Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

stirs

Here comes the Sun

Recommended Posts



Quote

Because in TV and radio I didn’t have the embarrassing problem of trying to hear people, I only had to talk.

This sentence from the "About Us" page sums up the source pretty well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Captroop said:

This sentence from the "About Us" page sums up the source pretty well.

We have known we are entering a period in solar minimum 2019-2020.  Why this source is using this as one way to try deny climate change is unknown.

-

Feulner and Rahmstorf (2010) examined the impact on global warming if the sun fell into a Grand Solar Minimum.  The global mean temperature difference is shown for the time period 1900 to 2100 for the IPCC A2 emissions scenario (relative to zero for the average temperature during the years 1961 to 1990). The red line shows predicted temperature change for the current level of solar activity, the blue line shows predicted temperature change for solar activity at the much lower level of the Maunder Minimum, and the black line shows observed temperatures from the NASA GISS dataset through 2010.  The authors found that the average global surface temperature would be diminished by no more than 0.3°C due to the lower solar activity, which would offset only a small fraction of human-caused global warming.

 

Grand_Solar_Min_500.jpg

-

That dip between 2000 - 2050 we are about to enter.  We have known this for quite sometime.  Even at Grand Solar Minimum levels It does not offset climate change at all.  We could be in a cycle of minimal (cooler) solar activity and still see our planet warming long term - that should be a giant red flag. 

Edited by Fryfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Captroop said:

This sentence from the "About Us" page sums up the source pretty well.

The guy is deaf, not sure what you are getting at, but good comment on the data involved

Edited by stirs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

We have known we are entering a period in solar minimum 2019-2020.  Why this source is using this as one way to try deny climate change is unknown.

-

Feulner and Rahmstorf (2010) examined the impact on global warming if the sun fell into a Grand Solar Minimum.  The global mean temperature difference is shown for the time period 1900 to 2100 for the IPCC A2 emissions scenario (relative to zero for the average temperature during the years 1961 to 1990). The red line shows predicted temperature change for the current level of solar activity, the blue line shows predicted temperature change for solar activity at the much lower level of the Maunder Minimum, and the black line shows observed temperatures from the NASA GISS dataset through 2010.  The authors found that the average global surface temperature would be diminished by no more than 0.3°C due to the lower solar activity, which would offset only a small fraction of human-caused global warming.

 

Grand_Solar_Min_500.jpg

-

That dip between 2000 - 2050 we are about to enter.  We have known this for quite sometime.  It does not offset climate change at all.

Please keep this in your records to show that you believe the increase will be 4 degrees Celsius increase over the next 80 years.  If you have the presence of mind to revisit this over the next 20, perhaps you'll be able to temper your expectations of projections when it comes to how the reality plays out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, twylyght said:

Please keep this in your records to show that you believe the increase will be 4 degrees Celsius increase over the next 80 years.  If you have the presence of mind to revisit this over the next 20, perhaps you'll be able to temper your expectations of projections when it comes to how the reality plays out.

Estimates are a range.  This appears to be the A2 scenario which puts likely raising from current levels (note we have already warmed) at about 3.4 Celsius by 2100 (2010-2100). 

 

The range is 2 Celsius to 5.4.  Over the next 82 years (90 per report).  Yes I support the research stating that.   I’ll have my kid deliver an I told you so note to your offspring. 

 

(If you read the graph honestly it shows from 2010 - 2100 an increase from .4 to 3.6 a delta of 3.2 increase over those 90 years at global minimum, currently we are up to almost .7 increase so looking at 2.9 Celsius over the next 82 years.  It would be .2 to .3 more in current solar cycle - at 3.1 to 3.2 Celsius increase)

Edited by Fryfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

Estimates are a range.  This appears to be the A2 scenario which puts likely raising from current levels (note we have already warmed) at about 3.4 Celsius by 2100 (2010-2100). 

The range is 2 Celsius to 5.4.  Over the next 82 years (90 per report).  Yes I support the research stating that.   I’ll have my kid deliver an I told you so note to your offspring. 

