We're not looking for believers or advocates, unlike the Denialist Crowd. We're looking for people to start looking at the true facts of credible scientific research.

Since you have decided that your mind is closed until possibly as late as 2040, why don't you just take a long, nap. However, if you decide to wake up every 4/5 years you'll quite possibly notice higher temperatures, rising sea-levels, extreme droughts all occurring in coincidence with rising GHGs.

Nighty.....Night!

I missed that. I'm certainly no advocate of AGW. I'm downright against it. I do, however, accept the science that indicates that AGW exists and is a real problem.

I don't much like Indeterminancy, either...but there it sits, supported by the science, whether I like it or not. :^)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5112
301. OldLeatherneck
9:00 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123:


I will become an advocate to AGW being the dominant cause of the warming and not the sun, if we do not cool 0.1-0.3 Degrees C by 2030-2040.


We're not looking for believers or advocates, unlike the Denialist Crowd. We're looking for people to start looking at the true facts of credible scientific research.

Since you have decided that your mind is closed until possibly as late as 2040, why don't you just take a long, nap. However, if you decide to wake up every 4/5 years you'll quite possibly notice higher temperatures, rising sea-levels, extreme droughts all occurring in coincidence with rising GHGs.

Nighty.....Night!
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
300. Birthmark
8:46 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123:


There are many papers out there that disagree with the alleged "mainstream hypothesis" that Carbon Dioxide is responsible for most of the warming over the last 100 years, and even the last 50 years. I have been continuing to do more and more research, and finding that there is a substantial amount of peer reviewed research that disagreed with the hypothesis that most of the warming over the last 100 years was due to increases in Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas concentrations.

"Many" is a vague word. What percentage? 2%? 10%? 50%? When and where were they published? Are they 20 years old? 30?

Quoting Snowlover123:
This of course, would also imply an insensitive climate system, and small amounts of future warming.

And what would that say about what we've learned about paleoclimate if the climate system is insensitive? Does that mean, as I strongly suspect, that by accepting those papers we suddenly have no explanation for past climate?

Sorry, but if we're going to throw out everything we know, the evidence to force such a change has to be extremely compelling. It certainly won't come from a couple of minority papers or those published in questionable journals.

It would also help if they told a single story rather than several different (and often contradictory) stories.

Quoting Snowlover123:
I am willing to concede that I am wrong about this issue... I will become an advocate to AGW being the dominant cause of the warming and not the sun, if we do not cool 0.1-0.3 Degrees C by 2030-2040.

Well, it's not a good standard, but I suppose it is some sort of standard. Still, there's no reason to wait to make a decision. The evidence is overwhelmingly against the Sun hypothesis.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Certainly the halt in the warming over the last 10-15 years does not bode well for CAGW at all, since we have warmed less than predicted by models, and have warmed much less than Dr. Hansen's forecast back in 1988.

What halt in warming over the last 10 to 15 years is that? If you can demonstrate that there has been a statistically significant halt...well, you'll be the first.

For future reference, Hansen didn't "forecast" anything. He made projections based on various scenarios. So far, his projections hold up very well when one corrects for the overly high climate sensitivity he used.

Quoting Snowlover123:
I was very surprised to see that Andrew Dessler conceded that the reason for halted warming over the last 10 years was due to strong net negative feedbacks (Dessler 2012)(though he still argues a positive cloud and water vapor feedback). These strong net negative feedbacks confirm a more insensitive climate system.

Again, there is no statistically significant halt to the warming. That aside, why would it surprise you that a scientist is interested in doing science on what is currently occurring? Why would acknowledging negative feedbacks surprise you?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5112
299. spbloom
8:38 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

Nonsense. What that post pointed out is that you are cherry-picking the papers that you want to be true. That is a most un-scientific way to find out about the world.

Comprehensiveness is essential to establish what is real from what is not real. Currently, a comprehensive look at the scientific literature not only doesn't support your view point, it doesn't even give one reason to think that your POV is anything more than a "just-so" story. Any number of such stories are possible if we cherry-pick which papers we are going to use. Such stories are a complete waste of time.

