|
Post by aj1983 on Jan 29, 2010 14:40:09 GMT
Positive GW feedbacks have failed to materialise. You could argue that the last decade of stagnant temperatures are natural variation rather than negative feedback, but then you'd have to agree that most of the 20th century warming could well be natural variation too. Oh, why ? If I take a look at the previous century, I see more wiggles. Still the temperature shows a general rising trend. Oh, but of course this rising trend has been adjusted, so that there hasn't actually been any rising trend. I get it..
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Jan 29, 2010 14:48:27 GMT
Hahah, no, there has been warming aj. Since the LIA And mebbe a little from CO2 too
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 30, 2010 2:29:38 GMT
Positive GW feedbacks have failed to materialise. You could argue that the last decade of stagnant temperatures are natural variation rather than negative feedback, but then you'd have to agree that most of the 20th century warming could well be natural variation too. Oh, why ? If I take a look at the previous century, I see more wiggles. Still the temperature shows a general rising trend. Oh, but of course this rising trend has been adjusted, so that there hasn't actually been any rising trend. I get it.. The question is....is this rising trend any different than other rising trends? Or is it unique to ONLY the past 30 years?
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 1, 2010 16:22:07 GMT
No. It is relatively large, but I don't believe it is unprecedented. In the history of the earth little is unprecedented by the way.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 1, 2010 17:40:07 GMT
No. It is relatively large, but I don't believe it is unprecedented. In the history of the earth little is unprecedented by the way. I am not so sure it is "relatively large". It wasn't until Phil Jones and James Hansen started "value adding" to the relative trend. I can't imagine anybody being so gullible to believe an analysis of interpolating temperatures over 1200km with the amount of station elimination and without a thorough, complete, and transparent peer review. JAMA still does not appear to support the adjustments and without the adjustments the recent warming isn't remarkable compared to the 1940's. Then we have the obstructionism to alternative research like Cloud that delayed funding for that project for several years until suddenly it stopped warming for 7 years. The truth is the most zealot advocates for AGW are AGW's worst enemy. The shoe on all the shenanigan's hasn't hit the floor yet. The inevitable result will be a substantial raising of the bar.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 1, 2010 18:19:55 GMT
No. It is relatively large, but I don't believe it is unprecedented. In the history of the earth little is unprecedented by the way. I am not so sure it is "relatively large". It wasn't until Phil Jones and James Hansen started "value adding" to the relative trend. I can't imagine anybody being so gullible to believe an analysis of interpolating temperatures over 1200km with the amount of station elimination and without a thorough, complete, and transparent peer review. JAMA still does not appear to support the adjustments and without the adjustments the recent warming isn't remarkable compared to the 1940's. Then we have the obstructionism to alternative research like Cloud that delayed funding for that project for several years until suddenly it stopped warming for 7 years. The truth is the most zealot advocates for AGW are AGW's worst enemy. The shoe on all the shenanigan's hasn't hit the floor yet. The inevitable result will be a substantial raising of the bar. Remember when it was said GISS released the code, but it was such a mess nobody could figure it out? It's taking time, but EM Smith is working his way through it without help from Hansen & co. chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/is-the-null-default-infinite-hot/
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Feb 20, 2010 14:23:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 20, 2010 20:08:38 GMT
What seems more likely, positive feedbacks that emerge from modeling real physical processes, or mysterious strong forcings of which we are still ignorant? Yeah, I'm going with intra-galactic gravity waves You should read the research of Nir Shaviv - JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989, 2008 Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcingNir J. Shaviv Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Giv'at Ram, Jerusalem, Israel Abstract " Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea-level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea-surface temperature variations. Each of the records can be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one."Note that this work was based on observation not models. Shaviv's observations were of the variation in TSI during the 20th century which we are repeatedly told is too small to have an effect. So with the extra alteration in TSI (and perhaps other items such as the solar wind) due to the orbital changes in the Milankovitch cycles perhaps there is enough to come out of a glaciation. One thing is for certain CO 2 did not end any ice age. So by all means use models - but remember as Lorenz showed ALL the start parameters and their behavior have to be precisely right in the model of a chaotic system or within a short time the model is nothing like reality. Even with a small mesoscale weather model it will deviate from reality in a few 10's of minutes - and yet you trust models that model 10's of years when not even all the attributes of the system are known?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 20, 2010 20:28:44 GMT
