|
Post by icefisher on Nov 12, 2009 12:06:29 GMT
The sad thing is that this has become a common argument in the AGW community - The sun only has impact on cooling, not heating. Though this quote was particularly ludicrous in claiming that the sun stopped affecting climate at all in the '70's forward!It didn't say that the sun stopped affecting climate. It said that the correlation (such as it was) broke down in the 1970s. For example, the L&F-C correlation between temperature and sunspot cycle. If this correlation had held we would be about 1 deg cooler than we actually are. Calculations please. Just blabbering it provides no evidence of the fact.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 12, 2009 14:15:40 GMT
From the article
"Prof Bellamy said the climate conference at Copenhagen will fail, and that many countries were already trying to pull out of it.
He has been criticised repeatedly by the scientific community for his views. Prof William Reville, who writes in this newspaper, said changes in the sun had affected global temperatures in the past, but the correlation between the sun and climate ended in the 1970s while global warming continued."
|
|
|
Post by glc on Nov 12, 2009 17:19:32 GMT
Calculations please. Just blabbering it provides no evidence of the fact. Are you referring to the L & F-C reconstruction. Just check it out for yourself. Here's a copy of the paper www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.htmlNote that the correlation is just starting to break down in the 1970s. There is considerable divergence after that whereby global temperatures continue to climb while the Solar Cycle Length remains roughly the same. However things really go pear-shaped in the most recent cycle. SC23 lasted ~12.5 years. If we look at L&F-C's plot 12.5 years isn't even marked on the vertical axis. The lowest point is 11.9 years. If the L & F-C correlation is valid then we should be seeing temperature anomalies of -0.5 to -0.7.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 12, 2009 17:52:00 GMT
Calculations please. Just blabbering it provides no evidence of the fact. Are you referring to the L & F-C reconstruction. Just check it out for yourself. Here's a copy of the paper www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.htmlNote that the correlation is just starting to break down in the 1970s. There is considerable divergence after that whereby global temperatures continue to climb while the Solar Cycle Length remains roughly the same. However things really go pear-shaped in the most recent cycle. SC23 lasted ~12.5 years. If we look at L&F-C's plot 12.5 years isn't even marked on the vertical axis. The lowest point is 11.9 years. If the L & F-C correlation is valid then we should be seeing temperature anomalies of -0.5 to -0.7. Heck GLC, we are. Some place must be hogging all the co2 as the US as a whole, kinda blew normal Oct temps out of the window. Did all that co2 go to Europe or China?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 12, 2009 23:55:38 GMT
Calculations please. Just blabbering it provides no evidence of the fact. Are you referring to the L & F-C reconstruction. Just check it out for yourself. Here's a copy of the paper www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.htmlNote that the correlation is just starting to break down in the 1970s. There is considerable divergence after that whereby global temperatures continue to climb while the Solar Cycle Length remains roughly the same. However things really go pear-shaped in the most recent cycle. SC23 lasted ~12.5 years. If we look at L&F-C's plot 12.5 years isn't even marked on the vertical axis. The lowest point is 11.9 years. If the L & F-C correlation is valid then we should be seeing temperature anomalies of -0.5 to -0.7. Nothing I see in that paper supports anything you are saying GLC. The papers conclusion runs crossbuck to your conclusion: "70-90 years oscillations in global mean temperature are correlated with corresponding oscillations in solar activity. Whereas the solar influence is obvious in the data from the last four centuries, signatures of human activity are not yet distinguishable in the observations. " Are you just making this stuff up and reading what you want to read in the graphs and data?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 13, 2009 0:10:05 GMT
Calculations please. Just blabbering it provides no evidence of the fact. Are you referring to the L & F-C reconstruction. Just check it out for yourself. Here's a copy of the paper www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.htmlNote that the correlation is just starting to break down in the 1970s. There is considerable divergence after that whereby global temperatures continue to climb while the Solar Cycle Length remains roughly the same. However things really go pear-shaped in the most recent cycle. SC23 lasted ~12.5 years. If we look at L&F-C's plot 12.5 years isn't even marked on the vertical axis. The lowest point is 11.9 years. If the L & F-C correlation is valid then we should be seeing temperature anomalies of -0.5 to -0.7. Nothing I see in that paper supports anything you are saying GLC. GLC is saying that paper claimed to find a solar cycle length -global temperature correlation, but that correlation has subsequently broken down post-1970.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 13, 2009 0:43:55 GMT
Nothing I see in that paper supports anything you are saying GLC. GLC is saying that paper claimed to find a solar cycle length -global temperature correlation, but that correlation has subsequently broken down post-1970. Thanks for interpreting the following from GLC as not meaning what it said: "Are you referring to the L & F-C reconstruction. Just check it out for yourself. Here's a copy of the paper www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.htmlNote that the correlation is just starting to break down in the 1970s." I guess I missed the part about that GLC had done a statiistical analysis of the data and placed it on top of the linked paper in invisible ink. . . .Briffa-like. I guess next we get to see a cloud of visible ink as your team of squid take flight.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Nov 13, 2009 3:51:58 GMT
I think the length of solar cycle is hard to pin down when we have such a weak spell as at present. was it a long 23rd or a slow start to 24th.
What is evident is that land temps are down and sea temps are holding up night temps down day temps holding on world average. The land should drop earlier than the sea due to thermal storage and I would be interested to know why other than intuitively why night temps would fall the most.
