|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 7, 2009 0:58:55 GMT
Precisely
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 8, 2009 13:40:32 GMT
I have just read the Nir Shaviv paper and it makes very interesting reading. Without breaking the copyright to summarize some of the conclusion:
Using empirical measurements of the Oceans it shows that the total heat flux entering the oceans is an order of magnitude greater than the variance in TSI and that this cannot be caused by atmospheric feedback or coupled atmosphere/ocean oscillations due to the lack of lag in the heat flux.
He recommends that this empirical measure is put into GCMs
This paper could become extremely important - its up to date and uses empirical measures that go back 50 years from ~2005. I think it demonstrates that climate modeling and calculations have been based on incorrect assumptions and is yet another indication that their forecasts should be treated with considerable scepticism.
|
|
|
Post by heatsink on Mar 10, 2009 16:04:15 GMT
I have just read the Nir Shaviv paper and it makes very interesting reading. Without breaking the copyright to summarize some of the conclusion: Using empirical measurements of the Oceans it shows that the total heat flux entering the oceans is an order of magnitude greater than the variance in TSI and that this cannot be caused by atmospheric feedback or coupled atmosphere/ocean oscillations due to the lack of lag in the heat flux. He recommends that this empirical measure is put into GCMs This paper could become extremely important - its up to date and uses empirical measures that go back 50 years from ~2005. I think it demonstrates that climate modeling and calculations have been based on incorrect assumptions and is yet another indication that their forecasts should be treated with considerable skepticism. I have not read the paper but the abstract says that the data indicates that TSI has a amplification mechanism which is likely the cause of most of the warming in the 20th century. How does this square with Dr. Svalgaard's updated analysis of TSI? His research indicates that AR4 used outdated TSI data and that there is no rise in TSI during solar cycle minimums. Did Nir use "Hoyt and Schatten" data or Svalgaard data?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 10, 2009 18:06:27 GMT
I have just read the Nir Shaviv paper and it makes very interesting reading. Without breaking the copyright to summarize some of the conclusion: Using empirical measurements of the Oceans it shows that the total heat flux entering the oceans is an order of magnitude greater than the variance in TSI and that this cannot be caused by atmospheric feedback or coupled atmosphere/ocean oscillations due to the lack of lag in the heat flux. He recommends that this empirical measure is put into GCMs This paper could become extremely important - its up to date and uses empirical measures that go back 50 years from ~2005. I think it demonstrates that climate modeling and calculations have been based on incorrect assumptions and is yet another indication that their forecasts should be treated with considerable skepticism. I have not read the paper but the abstract says that the data indicates that TSI has a amplification mechanism which is likely the cause of most of the warming in the 20th century. How does this square with Dr. Svalgaard's updated analysis of TSI? His research indicates that AR4 used outdated TSI data and that there is no rise in TSI during solar cycle minimums. Did Nir use "Hoyt and Schatten" data or Svalgaard data? Trying not to break his copyright too early and to hugely simplify the paper... The paper does not appear to use either although I haven't chased through all the references as it may be that indirectly your cites could be used. The paper takes (among many other references) the TSI from Lean (2000) and the (Cosmic Ray Flux) CRF from a proxy - the Huancayo/Haleakala low geomagnetic latitude neutron monitor. Then (again I am obviously simplifying greatly) uses 3 different ocean metrics, sea level change, sea surface temperatures and Ocean Heat Content to derive an ocean heat flux hence the ocean as a calorimeter. It is this area that is extremely interesting. I think that this may be a seminal paper. As it appears to show that the ocean reaction to changes in solar activity is 'an order of magnitude' greater than has been assumed. Thus there is an amplification somewhere. Potential mechanisms - including Svensmark's ideas are discussed. Shaviv then recommends that the GCMs being used by climatology will need to take this amplification into account. As many on here have been saying there appears to be more to the variance in solar output than the narrow measures of TSI.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 10, 2009 21:23:21 GMT
Any amplification in the GCMs is an emergant property of the physics and cannot be added in arbitarily. I suppose an amplification of TSI could be simulated by simply multiplying the forcing though. Although a better idea would be to track down a physical mechanism and add that in.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 11, 2009 0:26:29 GMT
Any amplification in the GCMs is an emergant property of the physics and cannot be added in arbitarily. I suppose an amplification of TSI could be simulated by simply multiplying the forcing though. Although a better idea would be to track down a physical mechanism and add that in. Sorry that the empirical data do not suit your idea of what the physics are. Its really really inconvenient when the real world doesn't match the models isn't it. Especially as you were getting everyone to pay more tax. Then the real world shows that the models aren't correct. What do you do then? Change the data - pretend that the models are real and the data is not? As for 'tracking down a physical mechanism' - if someone drinks something and dies in agony, then someone else drinks it and dies in agony - and you have no idea why.... do you drink the same thing because you don't know the mechanism that killed them? I suggest that you pay your $9 and read the paper then you'll have a little more credibility in your denial.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 11, 2009 2:09:43 GMT
Any amplification in the GCMs is an emergant property of the physics and cannot be added in arbitarily. I suppose an amplification of TSI could be simulated by simply multiplying the forcing though. Although a better idea would be to track down a physical mechanism and add that in. Made up physics.
