|
Post by glc on Oct 31, 2009 17:50:30 GMT
So why will the solar/climate link unravel?
The solar/climate correlation has never been that strong but it's completely falling apart now. We have had a long period of low solar activity but global temperatures remain at high levels. Correlations such as those consructed by Lassen and Friis-Christensen which used solar cycle length broke down some years ago but they look even worse now.
It's over for the solar theorists.
Outdated TSI reconstructions?
Lean, Hoyt & Schatten etc. Basically those reconstructions which showed solar output to be relatively variable are now known to be wrong.
Post 2102 period? Might be a hard bet to collect on.
That should read 'post 2012'. I've fixed it in the post.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 31, 2009 19:15:54 GMT
I truly do not understand this persistent argument that temperatures have continued to rise over the past several years. Aside from some data obtained from questionable sources, most of the evidence seems to point toward cooling temperatures. Notwithstanding the broad-brush discounting of solar influences (of which there are many), and without getting into a debate about the hubris needed to discount solar influences without a corollary repudiation of CO2, it seems rather assumptive to claim that temperatures continue to rise (or stay even) let alone ignore recent cooling trends.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Nov 1, 2009 1:17:09 GMT
I truly do not understand this persistent argument that temperatures have continued to rise over the past several years. Aside from some data obtained from questionable sources, most of the evidence seems to point toward cooling temperatures. Notwithstanding the broad-brush discounting of solar influences (of which there are many), and without getting into a debate about the hubris needed to discount solar influences without a corollary repudiation of CO2, it seems rather assumptive to claim that temperatures continue to rise (or stay even) let alone ignore recent cooling trends
It's not whether they have "continued to rise" but whether they have actually fallen. I maintain that the 2007/08 La Nina has had a disproportionate influence on short term trends. It's reasonable to argue that the recent trend is flat, but there are a number of factors which suggest we should actually be cooling, e.g. deep solar minimum, negative PDO, etc - yet global temperatures (using whatever source) are still above 1990s levels.
It's beginning to look as though the next significant shift might be further warming.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Nov 1, 2009 6:14:23 GMT
I truly do not understand this persistent argument that temperatures have continued to rise over the past several years. Aside from some data obtained from questionable sources, most of the evidence seems to point toward cooling temperatures. Notwithstanding the broad-brush discounting of solar influences (of which there are many), and without getting into a debate about the hubris needed to discount solar influences without a corollary repudiation of CO2, it seems rather assumptive to claim that temperatures continue to rise (or stay even) let alone ignore recent cooling trendsIt's not whether they have "continued to rise" but whether they have actually fallen. I maintain that the 2007/08 La Nina has had a disproportionate influence on short term trends. It's reasonable to argue that the recent trend is flat, but there are a number of factors which suggest we should actually be cooling, e.g. deep solar minimum, negative PDO, etc - yet global temperatures (using whatever source) are still above 1990s levels. It's beginning to look as though the next significant shift might be further warming. That's exactly the type of argument to which I was referring.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Nov 1, 2009 9:22:37 GMT
That's exactly the type of argument to which I was referring.
Can you counter that "type of argument"?
1. Even with the 2007/08 La Nina included, UAH shows that the 2004-2008 is the warmest 5 year period in the temperature record. The second warmest 5 year period is 1999-2003.
2. Is there are Solar/Climate correlation which is still valid.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Nov 1, 2009 9:48:58 GMT
glc writes "2. Is there are Solar/Climate correlation which is still valid. "
As I have pointed out over and over again, the Maunder minimum started around 1645, but the greatest ice fair on the Thames in London UK occurred in 1685. We do not know the mechanism whereby the sun may control climate, but I see no reason to suppose that, whatever it is, it is invalidated because it has not yet started to show it's effect.