Let me close by stating that I have recently found out that you are quite young. I am very impressed by your ability to express yourself --even if you are wrong-- and your civility.


A bright early teen? Sounds about right. They can be such pests.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 299
298. spbloom
8:35 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Just FYI, Snowlover123, you misunderstand Dessler 2012 in a manner that displays your extreme confirmation bias, although of course we already knew that. That the lapse rate feedback is strongly negative is not a new discovery.

Oh, and Soon and Scafetta? Completely discredited laughinhgstocks, as just a brief google demonstrates.

Go find a sandbox where you'll have an audience for this stuff. Domestic cats wouldn't care for the contamination, so WUWT comes to mind.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 299
297. Snowlover123
8:18 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

Nonsense. What that post pointed out is that you are cherry-picking the papers that you want to be true. That is a most un-scientific way to find out about the world.

Comprehensiveness is essential to establish what is real from what is not real. Currently, a comprehensive look at the scientific literature not only doesn't support your view point, it doesn't even give one reason to think that your POV is anything more than a "just-so" story. Any number of such stories are possible if we cherry-pick which papers we are going to use. Such stories are a complete waste of time.

Let me close by stating that I have recently found out that you are quite young. I am very impressed by your ability to express yourself --even if you are wrong-- and your civility.


There are many papers out there that disagree with the alleged "mainstream hypothesis" that Carbon Dioxide is responsible for most of the warming over the last 100 years, and even the last 50 years. I have been continuing to do more and more research, and finding that there is a substantial amount of peer reviewed research that disagreed with the hypothesis that most of the warming over the last 100 years was due to increases in Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas concentrations.

This of course, would also imply an insensitive climate system, and small amounts of future warming.

I am willing to concede that I am wrong about this issue... I will become an advocate to AGW being the dominant cause of the warming and not the sun, if we do not cool 0.1-0.3 Degrees C by 2030-2040. If we do, then it confirms skeptics who are arguing that the sun is responsible for most of the previous warming over the last 100-150 years. Certainly the halt in the warming over the last 10-15 years does not bode well for CAGW at all, since we have warmed less than predicted by models, and have warmed much less than Dr. Hansen's forecast back in 1988. I was very surprised to see that Andrew Dessler conceded that the reason for halted warming over the last 10 years was due to strong net negative feedbacks (Dessler 2012)(though he still argues a positive cloud and water vapor feedback). These strong net negative feedbacks confirm a more insensitive climate system.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
296. Birthmark
8:09 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


A storm of this magnitude, with the potential of lastingfor 4/5 more days will almost certainly break all records, Extent, Area & Volume by the end of the melt season. The question is will it obliterate the old records.

When this storm subsides, we will still have 5/6 more weeks for the broken remnants of the CAB to be flushed into warmer waters or entirely out of the arctic ocean, via the FRAM.

After what happened in Greenland during July and this storm to begin August, 2012 may well go down is history as the tipping point.

It's interesting, isn't it? The first thing I do now when I get on line is check out NSIDC and CT to see what's happening in the Arctic.

It's also incredibly depressing.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5112
295. Snowlover123
8:03 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
294. Birthmark
8:01 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123:


Excellent rhetoric, but posts like this have no basis on a scientific forum.


Nonsense. What that post pointed out is that you are cherry-picking the papers that you want to be true. That is a most un-scientific way to find out about the world.

Comprehensiveness is essential to establish what is real from what is not real. Currently, a comprehensive look at the scientific literature not only doesn't support your view point, it doesn't even give one reason to think that your POV is anything more than a "just-so" story. Any number of such stories are possible if we cherry-pick which papers we are going to use. Such stories are a complete waste of time.

Let me close by stating that I have recently found out that you are quite young. I am very impressed by your ability to express yourself --even if you are wrong-- and your civility.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5112
293. Snowlover123
7:58 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Rather than sit here and again go through each one of the papers to which you linked line by line in an effort to show you all the places they're wrong, I'll just mention two words:

Stratospheric cooling.

