Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Global warming out of this world?


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#76 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,421 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:52 PM

SUNSPOTS

#77 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,935 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:21 PM

Don't take my word for it... ask NASA

http://earthobservat...Features/SORCE/

They thought enough of the idea to form an entire division for it


Posted ImagePosted Image

Where are you getting this part? I havent heard of much variation in solar radiation from year to year, to the best of my knowledge the sun spot cycle accounts for maybe 1-3 W/m2 while the total average solar radiation hitting earth is ~1300 W/m2


Called it!

#78 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:51 PM

Posted ImagePosted Image


Called it!


The 11 year cycle? Yes. NASA thinks enough of a possibility of the aggregate effects of TSI in conjunction with GMI with respect to climate effects that they are giving it more research. Why would they do such a thing if GHGs were a slam dunk for attributing climate change?

Again, I point to the utter failure of models to accurately predict a vector for mean global temperatures that lean heavily on GHGs.

#79 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,935 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:03 PM

The 11 year cycle? Yes. NASA thinks enough of a possibility of the aggregate effects of TSI in conjunction with GMI with respect to climate effects that they are giving it more research. Why would they do such a thing if GHGs were a slam dunk for attributing climate change?

Again, I point to the utter failure of models to accurately predict a vector for mean global temperatures that lean heavily on GHGs.


I agree that there are clearly factors other than greenhouse gasses involved in global temperature fluctuations. But this 0.1 - 0.2% change in solar radiation is just not going to change temperature very much. If the sun spot cycle were a large driving force behind climate change, there would be a significant, 11 year period in the global temperature change

Posted Image

Posted ImagePosted Image

You can actually see the slight variability caused by this cycle- look at the small peaks in temperature in 1970, '80, and '90, but this variability is clearly smaller than the overall trend

#80 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,362 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:23 PM

so I was off in R creating some figures to do what thatlookseasy has done just by taking them from other websites. suffice to say there is nothing in the raw, unbias data that twylght has provided that looks any different than the figures that thatlookseasy has provided.

#81 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 12:22 AM

so I was off in R creating some figures to do what thatlookseasy has done just by taking them from other websites. suffice to say there is nothing in the raw, unbias data that twylght has provided that looks any different than the figures that thatlookseasy has provided.


http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm

"So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2 to 4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007), which corresponds to a range of 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W-m-2) for λ. We can then calculate the change in global temperature caused by the increase in TSIsince 1900 using the formulas above. Although Wang, Lean, and Sheeley'sreconstruction puts the change in TSI since 1900 at about 0.5 W-m-2, previous studies have shown a larger change, so we'll estimate the change in TSI at 0.5 to 2 W-m-2."

#82 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,362 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:06 AM

http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm

"So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2 to 4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007), which corresponds to a range of 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W-m-2) for λ. We can then calculate the change in global temperature caused by the increase in TSIsince 1900 using the formulas above. Although Wang, Lean, and Sheeley'sreconstruction puts the change in TSI since 1900 at about 0.5 W-m-2, previous studies have shown a larger change, so we'll estimate the change in TSI at 0.5 to 2 W-m-2."


What exactly does a partial paragraph of that analysis mean in context of this discussion?

From the same page:

Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to quantify and remove the effects of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the surface and lower troposphere temperature data. They found that since 1979, solar activity has had a very slight cooling effect of between -0.014 and -0.023°C per decade, depending on the data set (Table 1, Figure 3).

Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008) performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005.
Note that this multiple linear regression technique it makes no assumptions about various solar effects. Any solar effect (either direct or indirect) which is correlated to solar activity(i.e. solar irradiance, solar magnetic field [and thus galactic cosmic rays], ultraviolet [UV] radiation, etc.) is accounted for in the linear regression. Both Lean and Rind and Foster and Rahmstorf found that solar activity has played a very small role in the recent observed global warming.



#83 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:50 AM

What exactly does a partial paragraph of that analysis mean in context of this discussion?