Let me try out another way out idea. You have forgotten the effect of the moon. The great ocean currents control climate; the Gulf Stream, the Labrador Current, the Humboldt Current, etc.etc. The gravity of the moon drives the ocean tides. The moon's gravity varies enormously over the decades and centuries, as it's distance from the earth varies in an irregular manner. So we can expect different sorts of tides as the distance between the moon and the earth varies. If differing tides affect ocean currents, and the moon's gravity affects global tides, then the moon affects climate. Waaaaay out science!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by glc on Nov 1, 2009 11:28:50 GMT
As I have pointed out over and over again, the Maunder minimum started around 1645, but the greatest ice fair on the Thames in London UK occurred in 1685. Ok - so the earth's climate is appatrently determined by the extent to which the Thames freezes. In 1063, the Thames was frozen over for 14 weeks .... but this was in the MWP. See www.londononline.co.uk/history/thames/3/This and several other links show that the Thames has been frozen on many occasions - not just during the Maunder minimum. We do not know the mechanism whereby the sun may control climate, but I see no reason to suppose that, whatever it is, it is invalidated because it has not yet started to show it's effect.You might as well say what I've been saying, i.e. there is no evidence whatsoever that the sun is responsible for the multi-decadal climate fluctuations over the past few centuries. As for the moon theory: We appear to have gone way past the point of desperation.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 1, 2009 13:40:14 GMT
As I have pointed out over and over again, the Maunder minimum started around 1645, but the greatest ice fair on the Thames in London UK occurred in 1685. Ok - so the earth's climate is appatrently determined by the extent to which the Thames freezes. In 1063, the Thames was frozen over for 14 weeks .... but this was in the MWP. See www.londononline.co.uk/history/thames/3/This and several other links show that the Thames has been frozen on many occasions - not just during the Maunder minimum. We do not know the mechanism whereby the sun may control climate, but I see no reason to suppose that, whatever it is, it is invalidated because it has not yet started to show it's effect.You might as well say what I've been saying, i.e. there is no evidence whatsoever that the sun is responsible for the multi-decadal climate fluctuations over the past few centuries. As for the moon theory: We appear to have gone way past the point of desperation. "Ok - so the earth's climate is appatrently determined by the extent to which the Thames freezes."No less logical than the Earth's climate history being determined by a single tree's growth rings - and that is apparently taken as absolute truth.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Nov 1, 2009 15:16:50 GMT
glc writes "You might as well say what I've been saying, i.e. there is no evidence whatsoever that the sun is responsible for the multi-decadal climate fluctuations over the past few centuries."
You are absolutely correct. All we have is correlation without causation. As to the other observations of the Thames freezing, it should be noted that during the Maunder minimum the cold winters in the UK, and other parts of Western Europe, were not isolated incidents. My statement was the 1685 event was the greatest ice fair, not the only ice fair. The abnormally cold temperatures lasted, consistently, for more than a decade.
As the the moon, it was not intended as desperation. It was slightly comical, but I was merely trying to show that there are many possibilities that the warmaholics have neglected in their attempts to prove AGW. I know of no reason why the moon hypothesis is wrong. Can you point to a scientific, logical reason why the moon cannot affect climate? I would, indeed, like to have it proven that the moon cannot possibly affect climate.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 1, 2009 15:45:26 GMT
Don't forget that the rate of moonbeams also varies.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 1, 2009 15:48:22 GMT
Don't forget that the rate of moonbeams also varies. There is also a close correlation between global temperatures and the number of people who believe in AGW. Perhaps its like fairies - if people stop believing in it - it will vanish?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 1, 2009 16:24:07 GMT
So why will the solar/climate link unravel? The solar/climate correlation has never been that strong but it's completely falling apart now. We have had a long period of low solar activity but global temperatures remain at high levels. Correlations such as those consructed by Lassen and Friis-Christensen which used solar cycle length broke down some years ago but they look even worse now. It's over for the solar theorists. Unfortunately you are victim of not understanding the numbers. You have to heavily smooth the solar data to get the correlation in the first place. Like trying to measure the moment of solar minimum can't be determined until many months beyond the minimum, the analysis is of solar activity is probably at least 7 years beyond decent analysis, depending upon the actual mechanism that controls temperatures on earth from sun fluctuations. Several issues abound. You have physical mechanism issues. If the physical mechanism is cosmic rays. You have an 18 month delay in cosmic ray build up in relationship to solar minimums. Thus the maximum impact of only half the minimum would not be felt until 18 months beyond the minimum low point and if you attribute 3 years to a minimum phase, the full cooling of a minimum would