Any increase in solar radiation would obviously heat both the lower and upper atmosphere alike. That hasn't happened; the lower atmosphere has continued to warm, while the upper atmosphere has cooled. Significantly. That is, of course, precisely what climate models predicted would happen in the presence of GHG-caused warming. Now, Scaffeta & West--whose paper you cited--got this wrong, as have other such notables as Willie Soon, etc. And I've yet to see them or anyone else credibly explain how the stratosphere could be cooling in their increased SR paradigm. Until that happens, their claims will be ignored by most knowledgeable about the science.


So I can take two points from your post.

1)Stratospheric Cooling can only be expected with the GHG Forcing

2) Dr. Scafetta and Dr. Soon are not correct because you say so.

Your second post is just simply ridiculous, so I won't even address that in great detail at all.

I actually agree to a degree that Stratospheric Cooling can be expected with increasing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, since the thermal profile of the atmosphere is determined by how much radiation from the groud reaches the different altituddes of the atmosphere. Lower altitudes in the atmosphere are generally warmer than higher altitudes, since more radiation from the ground is reaching the lower altitudes. However, the sun should also cause stratospheric cooling.

How? When Solar Proton Storms reach Earth, they interact with Earth's atmosphere to produce NOx, a known Ozone Destroyer. Less UVA/UVB rays are absorbed by the Ozone, and thus the stratosphere cools. Higher amounts of solar activity would mean more and stronger Solar Storms, thus less Ozone, and a long term trend downward in stratospheric temperatures can be expected with a long term increase in Solar Activity.

The reason why solar protons only reach Earth's poles and deplete the Ozone has to do with the Earth's Magnetic Field and the cusps at the poles.





The second image shows the mechanism in which the sun can create stratospheric cooling.



Note that in the third image shows that during a Solar Proton Storm on the top, NOx is greatly enhanced in the atmosphere, depleting Ozone.

Source to images: Source

Seppala et. al 2003, a Finnish paper wrote that

"A large solar disturbance like a flare or a coronal mass ejection can result in emission of high-energy protons and other ions from the Sun. If these particles reach the Earth they set off a Solar Proton Event (SPE) during which the charged particles precipitate into the Earth’s atmosphere causing ionization in the middle atmosphere. The effect of the SPEs is confined to the polar cap regions, where the particles are guided by the magnetic field. Ion chemistry leads to increased production of odd nitrogen (NOx = N + NO + NO2) and odd hydrogen (HOx = H + OH + HO2) which participate in catalytic reaction cycles that decrease the amount of ozone in middle atmosphere. HOx gases have a short chemical lifetime but the NOx gases are mainly destroyed by photodissociation. Hence during winter, when little or no sunlight is available in the polar atmosphere, the effect of the NOx cycles can be long-lasting. We have used the nighttime observations of mesospheric and stratospheric O3 and NO2 made by the stellar occultation instrument GOMOS on board the European Space Agency’s Envisat satellite to monitor the increase of NO2 and depletion of ozone due to the SPEs of October-November 2003. The results show NO2 enhancement of several hundred per cent and tens of per cent ozone depletion in the stratopause region, an effect which lasts several months after the events."



Note the high correlation of NOx produced by a Solar Proton Event and the Ozone Depletion observed.

Source of Image: Source

Winkler et. al 2007 found that changes in the Earth's Magnetic Field lead to changes in the Ozone Layer. Why can this be? The Earth's Magnetic field can modulate the amount of Solar Proton particles reaching Earth's Atmosphere, thus another piece of evidence that the Sun can significantly contribute to Ozone Depletion and Stratospheric Cooling.

Indeed, Earth's Magnetic Field has largely been decreasing, leading to more Solar Proton Storms impacting the Ozone Layer, in addition to Solar Activity increasing.



Source of Image: Source

Note also the amazingly good correlation between NOx and the AP Index for the Southern Hemisphere, where Ozone Depletion has been observed the most, suggesting that Solar Storms are responsible and are dominating the amount of NOx in Earth's Atmosphere.



Source of Image: Source

This Nature article is also interesting...

"As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change. … The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago. If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.”

Could this unknown mechanism be the Solar Proton Storms?

It should also be noted that anthropogneic CFCs have played a major role in Ozone Depletion as well, in addition to the sun. However, the impacts of the sun can not be ignored, as I have shown with all of this evidence.