(If you read the graph honestly it shows from 2010 - 2100 an increase from .4 to 3.6 a delta of 3.2 increase over those 90 years at global minimum.  It would be .2 to .3 more in current solar cycle)

I get all of that.  What I'm telling you is that this is the latest model in an attempt to get it right this time

The success of previous models predicting such hyperbole?  Closer to the realm of hysteria rather than actual science. 

Don't take my word for it:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fryfan said:

1_SAR_2012.jpg

Entertaining some revisionist history are we?  Check the executive summary if you don't want to delve into the guts of how they did their projections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, twylyght said:

Entertaining some revisionist history are we?  Check the executive summary if you don't want to delve into the guts of how they did their projections.

Post exactly what you want to refer to then.   

 

---

 

Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade. As the IPCC notes,

"global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales ... The 1990–2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 ... the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."

--

A paper in Nature Climate Change checks in on the projections from the first IPCC report, published in 1990. That report projected simple trends based on greenhouse gas emissions through 2030, a period we’re just over halfway through. The most frequently cited projection estimates 0.7–1.5°C of warming between 1990 and 2030, which means we would see an increase of about 0.35 – 0.75 °C through 2010. (The range of values is a product of uncertainty about the exact sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases.) The observed temperature trend through 2010 is about 0.35–0.39°C, depending on the dataset.

So, is it as simple as saying the projection was (barely) correct, but overestimated warming? Not really. The first thing to do is account for natural variability. The researchers chose to address this by running many climate model simulations in a “stable” configuration with no drivers of warming or cooling. Ninety percent of the natural variability fell within a range of ±0.19°C. If you apply that as a measure of potential noise around the signal of the underlying trend, the projected warming by 2010 becomes 0.28 – 0.81°C, which includes the observed trend a little more cleanly.

 

 

 

Edited by Fryfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

Post exactly what you want to refer to then.   

Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade. As the IPCC notes,

"global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales ... The 1990–2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 ... the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."

A paper in Nature Climate Change checks in on the projections from the first IPCC report, published in 1990. That report projected simple trends based on greenhouse gas emissions through 2030, a period we’re just over halfway through. The most frequently cited projection estimates 0.7–1.5°C of warming between 1990 and 2030, which means we would see an increase of about 0.35 – 0.75 °C through 2010. (The range of values is a product of uncertainty about the exact sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases.) The observed temperature trend through 2010 is about 0.35–0.39°C, depending on the dataset.

So, is it as simple as saying the projection was (barely) correct, but overestimated warming? Not really. The first thing to do is account for natural variability. The researchers chose to address this by running many climate model simulations in a “stable” configuration with no drivers of warming or cooling. Ninety percent of the natural variability fell within a range of ±0.19°C. If you apply that as a measure of potential noise around the signal of the underlying trend, the projected warming by 2010 becomes 0.28 – 0.81°C, which includes the observed trend a little more cleanly.

And this is precisely why it's a travesty that you continue to take such claims on faith when there is direct evidence to the contrary.  I even gave you the place to look and you didn't even bother.  

Oh well.... just in case you want to remove yourself from that bubble.... I narrowed it down for ya:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1408.png?w=700&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&f

 

Not seeing where actuals are out of predicted ranges.  Sorry everything honestly reported shows we are in the range.

 

Edited by Fryfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

1408.png?w=700&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&f

And this is why I regard your faith in AGW propaganda as more akin to religion than in line with the scientific method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, twylyght said:

And this is why I regard your faith in AGW propaganda as more akin to religion than in line with the scientific method.

Observed data is akin to religion. okay then...

Twylyght you posted nothing of relevance here - except saying look at the 1990 IPCC report - I show the observed data matching into the predicted ranges from that report and you simply post this in response. 

 

 

annual_temperature_anomalies_2014.png

 

 

 

Edited by Fryfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

Observed data is akin to religion. okay then...

Twylyght you posted nothing of relevance here - except saying look at the 1990 IPCC report - I show the observed data matching into the predicted ranges from that report and you simply post this in response. 

I all but snapped a picture and posted with an arrow to it.  Should I be doing that instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×