|
Post by magellan on Jul 11, 2010 16:40:24 GMT
I would have to assume that they do So IPCC AR4 climate models are using erroneous solar data? I had hoped you'd bother to find out what TSI data IPCC used (I asked a few times), so when you were like a deer in headlights so to speak, I patiently waited until you stepped into the pile, and you certainly did. Is Judith Lean the only solar scientist that IPCC could find, because she's the sole person relied on for AR4.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 11, 2010 17:47:23 GMT
I also watched this unfold Magellan. Quit interesting how her data is not good, and AR4 uses it. Does this speak volumes about AR4?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 11, 2010 19:18:10 GMT
I also watched this unfold Magellan. Quit interesting how her data is not good, and AR4 uses it. Does this speak volumes about AR4? Its consistent with using the hockey stick from Mann and Briffa. You cherrypick not based upon standards but instead based upon results.
|
|
|
Post by julianb on Jul 12, 2010 6:36:52 GMT
Here is one view of Judith Lean's CV motls.blogspot.com/2010/06/judithgate-ipcc-relied-on-one-solar.html and Abdussamatov seems very well qualified with his work on the Russian segment of the International Space Station "Astrometria" project of which he is head, where he delivered his lecture is irrelevant. Even heads of State use opportunistic platforms to deliver policies, as we have seen recently!
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jul 14, 2010 1:06:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 16, 2010 9:31:29 GMT
I would have to assume that they do So IPCC AR4 climate models are using erroneous solar data? I had hoped you'd bother to find out what TSI data IPCC used (I asked a few times), so when you were like a deer in headlights so to speak, I patiently waited until you stepped into the pile, and you certainly did. Is Judith Lean the only solar scientist that IPCC could find, because she's the sole person relied on for AR4. I'm just wondering if certain people will eventually end up agreeing with many of the points I've made on this blog. For the past 2 years questioned the sun's role in climate variability. I've maintained there is very little correlation between solar activity and climate. Of course I was talking rubbish. However, the so-called correlations were produced using outdated reconstructions (by Lean, Hoyt & Schatten etc). The IPCC used these in their "detection and attribution" studies but so did all the solar theorists (even then the correlations broke own). I also claimed that a non-varying sun was more damaging to the AGW argument than it was to the sceptic argument. The reason being that the old reconstructions supported the AGW case more. There was an increase in solar activity between ~1900 and ~1960 but there hase been very little change since. This meant that the AGWers could explain the 1910-1940 warming. If solar activity had been unchanged over that period - they can't explain it. Leif Svalgaard looks to have got it right. He provides 6 lines of evidence (see here [url climateaudit.org/2007/11/30/svalgaard-solar-theory/[/url] )which suggest that the sun has been far less variable than previously thought. Several recent independent reconstructions (one by Svalgaard himself) indicate this to be true. There has always been a problem attributing the small TSI changes to temperature changes - unless, like the AGWers, you accept high sensitivity. Finally, trblixer has posted on the 'Norwegian study', where there appears to be a correlation between solar cycle length and temperature. In the 19th century there were a cluster of relatively long cycles (11+ years) while in the 20th century there was a cluster of relatively short cycles (~10 years). The 20th century was warmer than the 19th cenury so quite naturally we get a correlation. However, if we tried to use this relationship to predict temperatures over the following cycle we would be wrong about 2/3 of the time. For example, the lengths of SC15 (which began in 1913) to SC18 (ended in 1954) were 10, 10.1, 10.4 and 10.2 years respectively which means that temperatures for the years following 1923 (end of SC15) up until 1976 (~12 years after end SC18) should have been quite similar - but with a slight cooling overall. Also we should hve seen a sharp cooling in the decade or so after 1976 following the SC19 minimum (11.7 years). We didn't.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 16, 2010 15:40:08 GMT
I'm just wondering if certain people will eventually end up agreeing with many of the points I've made on this blog. You made points? Who knew?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 16, 2010 17:08:08 GMT