There is also another problem with CO2 and increased Greenhouse Gases being the dominant cause of Stratospheric Cooling. The Stratosphere is no longer cooling.

In fact, temperatures have actually INCREASED since 1996, and these increases are statistically significant. Thus confirming that Ozone Depletion likely was the dominant cause of stratospheric cooling, and is probably due to Ozone recovery from reduced CFCs and a quieter sun overall.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
292. RevElvis
6:47 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting Doxienan:


If you can use your local library or community center, please consider showing the film "A Sea Change" which is a movie about ocean acidification. I showed the film last year and the audience was shocked to learn about the subject. The movie is intended for a general audience.
http://www.aseachange.net/


I'll have to check it out - I have posted links to marine ecologist Jeremy Jackson's "Brave New Oceans" - the Rise of Slime.

Youtube.com

Scienceblogs.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
291. Doxienan
6:27 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting RevElvis:
Scientists Predict Impact of Ocean Acidification On Shellfish

ScienceDaily.com

An international study to understand and predict the likely impact of ocean acidification on shellfish and other marine organisms living in seas from the tropics to the poles is published this week (date) in the journal Global Change Biology.

Ocean acidification is occurring because some of the increased carbon dioxide humans are adding to the atmosphere dissolves in the ocean and reacts with water to produce an acid.

The results suggest that increased acidity is affecting the size and weight of shells and skeletons, and the trend is widespread across marine species. These animals are an important food source for marine predators such as tropical seabirds and seals as well as being a valuable ingredient in human food production. Consequently, these changes are likely to affect humans and the ocean's large animals.


If you can use your local library or community center, please consider showing the film "A Sea Change" which is a movie about ocean acidification. I showed the film last year and the audience was shocked to learn about the subject. The movie is intended for a general audience.
http://www.aseachange.net/
Member Since: April 28, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 53
290. RevElvis
5:26 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Scientists Predict Impact of Ocean Acidification On Shellfish

ScienceDaily.com

An international study to understand and predict the likely impact of ocean acidification on shellfish and other marine organisms living in seas from the tropics to the poles is published this week (date) in the journal Global Change Biology.

Ocean acidification is occurring because some of the increased carbon dioxide humans are adding to the atmosphere dissolves in the ocean and reacts with water to produce an acid.

The results suggest that increased acidity is affecting the size and weight of shells and skeletons, and the trend is widespread across marine species. These animals are an important food source for marine predators such as tropical seabirds and seals as well as being a valuable ingredient in human food production. Consequently, these changes are likely to affect humans and the ocean's large animals.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
289. RevElvis
4:52 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Space weather and the coming storm

NewsDaily.com

Over the next two years, as the sun reaches a peak in its 10-year activity cycle, scientists say there is a heightened risk that a whopping solar storm could knock out the power grids, satellites and communications on which we all rely.

"Governments are taking it very seriously," says Mike Hapgood, a space weather specialist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in the UK. "These things may be very rare but when they happen, the consequences can be catastrophic."

Hapgood said that solar storms are increasingly being put on the national risk registers used for disaster planning, alongside other rare but devastating events like tsunamis and volcanic eruptions.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
288. Neapolitan
3:58 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123:


Unfortunately, Usoskin and Solanki make a mistake by assuming that the climate should have already equilibriated to the peak solar forcing. It takes many years for temperatures to equilibriate to the solar forcing, about 7-8 possibly even more. (El-Borie and Al-Thoyaib 2006)(Raspopov et. al 2007). So therefore, even if solar activity did not increase during the late-20th Century, given that it takes the climate system 7-8 years or even more to equilibriate to a forcing, the argument is useless.

This argument that solar activity did not increase over the late-20th Century even more useless, because Solar Activity has actually INCREASED during the late-20th Century.



Dorman 2012 shows that the Cosmic Ray Flux decreases dramatically during the late-20th Century, indicative of an increase in Solar Activity, since decreasing Cosmic Rays correspond to a higher solar wind, and a higher solar activity overall.

Or how about Ogurtsov et. al 2003 that finds that in the late-20th Century, that over the course of a solar cycle, the late-20th Century had the LEAST amount of CUMULATIVE GCRs on record?