not be felt for 3 years beyond the minimum. . . .thats likely 2 years from now. And with the 18 month delay in cosmic ray arrival from the outer reaches of the heliosphere; we are still in the territory of pre-minimum impacts and likely have 9 months to go before hitting the impacts of the deep minimum. Then of course you have the issue of what minimums can do alone. The correlations I have seen to solar are on entire cycles, not minimums. The last cycle was above average of the 23 cycles, but below average of the last 10 cycles. Thus the last cycle is rather neutral and would possibly encourage a flattening in the temperature record. . . .check! Now that cycle 24 is started; the impact of its intial year is only a fraction of its potential. Look at the temperature average for 2008/2009 (2 years of what is likely the bottom) as an average and you have a significant impact on temperature already. However, we have likely seen less than half the impact of this minimum alone. You are predicting much warmer in 2010 and 11 and if thats the case you will have a good case that minimums don't mean much. . . .I am not sure they do either as the only correlations to temperature I have seen are on whole cycles and the intensity of the entire cycle. And for a very average cycle, cycle 23 has produced a flat temperature profile, especially true if you offset the temperature impact 18 months. . . .meaning we still have some cycle 23 impacts coming. . . .and cycle 24 being predicted at 1/2 the intensity of the average of cycles 19 through 22; the solar/climate connection is just starting the big test. . . .so I would not be getting too anxious yet. Tell me in 7 years what you think when we are half way through cycle 24 climate impacts. A lot of criticism is laid on skeptics for drawing linear trend lines from 1998 to the present. . . .however. . . .its perfectly acceptable to do that from a cosmic ray climate connection point of view because its a single cycle cosmic ray impact line. You do the same through other previous cycles and you get expected results also for a cosmic ray/climate connection so its not a one time off phenomena nor is it cherry picking a starting point. The cosmic ray previous cycle peak occurred on Nov 6, 1997 and the cosmic ray peak for this cycle may not have yet occurred (being at record levels in the past month). Thus a 1998 line for correlation to cosmic ray cycles is very appropriately drawn from 1998 (technically 11/97) to the present are very appropos for making a cooling trend starting point. The AP hired some statisticians to pooh pooh the 1998 starting point by performing a statistical analysis on the recent cooling trend. They merely noted that the general underlying warming trend has had periodic short term cooling trends before. But, and this is a big but. . . .if you trend line the cosmic rays the overall trend has been negative, implying increasing temps overall for the period of the database 4/64 to present (matches temps). The trend 4/64 to 11/97 is even more negative, implying most of warming prior to 11/97. Post 11/97 the trend is positive, implying cooling. The important part to note though is the database includes the entire solar record thus it doesn't just look at minimums. After all we had a full solar maximum in april 2000 and a minimum in May 1996 and probably have yet to find the cosmic ray maximum for the probable 2009 solar minimum (sometime in 2010 probably). It also is likely true to obtain greater accuracy you probably want to smooth ENSOs out of the temperature record. Socold has already given us the answer to that effect in that the ENSO linear trend is still downwards. (Socold just has serious issues with appropriate starting points for trends. . . .resorting to true cherry picked starting points like his mentors do over at Real Climate.) That ENSO smoothing isn't going to change the signs of the linear trends we have been talking about though. So bottom line your prediction thats its over for solar theorists rests entirely upon your crystal ball in every respect. Your warming scenario is strongly tied to the GISS ENSO predictions, which in recent years have set record standards for futility and uselessness. In fact, trying to ride a weak and flagging El Nino seems to be what your predictions are all about. As I said smoothing the ENSOs out is probably the right thing to do, not cherry pick out 1998 and just eliminate that as some outlier that doesn't count. Bottom line is it takes decadal scale forcings really to make any difference. Thats because its not the atmosphere that is important here, its the oceans and the oceans like big ocean liners don't respond immediately to the helm. So its actually you who are looking for a weather change and calling it climate change.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Nov 1, 2009 23:33:32 GMT
Unfortunately you are victim of not understanding the numbers.
Of course - it's all down to my lack of understanding - so why don't you show me a solar/climate reconstruction which shows a strong correlation.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Nov 1, 2009 23:37:51 GMT
You are absolutely correct. All we have is correlation without causation.
I'm not sure we've even got a correlation.
As to the other observations of the Thames freezing, it should be noted that during the Maunder minimum the cold winters in the UK, and other parts of Western Europe, were not isolated incidents. My statement was the 1685 event was the greatest ice fair, not the only ice fair. The abnormally cold temperatures lasted, consistently, for more than a decade.
I'd love to know the source for these cold temperatures across Europe in the late 17th century.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 2, 2009 2:23:13 GMT
|
|