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Nov 13, 2009 4:14:16 GMT
if you look at the last solar cycle and some of the ones before solar cycle 23 you will notice that there have been double peaks. To me the active part of the cycle is longer, and the inactive is shorter. I don't think the coorelation broke down at all. There are still a lot of things that I wonder about. Like, heat is stored linear and released expotentionally at times. I don't see why the earth couldn't have heat flares.
|
|
eric
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by eric on Nov 13, 2009 4:56:30 GMT
Hey GLC & Socold,
What's r for the the CO2 delta - Temperature delta for the past 12 years?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Nov 13, 2009 12:11:36 GMT
Thanks for interpreting the following from GLC as not meaning what it said:
"Are you referring to the L & F-C reconstruction. Just check it out for yourself. Here's a copy of the paper
www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
Note that the correlation is just starting to break down in the 1970s."
I guess I missed the part about that GLC had done a statiistical analysis of the data and placed it on top of the linked paper in invisible ink. . . .Briffa-like. I guess next we get to see a cloud of visible ink as your team of squid take flight. Why don't you read the paper instead of just selecting the bits you like. The beginning of the Abstract says The varying length of the 11-year cycle has been found to be strongly correlated with longterm variations of the northern hemisphere land surface air temperature since the beginning of systematic temperature variations from a global network, i. e. during the past 130 years.I.e. L & F-C have found a link between the solar cycle length and surface air temperature. Clearly that link has broken down - in spectacular fashion. The Conclusion which you cited is based on the link being valid. The conclusion, therefore, is based on a failed correlation. The length of SC23 is, at the very least 12 years, but is more likely 12.5 years. The temperature has quite clearly not responded according to the proposed correlation - not by a bit - but by a massively wide margin. Uncertainly levels (error bars) cannot save this correlation. It's a dead duck. I don't need to do any statistical analysis to show this - nor does anyone else. The data tells us all we need to know.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 13, 2009 13:43:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glc on Nov 13, 2009 14:10:49 GMT
Hey GLC & Socold,
What's r for the the CO2 delta - Temperature delta for the past 12 years?
My expectations for temp increases due to rising CO2 levels are ~0.1 deg per decade. This is lower than the IPCC expectations (and probably Steve's and Socold's). This means I expect the averate rate of increase to be about 0.1 deg per decade. It does not mean every decade will be warmer by 0.1 deg. Some will warm by ~0.2 - some might not warm at all. That's because there is natural variability, e.g ENSO, at play. In 2007/08 a moderate La Nina developed which influenced the short term (~10 year) trend.
However, despite this, this decade (2000-2009) will still be considerably warmer than the 1990s (1990-1999) which was warmer than the 1980s (1980-1989).
Regarding the trend over the past 12 years. This, of course, includes the huge El Nino in 1998 . So we have a period which starts with an intense El Nino and near the end has a La Nina. Not only that we have also gone from a solar maximum early in the period to a deep solar minimum at the end. Not forgetting that Don Easterbrook (at WUWT) has stated that the PDO switched to a cool phase in 1999. And what is the resultant change of temperature with all this going on........
The trend since Nov 1997 is ~-0.04 deg per decade.
I'd start worrying if I were you.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 13, 2009 15:06:06 GMT
I am not too worried over here. Seems if it is going to be cold, it is the US that gets to bear the brunt of it.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 13, 2009 17:47:59 GMT
Hey GLC & Socold,
What's r for the the CO2 delta - Temperature delta for the past 12 years? My expectations for temp increases due to rising CO2 levels are ~0.1 deg per decade. This is lower than the IPCC expectations (and probably Steve's and Socold's). This means I expect the averate rate of increase to be about 0.1 deg per decade. It does not mean every decade will be warmer by 0.1 deg. Some will warm by ~0.2 - some might not warm at all. That's because there is natural variability, e.g ENSO, at play. In 2007/08 a moderate La Nina developed which influenced the short term (~10 year) trend. However, despite this, this decade (2000-2009) will still be considerably warmer than the 1990s (1990-1999) which was warmer than the 1980s (1980-1989). Regarding the trend over the past 12 years. This, of course, includes the huge El Nino in 1998 . So we have a period which starts with an intense El Nino and near the end has a La Nina. Not only that we have also gone from a solar maximum early in the period to a deep solar minimum at the end. Not forgetting that Don Easterbrook (at WUWT) has stated that the PDO switched to a cool phase in 1999. And what is the resultant change of temperature with all this going on........ The trend since Nov 1997 is ~-0.04 deg per decade. I'd start worrying if I were you. glc said in March 2009: solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=180&page=49Bearing in mind, there's about 0.5 deg difference between El Nino and La Nina, the next El Nino should see a new record temperature year. You've made many conflicting statements, but that one sticks out. Nonetheless, in order for that to happen, the Tropics needed to ramp up much sooner in the year. Current satellite data indicates both the NH and SH ocean temps are less than 2006 with the tropics similar, as is SOI. That tells me OHC is not increasing despite not having monthly reports from ARGO. Only if the tropics bump up from now through January will global temps reach the amplitude of 2007. Just so there can be no obfuscation/misinterpretation, let's make it clear now that amplitude (one month anomaly) is not equivalent to a mean average, so please no self adulation if in January global temps eclipse 2007 levels. It means little. There are oscillating cycles year after year, save those affected by large volcanoes. Thus far the only analysis you've offered are "trends". If in the next three months the tropics do not have a similar characteristic jump as was the case in 2006, 2010 will not reach or exceed 2007 yearly amplitude. See if I'm right Further, if my observations of ocean cycles (particularly the tropics) in the satellite data hold true, then 2010 will see a setup for the next La Nina similar to 2007 and may be as strong or stronger than 2008. So, in the coming months when warmologists will once again wet their pants thinking we are headed for a "record year" (ala Met O), come April or May the cycle will continue it's path and head downward. As it is now, it is you that should be worried BTW, I waited several days for your response to a guest post by LS at WUWT. Did you miss it? solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=770&page=5
|
|