There is also a current controversy with regard to whether TSI increased during the late-20th Century. If one assumes ACRIM, up to 65% of the warming can be explained by the sun alone (Scafetta 2009)



(Scafetta and West 2008)



(Scafetta and West 2007)

The Geomagnetic AA Index has also risen during the late-20th Century, and I have posted one study (Georgieva et. al 2005) that documents that.

Another such study is Cliver et. al 1998. They estimate that the solar contribution is anywhere between 50-100%.



So cherry picking the PMOD dataset which shows a flat line in TSI over the last 30 years, while leaving out all of the other solar variables that show an increase in solar activity over the last 30 years to quantify the solar activity changes over the last 30 years is not a very good method at all.

If this were not enough, satellite observed measurements have confirmed an increase in solar irradiance reaching the surface (Pinker et. al 2005) While the 3 w/m^2 of increased solar insolation does not represent a forcing, when we account for the Earth's geometry and albedo, it does represent a forcing that is about equal to that of the anthropogenic forcing during this timeframe.
Rather than sit here and again go through each one of the papers to which you linked line by line in an effort to show you all the places they're wrong, I'll just mention two words:

Stratospheric cooling.

Absent the warming effects of GHGs in the lower atmosphere, any increase in solar radiation should obviously heat both the lower and upper atmosphere alike. That hasn't happened; the lower atmosphere has continued to warm, while the upper atmosphere has cooled. Significantly. That is, of course, precisely what climate models predicted would happen in the presence of GHG-caused warming. Now, Scaffeta & West--whose paper you cited--got this wrong, as have other such notables as Willie Soon, etc. And I've yet to see them or anyone else credibly explain how the stratosphere could be cooling in their increased SR paradigm. Until that happens, their claims will be ignored by most knowledgeable about the science.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13256
287. OldLeatherneck
3:35 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting JohnLonergan:
Cyclone Hits the Arctic, Read all about it at Neven's Place

Link


A storm of this magnitude, with the potential of lastingfor 4/5 more days will almost certainly break all records, Extent, Area & Volume by the end of the melt season. The question is will it obliterate the old records.

When this storm subsides, we will still have 5/6 more weeks for the broken remnants of the CAB to be flushed into warmer waters or entirely out of the arctic ocean, via the FRAM.

After what happened in Greenland during July and this storm to begin August, 2012 may well go down is history as the tipping point.
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
286. Snowlover123
2:50 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:
However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).


Now, if you would like a more advanced discussion of why it is not the Sun let me offer SS's "advanced" page...

Link


Unfortunately, Usoskin and Solanki make a mistake by assuming that the climate should have already equilibriated to the peak solar forcing. It takes many years for temperatures to equilibriate to the solar forcing, about 7-8 possibly even more. (El-Borie and Al-Thoyaib 2006)(Raspopov et. al 2007). So therefore, even if solar activity did not increase during the late-20th Century, given that it takes the climate system 7-8 years or even more to equilibriate to a forcing, the argument is useless.

This argument that solar activity did not increase over the late-20th Century even more useless, because Solar Activity has actually INCREASED during the late-20th Century.



Dorman 2012 shows that the Cosmic Ray Flux decreases dramatically during the late-20th Century, indicative of an increase in Solar Activity, since decreasing Cosmic Rays correspond to a higher solar wind, and a higher solar activity overall.

Or how about Ogurtsov et. al 2003 that finds that in the late-20th Century, that over the course of a solar cycle, the late-20th Century had the LEAST amount of CUMULATIVE GCRs on record?

There is also a current controversy with regard to whether TSI increased during the late-20th Century. If one assumes ACRIM, up to 65% of the warming can be explained by the sun alone (Scafetta 2009)



(Scafetta and West 2008)



(Scafetta and West 2007)

The Geomagnetic AA Index has also risen during the late-20th Century, and I have posted one study (Georgieva et. al 2005) that documents that.

Another such study is Cliver et. al 1998. They estimate that the solar contribution is anywhere between 50-100%.



So cherry picking the PMOD dataset which shows a flat line in TSI over the last 30 years, while leaving out all of the other solar variables that show an increase in solar activity over the last 30 years to quantify the solar activity changes over the last 30 years is not a very good method at all.