This works--look at the eddies: What is really interesting about these and other similar graphics of CO 2 concentrations, is how low the CO 2 atmospheric concentrations are at the poles. This is to be expected due to Henry's Law and also lack of any significant respiration from plants and animals. Then remember that the proxy CO 2 metrics used by CRU and others are from _ice cores_ the most famous from Vostok in the Antarctic. So apart from the diffusion of CO 2 out of trapped air bubbles into the ice the CO 2 concentration would have been the lowest in atmosphere. Is it any wonder that measured CO 2 levels away from the poles are higher? Allowing the AGW proponents to claim that in the last decades the levels of CO 2 are exceptional. Indeed these diagrams and others show that most CO 2 appears to be from the ocean. There is not a lot of industry or SUV driving in the ocean at 40S 030E but there is certainly lots of CO 2.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Feb 20, 2010 20:29:21 GMT
What seems more likely, positive feedbacks that emerge from modeling real physical processes, or mysterious strong forcings of which we are still ignorant? Yeah, I'm going with intra-galactic gravity waves You should read the research of Nir Shaviv - JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989, 2008 Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcingNir J. Shaviv Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Giv'at Ram, Jerusalem, Israel Abstract " Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea-level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea-surface temperature variations. Each of the records can be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one."Note that this work was based on observation not models. Shaviv's observations were of the variation in TSI during the 20th century which we are repeatedly told is too small to have an effect. So with the extra alteration in TSI (and perhaps other items such as the solar wind) due to the orbital changes in the Milankovitch cycles perhaps there is enough to come out of a glaciation. One thing is for certain CO 2 did not end any ice age. So by all means use models - but remember as Lorenz showed ALL the start parameters and their behavior have to be precisely right in the model of a chaotic system or within a short time the model is nothing like reality. Even with a small mesoscale weather model it will deviate from reality in a few 10's of minutes - and yet you trust models that model 10's of years when not even all the attributes of the system are known? One should also include the physical constraints of the system, which describe the limits within which the chaotic behavior is exhibited. Things like gravity, as well as actual physical boundarys such as the surface of the earth.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 20, 2010 20:42:43 GMT
Shaviv's observations were of the variation in TSI during the 20th century which we are repeatedly told is too small to have an effect. So with the extra alteration in TSI (and perhaps other items such as the solar wind) due to the orbital changes in the Milankovitch cycles perhaps there is enough to come out of a glaciation. One thing is for certain CO2 did not end any ice age.
This comment by Leif Svalgaard sums things up far better than I could.
The total solar energy output is given almost exclusively by TSI, which varies very little [0.1%] . The energy in the solar wind and the magnetic field is a million times smaller and has therefore no discernible influence on the total energy output, and therefore very little to do with the weather. Why do people not get this?
Why indeed do people not get this? I suspect they don't want to "get it", Leif.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 20, 2010 21:55:38 GMT
Shaviv's observations were of the variation in TSI during the 20th century which we are repeatedly told is too small to have an effect. So with the extra alteration in TSI (and perhaps other items such as the solar wind) due to the orbital changes in the Milankovitch cycles perhaps there is enough to come out of a glaciation. One thing is for certain CO2 did not end any ice age.This comment by Leif Svalgaard sums things up far better than I could. The total solar energy output is given almost exclusively by TSI, which varies very little [0.1%] . The energy in the solar wind and the magnetic field is a million times smaller and has therefore no discernible influence on the total energy output, and therefore very little to do with the weather. Why do people not get this?Why indeed do people not get this? I suspect they don't want to "get it", Leif. OK - then _something else_ caused the OBSERVED effects. But the effects WERE observed. And remember the something else may be a response to something minor that has changed. You are back into your 'I cannot see a mechanism therefore it cannot have happened'. There is some doubt over the exact metabolic mechanism of some alkaloid poisons causing rapid death - does that mean you will feed toadstools to your family?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 21, 2010 5:41:10 GMT
From day one when LS began posting at CA he acknowledged he had very limited understanding of weather processes or the climate system at large. Now he's an expert on everything including arguing with statisticians on the virtues of assigning meaningless R 2 to non-linear data arrays such as snow extent records. As glc gets selective amnesia, he needs to be reminded of this post by LS, which I posted here and tried to get a response from glc to no avail. So here it is again just for glc: Spot the science errorIt is an example of three things:
1. The desperate need for establishing a Sun-Climate [or is it weather, when on a decadal basis?] causing this kind of sloppy work (the graph contradicts the mechanism given for it) 2. The lack of internal quality control by USGS 3. The lack of quality control by the conveners of the AGU session. UPDATE:
Thanks to all the readers who so generously [some gleefully] have pointed out my misinterpretation of the figure. This, of course, makes my initial assessment of the quality control moot and void, with an apology to those involved. Perhaps this shows how important a graph can be [cf. the impact of the Hockey Stick] and how important is clear labeling of what is shown. OOPS This comment by Leif Svalgaard sums things up far better than glc could.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 21, 2010 11:25:04 GMT
From day one when LS began posting at CA he acknowledged he had very limited understanding of weather processes or the climate system at large. Now he's an expert on everything including arguing with statisticians on the virtues of assigning meaningless R 2 to non-linear data arrays such as snow extent records. As glc gets selective amnesia, he needs to be reminded of this post by LS, which I posted here and tried to get a response from glc to no avail. So here it is again just for glc: Spot the science errorIt is an example of three things:
1. The desperate need for establishing a Sun-Climate [or is it weather, when on a decadal basis?] causing this kind of sloppy work (the graph contradicts the mechanism given for it) 2. The lack of internal quality control by USGS 3. The lack of quality control by the conveners of the AGU session. UPDATE:
Thanks to all the readers who so generously [some gleefully] have pointed out my misinterpretation of the figure. This, of course, makes my initial assessment of the quality control moot and void, with an apology to those involved. Perhaps this shows how important a graph can be [cf. the impact of the Hockey Stick] and how important is clear labeling of what is shown. OOPS This comment by Leif Svalgaard sums things up far better than glc could. I fail to see the relevance of this post. Does it, in any way, suggest that LS is wrong about the relative energy output from TSI and other parameters such as magnetic flux and solar wind. LS has been studying the sun for more than 40 years - I 'd tend to go with him on this one. But, just out of interest, could you tell us what you understand by the Shaviv paper. Shaviv suggests there must be some sort of "amplification mechanism" which increases the TSI effect by 5 to 7 times the response from TSI alone. He doesn't actually say what this mechanism is or how it might work, but we'll let that pass for now. Can we assume, though, that a 1 w/m2 increase will produce an effect equivalent to a 5 to 7 w/m2 increase. I'd just like to clarify this.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 21, 2010 13:17:25 GMT
From day one when LS began posting at CA he acknowledged he had very limited understanding of weather processes or the climate system at large. Now he's an expert on everything including arguing with statisticians on the virtues of assigning meaningless R 2 to non-linear data arrays such as snow extent records. As glc gets selective amnesia, he needs to be reminded of this post by LS, which I posted here and tried to get a response from glc to no avail. So here it is again just for glc: Spot the science errorIt is an example of three things:
1. The desperate need for establishing a Sun-Climate [or is it weather, when on a decadal basis?] causing this kind of sloppy work (the graph contradicts the mechanism given for it) 2. The lack of internal quality control by USGS 3. The lack of quality control by the conveners of the AGU session. UPDATE:
Thanks to all the readers who so generously [some gleefully] have pointed out my misinterpretation of the figure. This, of course, makes my initial assessment of the quality control moot and void, with an apology to those involved. Perhaps this shows how important a graph can be [cf. the impact of the Hockey Stick] and how important is clear labeling of what is shown. OOPS This comment by Leif Svalgaard sums things up far better than glc could. I fail to see the relevance of this post. Does it, in any way, suggest that LS is wrong about the relative energy output from TSI and other parameters such as magnetic flux and solar wind. LS has been studying the sun for more than 40 years - I 'd tend to go with him on this one. But, just out of interest, could you tell us what you understand by the Shaviv paper. Shaviv suggests there must be some sort of "amplification mechanism" which increases the TSI effect by 5 to 7 times the response from TSI alone. He doesn't actually say what this mechanism is or how it might work, but we'll let that pass for now. Can we assume, though, that a 1 w/m2 increase will produce an effect equivalent to a 5 to 7 w/m2 increase. I'd just like to clarify this. "But, just out of interest, could you tell us what you understand by the Shaviv paper. Shaviv suggests there must be some sort of "amplification mechanism" which increases the TSI effect by 5 to 7 times the response from TSI alone.
He doesn't actually say what this mechanism is or how it might work, but we'll let that pass for now. Can we assume, though, that a 1 w/m2 increase will produce an effect equivalent to a 5 to 7 w/m2 increase. I'd just like to clarify this." Mathematician meets observational science There are times when we DO NOT KNOW why something happens. Continually returning to things we believe we DO know that do not explain the _observation_ and just rehashing what we know about them will not help in these cases. So we have: - observation that TSI changes (as we measure them) are small - observations from long term metrics that apparent ocean responses to TSI changes are 5 to 7 times larger than expected from the small size of the TSI changes Nir Shaviv - TSI is small - ocean responses are larger than expected - we are researching this as there are some possible ways we can think of that might explain this effect but more research is needed glc - TSI is small - ocean responses are larger than expected - but no-one appears to know a mechanism, so disregard the observations as we cannot balance the maths. Which of these responses shows a scientific approach?
|
|