So IPCC AR4 climate models are using erroneous solar data? I had hoped you'd bother to find out what TSI data IPCC used (I asked a few times), so when you were like a deer in headlights so to speak, I patiently waited until you stepped into the pile, and you certainly did. Is Judith Lean the only solar scientist that IPCC could find, because she's the sole person relied on for AR4. I'm just wondering if certain people will eventually end up agreeing with many of the points I've made on this blog. For the past 2 years questioned the sun's role in climate variability. I've maintained there is very little correlation between solar activity and climate. Of course I was talking rubbish. However, the so-called correlations were produced using outdated reconstructions (by Lean, Hoyt & Schatten etc). The IPCC used these in their "detection and attribution" studies but so did all the solar theorists (even then the correlations broke own). I also claimed that a non-varying sun was more damaging to the AGW argument than it was to the sceptic argument. The reason being that the old reconstructions supported the AGW case more. There was an increase in solar activity between ~1900 and ~1960 but there hase been very little change since. This meant that the AGWers could explain the 1910-1940 warming. If solar activity had been unchanged over that period - they can't explain it. Leif Svalgaard looks to have got it right. He provides 6 lines of evidence (see here [url climateaudit.org/2007/11/30/svalgaard-solar-theory/[/url] )which suggest that the sun has been far less variable than previously thought. Several recent independent reconstructions (one by Svalgaard himself) indicate this to be true. There has always been a problem attributing the small TSI changes to temperature changes - unless, like the AGWers, you accept high sensitivity. Finally, trblixer has posted on the 'Norwegian study', where there appears to be a correlation between solar cycle length and temperature. In the 19th century there were a cluster of relatively long cycles (11+ years) while in the 20th century there was a cluster of relatively short cycles (~10 years). The 20th century was warmer than the 19th cenury so quite naturally we get a correlation. However, if we tried to use this relationship to predict temperatures over the following cycle we would be wrong about 2/3 of the time. For example, the lengths of SC15 (which began in 1913) to SC18 (ended in 1954) were 10, 10.1, 10.4 and 10.2 years respectively which means that temperatures for the years following 1923 (end of SC15) up until 1976 (~12 years after end SC18) should have been quite similar - but with a slight cooling overall. Also we should hve seen a sharp cooling in the decade or so after 1976 following the SC19 minimum (11.7 years). We didn't.[/quote] First of all, for you to say this or that "should" have or will happen due to solar x, y or z is hubris. For some cockamamie reason you want to place everything in a lock box, black or white, either or. Weather and climate are affected by multiple processes from above and below, not just one. So let's stop playing games pretending you actually understand what "should" happen. Try reviewing Tsonis on synchronized chaos. What we do know is this El Nino is releasing a lot of heat which has absolutely nothing to do with CO2. If you have knowledge as to what controls ENSO, don't leave us hanging. We also know NOAA has done what they've not done ever that I recall the last 10 years and that is forecasting both poles to be cold, and most everything in between. We also know weather/climate works on it's own time table. Next, I did not infer the sun does not affect weather/climate by noting IPCC/GISS climate models are using obsolete TSI data. As you did not include Wilson's recent paper indicating more TSI variability in the last 30 years than IPCC published, that says either you have selective amnesia or are once again cherry picking. The latter is most likely. So while you think you have it all figured out with Numerology, in reality you're lost in the wilderness with no compass. And as the next 9 months will effectively eliminate what gains the CO2 mongers had hoped would kickstart the Big Warm trend, you too will be wailing about "no statistically significant warming" doesn't mean AGW has failed as it sails past 16 years into 17 years at the end of 2011.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 16, 2010 21:00:40 GMT
First of all, for you to say this or that "should" have or will happen due to solar x, y or z is hubris.
It's not me that saying it - it's the WUWT article. Why don't you read it . I'm just showing that the conclusions are wrong.
What we do know is this El Nino is releasing a lot of heat which has absolutely nothing to do with CO2.