If this were not enough, satellite observed measurements have confirmed an increase in solar irradiance reaching the surface (Pinker et. al 2005) While the 3 w/m^2 of increased solar insolation does not represent a forcing, when we account for the Earth's geometry and albedo, it does represent a forcing that is about equal to that of the anthropogenic forcing during this timeframe.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
285. Snowlover123
2:22 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

OTOH, we could take all the hundreds of mainstream science papers and ignore the outliers since the outliers aren't of very much use.

Again, just because it's been peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's right. We've had this discussion before. Selecting a variety of minority-view papers doesn't support your point. Nor does current observation.


Excellent rhetoric, but posts like this have no basis on a scientific forum.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
284. Snowlover123
2:13 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


To melt less than 2008 (30% extent) the melt season will need to end in about two weeks, or to slow significantly enough that only two more weeks of the current rate of thawing are spread over the next month and a half.

Pretty much the same for 15% extent. Brakes applied very hard, very soon to produce the results that match your prediction.

Why the Arctic would suddenly cool, that's a puzzle.

Think Santa might leave his freezer door open?


I think that there is a possibility that AREA may see a record low in 2012, but not extent. When the Vortex was still developing, it drew in warmer air down south, and torched the ESP region where all of the thin ice is. Fortunately, that is quickly changing as soon as today or tomorrow.



Geopotential at 500 hPa with 850 hPa temperatures at 00z Tuesday (8 PM EDT)

Today's finalized melt values should see a melt slower than yesterday on JAXA, and tomorrow's finalized melt should see a melt slower than today on JAXA. The values currently are preliminary values and have constantly been revised the daily melt values downwards. Today's prelim melt on JAXA is 115 K, yesterday had a finalized melt of 115 K. I believe that the melt value for today will be revised downward, as it always has been. If it is not revised significantly, I will be the first one to say that I was wrong.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
283. JohnLonergan
1:31 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Cyclone Hits the Arctic, Read all about it at Neven's Place

Link
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2741
282. Daisyworld
12:43 PM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123:


This is funny.

I did not misuse the word 'albedo' at all. Albedo is defined as the degree of reflectivity of an object. Snow and ice have high albedos, since they reflect a larger amount of sunlight than substances of lower albedos like the ocean.

So your statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge on what the word 'albedo' actually means.


Snowlover123, your original comment read as follows (emphasis mine):

"…One of the negative feedbacks that arises from an albedo and Sea Ice decline in the Arctic, is that in the early fall, since there is more open water exposed than before in the Arctic, the Arctic radiates more heat to space than if it were to be fully ice covered, and therefore the ice in the Wintertime makes a approach to more normal levels than during the summer…"

If one were to take this as written, you indicate that exposed open water reflects more heat into space than ice does. This is wrong, and OldLeatherneck rightly pointed out your error.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 785
281. BobWallace
4:16 AM GMT on August 06, 2012
Offered with some caution...

Arctic sea ice on August 1, 4 and 5, 2012. The ice may not have disappeared as much as it looks like it in the images, there could be sensor error due to water washing over the ice during the storm. Time will tell a more reliable story....


Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
280. Birthmark
3:07 AM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123:


I don't think that a sharp ramp up in solar activity over the last 100-200 years and the highest amounts of solar activity over the last 1000 or so years (Usoskin et. al 2003) and the highest amounts of solar activity over the last 11000 years (Solanki et. al 2004) would lead to cooling and another Ice Age over the last 150 or so years, Mr. Wallace.

Human activity was extremely insignificant before 1850, and now human activity have become significant post-1850 during the industrial revolution.

Unfortunately, you are totally wrong with respect to the natural forcings of the climate system.

Take Georgieva et. al 2005, which used the Geomagnetic AA Index to quantify the solar forcing, since the Sunspot Number leads to an underestimation of the solar contribution over the late-20th Century. Note the sharp increase in solar activity during the 20th Century. The correlation is so good that it can explain 85% of the temperature variations over the last 150 years.