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Mar 11, 2009 4:13:38 GMT
Any amplification in the GCMs is an emergant property of the physics and cannot be added in arbitarily. I suppose an amplification of TSI could be simulated by simply multiplying the forcing though. Although a better idea would be to track down a physical mechanism and add that in. With all due respect, Old Soc, physical mechanisms are discovered by data, not vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Mar 13, 2009 0:31:22 GMT
Is there a link to a free version of his paper on the web? I want to see what values he used for the ocean heat content, the uncorrected ones with the false cooling bias for the XBTs and Argo floats or the revised data set that contained the corrections for those errors. Also, there's another paper out that puts yet another nail in the coffin of the cosmic ray hypothesis. It too shows that the solar TSI is 14% (about 1/7th, which is what Shaviv came up with). This one puts the remaining warming and cooling over the years on other factors, such as volcanic eruptions and greenhouse gases. www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/1/014006/erl9_1_014006.html
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 13, 2009 2:02:40 GMT
Is there a link to a free version of his paper on the web? I want to see what values he used for the ocean heat content, the uncorrected ones with the false cooling bias for the XBTs and Argo floats or the revised data set that contained the corrections for those errors. Also, there's another paper out that puts yet another nail in the coffin of the cosmic ray hypothesis. It too shows that the solar TSI is 14% (about 1/7th, which is what Shaviv came up with). This one puts the remaining warming and cooling over the years on other factors, such as volcanic eruptions and greenhouse gases. www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/1/014006/erl9_1_014006.htmlKen, if you are really so keen to try to debunk a paper that has been accepted worldwide - then you should stump up $9 as I did and get it - whatever I told you about it you would not believe and in any case I am not going to breach copyright. You should realize that Shaviv used 3 measures not just OHC, but also SST and Sea levels so that each cross checked and complemented the others. You may mistrust him - but I also mistrust the 'corrections' applied by NASA/NOAA that magically managed to match the trend that they wanted by altering all the 40+ year old bucket temperatures downwards but only where they showed a peak in temperature not in years where they were below or matched the model. There may have been errors by the matelots with their buckets - however I find it challenging to credibility that all the errors by all the matelots in all the different ships from different navies and commercial operators were all in the same direction, yet they only occured when the temperatures were above the modeled trend line and that the scale of all these errors managed when corrected to perfectly match the NOAA model invented many decades later. This decades late post measurement 'correction' smells
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Mar 14, 2009 5:38:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Mar 14, 2009 5:52:48 GMT
And that's why a lot of people wonder about his conclusions. For example, we know the solar cycle goes from a minimum to a maximum and returns to a minimum every 9 to 13 years. For cycles 21 and 22, it happened over about 10 years. For cycle 23, we are in the 12th year and so far it hasn't started ramping up. Yet take a look at recent sea level measurements: Sea level rise is almost double the 20th century average even though TSI has been decreasing since the peak in the early 1960s. We've been told the globe has been cooling the last 11 years (since 1998), yet the seas are still rising. Now we're supposed to believe that there's some magical, undiscovered property of sunlight that magnifies it's effect on the oceans by 5 to 10 times, even though as soon as the sun goes down in polar areas the ice immediately starts to increase? The AGW crowd has consistent arguements that follow from well known physics and chemistry that go back more than a century, and the observations of atmospheric, biological and meteorology are consistent with AGW. With the sceptics, we are supposed to believe in some undiscovered feedbacks, that all of the scientists are liars, and that all of the data is wrong. Who to believe?
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 14, 2009 6:03:07 GMT
By my eyeballing, that straight trendline looks to be quite off, and it should be lower on both ends and higher in the middle -- not straight.
But that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 14, 2009 10:27:32 GMT
And that's why a lot of people wonder about his conclusions. For example, we know the solar cycle goes from a minimum to a maximum and returns to a minimum every 9 to 13 years. For cycles 21 and 22, it happened over about 10 years. For cycle 23, we are in the 12th year and so far it hasn't started ramping up. Yet take a look at recent sea level measurements: [/img] Sea level rise is almost double the 20th century average even though TSI has been decreasing since the peak in the early 1960s. We've been told the globe has been cooling the last 11 years (since 1998), yet the seas are still rising. Now we're supposed to believe that there's some magical, undiscovered property of sunlight that magnifies it's effect on the oceans by 5 to 10 times, even though as soon as the sun goes down in polar areas the ice immediately starts to increase? The AGW crowd has consistent arguements that follow from well known physics and chemistry that go back more than a century, and the observations of atmospheric, biological and meteorology are consistent with AGW. With the sceptics, we are supposed to believe in some undiscovered feedbacks, that all of the scientists are liars, and that all of the data is wrong. Who to believe?[/quote] Now extend that data back 200 years. What does it show? Ice is always increasing or decreasing, which do you prefer? Please explain how large forests grew in Northern Eurasia if we are living in "unprecedented" warm times. www.sscnet.ucla.edu/geog/downloads/634/269.pdfNonetheless, depending on which time period used, one could say sea levels are trending upward or downward. Why are you alarmed sea levels have risen since the end of the LIA? www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdfIt does help to broaden your sources of information. Seriously, find defects in the reasoning given by Syun-Ichi Akasofu.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Mar 14, 2009 11:33:18 GMT
Lets not forget that this sea level graph has been rotated.
Step 1. Launch multi-million pound satellites to give you accurate data.
Step 2. Remove offending "stable" data by adding a manual tide guage measurement from locations where local levels have risen. This wil "correct" the data to AGW compliant mode.
Step 3. Produce a graph with the required upward trend instead of the almost straight line given by the satellites.
As I recall one of the leading IPCC "real" ocean scientists resigned because of this data distortion and made it clear that sea levels were in fact pretty stable excepting the minor year on year increase since the last ice age.
Another piece of discredited AGW garbage.
|
|