Just as El Nino did in 1997/98 or in other El Nino years. I realise you've only just latched on to ENSO events and that 18 months ago you thought the La Nina driven cooling was due to the weak solar minimum (which you've now decided is more complicated than previously thought due to the chaotic nature of the system). However, the heat released in 1997/98 did not appreciably alter the long term trend. In fact all this released heat is, according to you, coming from cooling oceans - cooling which supposedly began in 2003 (2003 may end up being as famous as 1998).
In a nutshell: we know ENSO causes short term fluctuations but the underlying trend is still upwards. We may have a La Nina in the next few months but there's a reasonable chance that the temperatures during and follwoing the La Nina will be HIGHER than those during the 1986-87 El Nino.
In other words current La Nina events could be warmer than El Nino events of 20-25 years ago. That is not easy to explain. As you did not include Wilson's recent paper indicating more TSI variability in the last 30 years than IPCC published, that says either you have selective amnesia or are once again cherry picking. The latter is most likely.
Would you care to be more specific about the amount of TSI variability.
...... you too will be wailing about "no statistically significant warming" doesn't mean AGW has failed as it sails past 16 years into 17 years at the end of 2011.
If the trend over the past 15 years continues then it will eventually show up as significant. The length of the period (number of observations) is an important factor in determining statistical significance.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 16, 2010 21:53:01 GMT
If the trend over the past 15 years continues then it will eventually show up as significant. The length of the period (number of observations) is an important factor in determining statistical significance. The ONLY reason to expect the trend to continue would be a faith in AGW. Faith I say because an expectation for a trend to continue to statistical significance is just that and only that. We know trends change and the timing (for numerologists is for it to turn down). Magellan calls you a numerologist but in fact a more accurate description would be an Anecdotal Numerologist as you cannot graph any numbers (except the output of GCMs which I seriously doubt you have rerun or math checked) to support your view the trend will continue unchanged. If it does change the empirical evidence based upon past observations is it will continue to turn downwards. Yes thats right most of the trend of the past 15 years was in the first 3 years or if you want to label 1998 as an outlier then the first half of it. Since then throughout the second half the trend line has been declining. If it continues to decline (which by the way is a trend in itself) it will over the next decade go negative and that is the trend that is supported by the historical record as short as it is anyway. But you are like some guy that shoots himself out of a cannon. In 1998 you ignited the fuse and a squad of stage hands rushed in and shipped the target to Montana and you are still maintaining give it a minute and I will hit the target because I carefully figured my trajectory last week. Sorry to clue you in GLC but the target moved and if nothing changes you are still landing in Wyoming. Trend analysis is touchy business one cannot claim a trend just because for a short time it fit their target. So what you are really putting your faith in the mathematical results of what remains a black box calculator largely funded and lobbyied for by groups saving pandas, polar bears, seals, caribou, their personal financial futures, and who knows what else. I have a couple of threads up here trying to figure out if clouds pose positive or negative forcing on the temperature of the planet and if positive, how much because what we have is a theory that proposes increasing CO2 will cause more clouds which will cause positive feedback and the ERBE data shows clouds disappearing in the face of increasing CO2. Aren't you the least bit curious? p.s. funny when I typed that last line I heard a "yeah but"
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 16, 2010 23:13:16 GMT
If the trend over the past 15 years continues then it will eventually show up as significant. The length of the period (number of observations) is an important factor in determining statistical significance. The ONLY reason to expect the trend to continue would be a faith in AGW. Faith I say because an expectation for a trend to continue to statistical significance is just that and only that. We know trends change and the timing (for numerologists is for it to turn down). Magellan calls you a numerologist but in fact a more accurate description would be an Anecdotal Numerologist as you cannot graph any numbers (except the output of GCMs which I seriously doubt you have rerun or math checked) to support your view the trend will continue unchanged. If it does change the empirical evidence based upon past