Or take this chart from Carslaw et. al 2002 which shows that GCRs have decreased by a substantial margin over the 20th Century, which would indicate a intensification of the solar wind, and thus higher amounts of solar activity.



Or take Lockwood et. al 1999 which finds that solar magnetic activity has risen 40% since 1963, contributing to the late-20th Century Warming, and has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901. That is a tremendous increase in solar activity, and to ignore this is to ignore evidence.


OTOH, we could take all the hundreds of mainstream science papers and ignore the outliers since the outliers aren't of very much use.

Again, just because it's been peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's right. We've had this discussion before. Selecting a variety of minority-view papers doesn't support your point. Nor does current observation.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5112
279. Birthmark
2:56 AM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting greentortuloni:


Yes, that is what I was talking about. I am hoping that there is some mitigating effect. I really stopped trying to think deeply on this blog a few months ago, personal habit kept me here (which I am trying to break but it is hard to work constantly on-line and not check in). So I comment casually as in a conversation.

The reason is that I don't think there is anything to say. "Were doom" to quote Taz' famous line. I think all the serious conversation is like keeping a diary while the plane crashes. Maybe the next civilization will find our black box and understand what we did wrong.

1. Technology will not put the genie back in the bottle.

2. Drought, famine, disease, heat, lack of oxygen --> total breakdown of ecosystem.

3. If we are not killed right away, we will kill each other fighting for survival. There are good, amazingly courageous acts by humans. But those are acts, like the battle of Britain, they won't save us from fighting and destroying ourselves.

4. Maybe we don't have the moral right to succeed anyway. We slaughter our fellow animals by the billions, watch the Olympics while millions die in Africa, we put the military-industrial complex ahead of morality (e.g. Russia and China in Syria, but everyone is guilty of that), we torture, rape, scorn, hurt, etc each other.

5. We hide behind our idea of god either to justify what we do to each other or because after we are done treating each other that way, we are just bullies that cry in the night and ask god to save us.

the only way I can think of to justify our continuing existence is that the universe doesn't seem much better, and maybe we are evolving to something better, a la Star Trek.

I will try, like millions of other people, to find a solution. Bike aren't enough. However, i'm not going to take dissecting the death throes of the world ecology seriously unless I can learn how to stop it.


This seems appropriate after that post. The references are a bit dated, but the basic idea definitely is applicable.


"We watched the tragedy unfold
We did as we were told
We bought and sold
It was the greatest show on earth
But then it was over
We ohhed and aahed
We drove our racing cars
We ate our last few jars of caviar
And somewhere out there in the stars
A keen-eyed look-out
Spied a flickering light
Our last hurrah"

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5112
278. spbloom
1:59 AM GMT on August 06, 2012
Yes, Bob, it's all down to the well-known Elf Index, which folks like Snowlover123 seem to place much stock in.

Shifting gears, the new Dai drought paper just went public. The full text is free, which is great. It's thick going to digest the whole thing, but the graphics alone paint a sad picture.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 299
277. BobWallace
1:23 AM GMT on August 06, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


Well, you've made some specific predictions. 1) Sea ice melt will slow over the next 10 days or so. 2) 2012 extent minimum will be greater than 2008 but less than 2010.

Seeing how 2012 extent is well under both 2008 and 2010 for both 15% and 30% extent measurements then you're predicting a very much cooler Arctic from now until the end of the melt season.

As you probably know extent is not the greatest measurement of the quality of the ice, especially at the end of the melt season. A lot of very thin ice spread widely can make for a misleading picture. Perhaps that's why you picked extent rather than area or volume.

If this storm (your next few day cold period) spreads the ice as many suspect it will then we could see some short term increase in extent but the latent heat in the system will likely put a world of hurt on that thin ice.

We'll see ....


To melt less than 2008 (30% extent) the melt season will need to end in about two weeks, or to slow significantly enough that only two more weeks of the current rate of thawing are spread over the next month and a half.

Pretty much the same for 15% extent. Brakes applied very hard, very soon to produce the results that match your prediction.

Why the Arctic would suddenly cool, that's a puzzle.

Think Santa might leave his freezer door open?
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344

Viewing: 327 - 277

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7Blog 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.