From the same page:


What I posted was a direct correlation of GIGO for their computer model. Using data from the IPCC stating that much increase in global mean temperatures is flat out wrong. Most credible scientists quote ~.15 degrees Celsius increase since 1990 rather than 2.5 to 4.0

#84 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,421 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 09:12 AM

A true Scotsman would quote ~.15 degrees Celsius increase since 1990 rather than 2.5 to 4.0

Fixed

#85 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 09:37 AM

Fixed


Then you may as well fix that graph that ThatLookEasy posted from NASA as well... lemme know how that works out for ya

#86 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,362 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 09:40 AM

What I posted was a direct correlation of GIGO for their computer model. Using data from the IPCC stating that much increase in global mean temperatures is flat out wrong. Most credible scientists quote ~.15 degrees Celsius increase since 1990 rather than 2.5 to 4.0


They are talking about since 1900, not since 1990. You do not address how over the last 35 years the sun has had a slight cooling trend, and despite this, there has been an increase in temperature. I think you should re-read the article.

#87 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 10:42 AM

They are talking about since 1900, not since 1990. You do not address how over the last 35 years the sun has had a slight cooling trend, and despite this, there has been an increase in temperature. I think you should re-read the article.



The data referenced does not specifically state that this is for the 20th century in its totality. Even so, 1900 would still not even be close to what the data from IPCC was projected to be. The model is wrong because the basis of results are flatly false. At its closest, the projections are triple the change in degrees Celsius as a unit of measure for baseline. At its worst, 5x that amount. Psychologists were accused of practicing junk science for doing this very thing all the time.

TSI coupled with GMI has been purported to be a more complex and telling predictor than TSI alone (Courtillot et al). Nothing can be authoritatively claimed as true with any model/theory used as a basis for political policy with respect to anthropomorphic origins of global warming. The fact of the matter remains that well over 50% of the variance has yet to be accounted for when trying to understand what affects global mean temperature. If that were not the case, then the touted models that alarmists would have us believe would be in the zip code of their predictions. As it is, they are not.

#88 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,935 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:15 PM

I would say ocean acidification is the more immediate consequence of rising CO2 emissions, but the oceans are fuged anyway imo.

The problem with CO2 emissions is that they will continue to rise significantly in the near future whether we make changes to our energy production or not. In the next 50-100 years, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will reach double the pre-industrial concentration, and its gonna take a long time to cycle through the atmosphere/ ocean. So if, on the crazy chance that rising greenhouse gas concentrations are actually responsible for the warming we've seen over the last 100 years, the effects will be far more pronounced over the next 100 years

#89 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,421 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:40 PM

Posted Image

#90 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 06:02 PM

I would say ocean acidification is the more immediate consequence of rising CO2 emissions, but the oceans are fuged anyway imo.

The problem with CO2 emissions is that they will continue to rise significantly in the near future whether we make changes to our energy production or not. In the next 50-100 years, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will reach double the pre-industrial concentration, and its gonna take a long time to cycle through the atmosphere/ ocean. So if, on the crazy chance that rising greenhouse gas concentrations are actually responsible for the warming we've seen over the last 100 years, the effects will be far more pronounced over the next 100 years


That is assuming a number of things to be true. It may well turn out that GHGs impose direct and indirect effects on global mean temperature in ways that we have yet to parse out. I would think it more prudent to first get a firm grasp on our global ecosystem to the point that we can trust a theoretical model to make consistent and accurate predictions before subjecting the world to policies that may or may not be based in truth.

There are still a number of scientists that are not driven by government grants and political ideology that can approach the subject with decorum and ethics. I would behoove us all to take a step back and ask the tough questions that pose some challenges to our preconceived notions that the science is a slam dunk. It is why I brought up the history of failed disciplines/theories. We have a far longer track record of being wrong than we are being right. As we are clever monkies, we are good at finding out what works well for us without fully understanding the why of it.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.