observations is it will continue to turn downwards. Yes thats right most of the trend of the past 15 years was in the first 3 years or if you want to label 1998 as an outlier then the first half of it. Since then throughout the second half the trend line has been declining. If it continues to decline (which by the way is a trend in itself) it will over the next decade go negative and that is the trend that is supported by the historical record as short as it is anyway. But you are like some guy that shoots himself out of a cannon. In 1998 you ignited the fuse and a squad of stage hands rushed in and shipped the target to Montana and you are still maintaining give it a minute and I will hit the target because I carefully figured my trajectory last week. Sorry to clue you in GLC but the target moved and if nothing changes you are still landing in Wyoming. Trend analysis is touchy business one cannot claim a trend just because for a short time it fit their target. So what you are really putting your faith in the mathematical results of what remains a black box calculator largely funded and lobbyied for by groups saving pandas, polar bears, seals, caribou, their personal financial futures, and who knows what else. I have a couple of threads up here trying to figure out if clouds pose positive or negative forcing on the temperature of the planet and if positive, how much because what we have is a theory that proposes increasing CO2 will cause more clouds which will cause positive feedback and the ERBE data shows clouds disappearing in the face of increasing CO2. Aren't you the least bit curious? p.s. funny when I typed that last line I heard a "yeah but" yabutt yabutt en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NumerologyWell glc, according to the "theory" the trend should be accelerating, it is slowing. That is the bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 17, 2010 5:22:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 17, 2010 11:51:18 GMT
yabutt yabutt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology
Well glc, according to the "theory" the trend should be accelerating, it is slowing. That is the bottom line.What "theory" would this be? You are presumably referring to that part of the AGW theory which suggests that sensitivity to climate forcing is relatively high (~0.7 deg per w/m2). Since, as I've made clear countless times, I don't necessarily agree with the "high sensitivity" argument then temperatures are still increasing pretty much in line with MY expectations. However, even if the trend was accelerating, we would not expect to see a uniform accleration. Factors such as ENSO, solar cycles and even the PDO can amplify or dampen the trend. For example over the last decade we have had a solar maximum in 2000 and a deep solar minimum from ~2005 onwards. From the drop in TSI alone we should get a cooling of ~0.1 deg. The fact that the trend is still upward suggests something else is at play. Finally I'm not sure what your point is about "Numerology". I was simply using the methods put forward by David Archibald et al on WUWT to show that their conclusions were flawed.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 17, 2010 12:07:02 GMT
Interesting that you bring up the "hide the decline" issue. I suppose I should be thankful it's finally been recognised. Five years ago, I was one of very few people who were pointing out the discrepancy between thermometer measurements and reconstructions. I was certainly the only one at that time who challenged Michael Mann about this issue. Steve McIntyre followed up on it - but this was after he reported on my 'debate' with Mann on his blog. FYI, the "hide the decline" issue doesn't change anything about AGW theory as such. It does, however, suggest that many of the proxy reconstructions (including the H-S) are unreliable.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 17, 2010 14:04:32 GMT
Interesting that you bring up the "hide the decline" issue. I suppose I should be thankful it's finally been recognised. Five years ago, I was one of very few people who were pointing out the discrepancy between thermometer measurements and reconstructions. I was certainly the only one at that time who challenged Michael Mann about this issue. Steve McIntyre followed up on it - but this was after he reported on my 'debate' with Mann on his blog. FYI, the "hide the decline" issue doesn't change anything about AGW theory as such. It does, however, suggest that many of the proxy reconstructions (including the H-S) are unreliable. "FYI, the "hide the decline" issue doesn't change anything about AGW theory as such. It does, however, suggest that many of the proxy reconstructions (including the H-S) are unreliable. "Masterly understatement The continual search for proxies and the repeated lack of validation of those proxies is amateurish at best and cherry-picking to obtain funding from those 'tricked' at worst. If these people are the leading lights in climatology then climatology certainly is not a science. You often see more careful rigor in sociology
|
|