|
Post by douglavers on Jun 30, 2010 7:28:41 GMT
I thought the Oulo Neutron Count Monitor was showing new peaks at the moment - far above levels normal for the past few decades. I admit I can't remember where I saw the graph.
I gather the neutron count correlates well with GCR levels.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 30, 2010 13:35:40 GMT
I thought the Oulo Neutron Count Monitor was showing new peaks at the moment - far above levels normal for the past few decades. I admit I can't remember where I saw the graph. I gather the neutron count correlates well with GCR levels. Yes - there are new peaks recently (last couple of years) but these are not relevant to the last 30 odd years. Despite the peaks we've had several months in the last year which have been the warmest in the UAH record.
|
|
|
Post by julianb on Jul 6, 2010 11:13:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 6, 2010 14:51:51 GMT
That's the paper that advocates the sun having an iron core. As it's abstract states: "The IPCC ... adopted the consensus opinion of a hydrogen-filled Sun—the Standard Solar Model (SSM)."
Shock horror. The IPCC adopted the consensus standard solar model? Why oh why didn't they instead go with Oliver K. Manuel's iron sun model?
So the paper is even disagreeing on the consensus in the solar physics field. It's also published in Energy and Environment (credibility issue). The language also reads like a political screed rather than a scientific paper (hence working back why you can see E&E has a credibility issue publishing this kind of stuff without requiring the nonsense to be edited out)
The section "2.7 Politics, Science and the IPCC" makes no sense for a scientific paper about the Sun. Also the paper is wrong to claim "IPCC was wrong to assume that solar irradiance is the only solar variable that produces changes in Earth’s climate". The IPCC didn't assume that. They mention other solar influences on climate too but point out that there is no proposed mechanisms for quantifiable effects.
Just to highlight the bizarre political screed used in a supposedly "scientific" paper, it ends with: "Politicians realized that knowledge is power when World War II ended with an explosive and decisive display of success by the Manhattan Project. I have seen the unholy alliance between politics and science grow since my scientific career started in 1960, despite this warning by US President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his 17 January 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation....."
WTF
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 6, 2010 15:55:03 GMT
So the paper is even disagreeing on the consensus in the solar physics field. It's also published in Energy and Environment (credibility issue). The language also reads like a political screed rather than a scientific paper (hence working back why you can see E&E has a credibility issue publishing this kind of stuff without requiring the nonsense to be edited out) Sonja is one of the few editors that publishes a wide variety of papers, not just from the accepted few. To her credit she is often the only one who would publish the skeptics side. I admire her work though she and I strongly disagree on politics.
|
|
|
Post by julianb on Jul 7, 2010 10:37:33 GMT
Socold, So consensus is a scientific argument now is it? How about looking at the research and observations and measurements he uses? Some of his earlier papers point to the failure of the mainstream model.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 7, 2010 17:12:26 GMT
I thought the Oulo Neutron Count Monitor was showing new peaks at the moment - far above levels normal for the past few decades. I admit I can't remember where I saw the graph. I gather the neutron count correlates well with GCR levels. Yes - there are new peaks recently (last couple of years) but these are not relevant to the last 30 odd years. Despite the peaks we've had several months in the last year which have been the warmest in the UAH record. Clouds can cool and clouds can warm. One of the tenets of AGW theory is positive feedback from moisture in the air and high clouds netting out the effects of negative feedback that can arise from clouds. The super El Nino that Hansen had been predicting has come and threw one heckuva lot of moisture in the air (as it also did in 1998). creating some positive feedback. This El Nino did the same thing. In 1998 the El Nino was followed by a La Nina that produced one of the coldest months in 2000 seen in the UAH record (others are all volcanic or super El Nino/La Nina cycle associated) So the only thing unusual about the past year is that it wasn't warmer than the last ENSO star year cycle. If coming from an AGW point of view that has to be the most unusual situation. ENSO events outside of the star year cycle tend to just track the ocean state, more El Ninos in warm states, more La Ninas in cold states. Pinotubo which is used a lot to estimate sensitivity may have been influenced to a positive feedback by overlapping two El Ninos and zero La Ninas. Warm ocean states may increase GHG concentrations sufficiently to spur warming by putting a few hundred extra gigatons of water in the atmosphere above the spot on the earth (equator) that receives the lionshare of radiation. Anthropogenic emissions might be a bit more than spitting in the ocean but perhaps one percent or less the effect of an El Nino. The temperature trend differences between 1997/1998 and 2009/2010 is startling negative. A minus .0274 degC/month. So despite starting with January 2009 .32degC warmer than January 1997, the AMJ to AMJ Super El Ninos of those years has eaten that difference up and then some with the June 2009 anomaly .13degC lower than the June 1998 anomaly. The way the ENSO is trending if that continues to the end of the year the UAH anomaly for 2010 would come in at .2degC plus or minus .15degC. I don't know if there is any reason why the trend should continue so that is just pointing at where stuff is pointed at in this ENSO cycle. Even if the trend disappears and flatlines the UAH for the year would be .41 So I would suspect we are seeing exactly what we should see, increased variability that eventually plays out as a net negative feedback or neutral feedback (timing differences only) not the positive feedback of the AGW crowd that seems to perennially be found standing on their heads at anti-coal rallies. All that could be a result of looking at sensitivity in detail exclusively through a period of unusual warming spurred by a warm phase ocean oscillation and that the slight negative feedback that current observations are generating is because we are slipping into the negative phase ocean oscillation. Smart guys . . . .just a little confused on how it all nets out and that may be because we don't have a water cycle model (cloud model) built into the GCMs. My thought is if this La Nina plays out strong and continues to parallel 1998/99/2000 and doesn't divert to warming step up as predicted by the AGW crowd (Steve says .2 degrees this decade). We should know about that within 3 years. The step should form post La Nina by 2013. Every real observation suggests it won't happen, its GCMs versus the world.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 8, 2010 8:26:31 GMT
More rambling from Icefisher.... So the only thing unusual about the past year is that it wasn't warmer than the last ENSO star year cycle. If coming from an AGW point of view that has to be the most unusual situation. It's not unusual at all. The 2009 El Nino was nowhere near the intensity of the 1997/98 El Nino. See the graphic here www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ The temperature trend differences between 1997/1998 and 2009/2010 is startling negative. A minus .0274 degC/month. So despite starting with January 2009 .32degC warmer than January 1997, the AMJ to AMJ Super El Ninos of those years has eaten that difference up and then some with the June 2009 anomaly .13degC lower than the June 1998 anomaly.Again the 1998 temperature spike in the troposphere was due to the intensity of the El Nino. The 2009/10 El Nino was a moderate El Nino - a bit stronger than 2002/03 and about the same as 1994/95.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 8, 2010 12:12:46 GMT
More rambling from Icefisher.... So the only thing unusual about the past year is that it wasn't warmer than the last ENSO star year cycle. If coming from an AGW point of view that has to be the most unusual situation. It's not unusual at all. The 2009 El Nino was nowhere near the intensity of the 1997/98 El Nino. See the graphic hereYou don't need to show me graphics. I know it fizzled after the grand pooh butt of AGW predicted a Super El Nino. Let me ask you GLC how did Hansen predict a Super El Nino? If you prefer we can call it the Another AGW Prediction that Fizzled El Nino instead of a Super El Nino. Again the 1998 temperature spike in the troposphere was due to the intensity of the El Nino. The 2009/10 El Nino was a moderate El Nino - a bit stronger than 2002/03 and about the same as 1994/95. Neither of which were boxed in by La Ninas. Climate is changing. I take it you couldn't find a 2.0degC trend to continue to argue for.
|
|
|
Post by julianb on Jul 9, 2010 10:23:41 GMT
Socold, It seems that NASA is not so convinced of a hydrogen filled Sun, history.nasa.gov/SP-345/ch21.htm23.10. CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE MODEL OF PLASMA EMPLACEMENT The model of plasma emplacement which we have treated in chs. 21 and 23 must necessarily be more speculative than the theories in earlier chapters. The basic phenomenon, ionization at the critical velocity, although well established, is not yet so well understood in detail that we know the behavior of gas mixtures in this respect. (...) We are far from the days when it was claimed with certainty that Jupiter consisted almost entirely of pure solid hydrogen. It is now generally admitted that we do not know with certainty the bulk composition of the Earth and, still less, of any other body (see sec. 20.2-20.5) and if you read sec. 20.2-20.5 it refers in detail to the uncertainty of the Sun's composition
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 9, 2010 11:27:21 GMT
What's wrong with the sun? www.newscientist.com/article/mg20.....html?full=trueNot sure - but it's not clear what effect it will have on the climate - if any. This is from the link: The first sign that the prediction was wrong came when 2008 turned out to be even calmer than expected. That year, the sun was spot-free 73 per cent of the time, an extreme dip even for a solar minimum. Only the minimum of 1913 was more pronounced, with 85 per cent of that year clear.1913 was just about the time that the early 20th century warming kicked in. Funny you should mention that GLC! If you plot Hadcrut 1904 to 1917 it is almost a dead ringer upside plot of Hadcrut 1997 to 2009. Try it I think you will be impressed how similar it is. Perhaps that is heralding the beginning of cooling.
|
|
|
Post by julianb on Jul 11, 2010 8:09:53 GMT
This extract from the paper in the link outlines the real influence of the Sun on Climate. Heads up from a poster at Lubos Motl's blogspot www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html"Precise measurements of the temporal variations of the shape and diameter of the Sun, not distorted by instabilities of the Earth atmosphere and oscillation processes within it, can only be conducted from an airless space. The study of reasons of the long-term changes in 11-year and 2-century components of the solar shape and diameter variations ―the TSI, and, consequently, of the long-term variations of the Earth climate in the past, present and future is particularly topical due to upcoming climate changes. Thus, only the planned long-term and precise (with an error of 3-4 km) extra-atmospheric measurements of temporal variations of the shape and diameter of the Sun within the Astrometria project would allow us to forecast the climate changes more precisely. If the Astrometria project is implemented in time, we will be able to issue a reliable forecast of the time and scale of the upcoming global fall of temperature on the Earth within approximately 8 years by conducting an active research of temporal variations of the shape and diameter of the Sun and of the solar energy flux on-board the ISS during no less than a half of the on-going 24th "short" 11-year cycle. A solution of this problem would allow us to correct the humans' economical activity beforehand according to the upcoming climate changes and, consequently, to significantly decrease economical, demographic and other crises caused by the upcoming natural global cooling. On the basis of sunspot activity data analysis, J. Eddy (Eddy J. A. Science. 1976. 192, 1189), has revealed a correlation between the reliably determined periods of significant variations of sunspot activity during the whole passed millennium and the corresponding considerable climate changes on the Earth. The cyclic variations of climate, especially in Europe during the passed millennium, were not associated with fundamental climate changes, but the changes were frequently sufficient to affect the life of nations and several states leading to economical and demographic crises. By conducting a similar research, Eugene Borisenkov (Climate variations during the last millennium. Leningrad. 1988. p. 275) has found that during each of 18 deep minima of sunspot activity similar to the Maunder minimum with quasi two hundred years period during the last 7500 years, the periods of global climate cooling were observed. The two hundred year maxima of sunspot activity were in turn followed by global warmings. These fundamental changes in the Earth climate could be caused only by the corresponding long term and considerable changes in integral power of the coming solar radiation flux, because any industrial influence was non-existent in those times. This is the evidence of the fact that during two hundred years maxima of sunspot activity, the TSI was considerably higher and during the periods of two hundred years minima of sunspot activity, it was considerably lower. In the other words, within any significant period of observations, the two hundred year variations of sunspot activity and of the TSI are in whole cross correlated in phase and amplitude. The course of the two hundred year component of the TSI variation was in whole defined by the course of the corresponding variation of sunspot activity. Thus, not 11-year but bicentennial cycles of solar variations which are mainly defined by the corresponding considerable changes in the TSI are the dominating reason for climate changes ― long term geophysical effects, lasting for decades. In whole, the solar cycles are a key to our understanding of different cyclic variations in the nature and society. We currently have an uninterrupted long observation series of the TSI S☉ since 1978, directly measured by several special space instruments. The amplitude of 11-year smoothed cyclic variations of the TSI at the maximum of the two century cycle was approximately equal to 1.0 W/m2 or 0.07% and it has been gradually decreasing since the beginning of 1990s.The 11-year cyclic variations of the TSI occur in relation to the component of its 2-century variation, which was for the first time revealed by us in 2005. " as opposed to a non Solar Scientist's dismissal of the Sun's influence in the original IPCC's report, J.Lean
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 11, 2010 14:04:32 GMT
except J'Lean is a solar scientist. And also that "website" (not paper) even uses Judith Leans TSI reconstruction. A reconstruction that I believe is no longer regarded to be correct.
It also doesn't present any evidence that recent climate change is due to the sun, nothing in there contrary to the IPCC report summary.
The website also cites the Heartland Institute. Looks like more crap politicized "skeptic" science to me.
Edit: Yep, further on down they think the recent rise in co2 is not due to human cause but due to emission from the oceans.
Junk science.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 11, 2010 14:31:27 GMT
except J'Lean is a solar scientist. And also that "website" (not paper) even uses Judith Leans TSI reconstruction. A reconstruction that I believe is no longer regarded to be correct. It also doesn't present any evidence that recent climate change is due to the sun, nothing in there contrary to the IPCC report summary. The website also cites the Heartland Institute. Looks like more crap politicized "skeptic" science to me. Edit: Yep, further on down they think the recent rise in co2 is not due to human cause but due to emission from the oceans. Junk science. And also that "website" (not paper) even uses Judith Leans TSI reconstruction. A reconstruction that I believe is no longer regarded to be correct.
So tell us socold, why does IPCC AR4 climate models including GISS use Lean 2000?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 11, 2010 15:18:00 GMT
I would have to assume that they do
|
|