|
Post by ron on Mar 12, 2009 4:29:16 GMT
I would think the increase would be non-linear, so the increase should be much greater in degrees as the percentage increases... ? Wouldn't a log chart be better for graphing temperature increase due to CO2?
Then again, it would make the hockey stick look flatter, so I guess "better" depends on the eye of the beholder, or the chartmanshipper.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 12, 2009 6:22:59 GMT
glc: So La Nina can make it cooler, but El Nino wasn't part of the cause of making it warmer? (Can't have it both ways). Regarding solar effects: Nasa has put out a call for papers to study the "extrodinarily quiet" solar minimum. Evidence & consequences of this event: nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=178281/B.9%20CCMSC_clarified.pdf------------------------------- Causes – Solar output Lowest sustained solar radio flux since the F 10.7 proxy was created in 1947; Solar wind global pressure the lowest observed since the beginning of the Space age; Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the current solar minimum; Solar wind magnetic field 36% weaker than during the minimum of Solar Cycle 23; Effectively no sunspots; The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer belt; and Cosmic rays at near record-high levels. Consequences With the exception of 1934, 2008 had more instances of 3-hr periods with Kp=0 than any other year since the creation of the index in 1932; Cold contracted ionosphere and upper atmosphere; andRemarkably persistent recurrent geomagnetic activity. -------------------------------------------- The atmosphere contracted due to decreased solar activity.(That's activity across the spectrum of solar influence. ie, UV & X-ray in particular, a lack of CME's, proton flux, energetic electrons, solar wind.... Not limited to such a simplistic measure such as TSI) My suggestion has been that the global temperature is partially regulated by heat loss at the poles.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 12, 2009 10:11:45 GMT
glc:
So La Nina can make it cooler, but El Nino wasn't part of the cause of making it warmer? (Can't have it both ways).I never said that. In fact most of the temperature fluctuations over the past 15 years can be explained by ENSO. However there still appears to be a slight underlying CO2 (or other) signal. If it was just down ENSO recent El Nino events would result in roughly the same global temperature anomaly as those in the 1980s and other periods. Similarly for La Nina events. But that's not the case. Recent El Nino are warmer than previous El Nino and recent La Nina are not as cold as previous La Nina. For example, temperatures in 2008 were low relative to the last 10 years, but they were still above the long term average. Regarding solar effects: Nasa has put out a call for papers to study the "extrodinarily quiet" solar minimum.Ok fine, but there might be 2 entirely separate issues here. The sun is in a deep minimum and it's quite natural that scientists, who have not observed anything like this for at least 100 years, would want to study the effects in close detail. However, that does not automatically link to climate change. It might - but it certainly hasn't yet and you're jumping the gun by suggesting otherwise. If you refer back to my CET link (previous post) you'll note that the Dalton Minimum was no colder than many other periods in the 19th century. None of the "Evidence" (as in Evidence & consequences of this event) listed in your post mentioned earth's climate. But there is an interesting "consequence" which states "With the exception of 1934, 2008 had more instances of 3-hr periods with Kp=0 than any other year since the creation of the index in 1932;"
Wasn't 1934 the year the US experienced it's warmest year on record? There is a long, long way to go before a solar/climate link is established.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 12, 2009 11:40:45 GMT
glc:
So La Nina can make it cooler, but El Nino wasn't part of the cause of making it warmer? (Can't have it both ways).I never said that. In fact most of the temperature fluctuations over the past 15 years can be explained by ENSO. However there still appears to be a slight underlying CO2 (or other) signal. If it was just down ENSO recent El Nino events would result in roughly the same global temperature anomaly as those in the 1980s and other periods. Similarly for La Nina events. But that's not the case. Recent El Nino are warmer than previous El Nino and recent La Nina are not as cold as previous La Nina. For example, temperatures in 2008 were low relative to the last 10 years, but they were still above the long term average. I have said this before but the ENSO is actually part of the global system. Therefore El Nino/La Nina may change _atmospheric_ temperatures but it does not affect ' global warming'. The oceans are cooling - this is more important than the atmosphere staying slightly above the average temperature of the last 30 years of the twentieth century. If you mean 'global' then include the oceans - if you mean atmospheric warming then you should say so.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 12, 2009 13:14:23 GMT
I have said this before but the ENSO is actually part of the global system. Therefore El Nino/La Nina may change _atmospheric_ temperatures but it does not affect 'global warming'. The oceans are cooling - this is more important than the atmosphere staying slightly above the average temperature of the last 30 years of the twentieth century.
I think I may scream in a minute. You are correct - ENSO does not change the amount of heat in the climate (atmosphere/ocean) system but it does influence temperature measurements at the surface and in the atmosphere. HOWEVER, there is a warming signal in both the oceans and atmosphere which suggests there is another factor at play. If ocean cycles (ENSO/PDO etc) were the only factor then we would expect temperatures to remain roughly within a constant range. which they appear to do (See CET record) in the 19th century - but not in the 20th century.
If you mean 'global' then include the oceans - if you mean atmospheric warming then you should say so
I don't say "atmospheric warming" - because that's not necessarily what I mean. There has been "global warming" - just not as much as a simple Least Sq fit might suggest. Perhaps if I try phrasing it differently. If we were able to remove all ocean cycle effects (ENSO/PDO etc) from the temperature record then we would still find a steady warming trend (perhaps ~0.05 per decade) which does not appear to be cyclic.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 12, 2009 14:21:42 GMT
Is La Nina a cooling event for the ocean or a warming event for the ocean? My first instinct is to say it's a warming event, a time when the ocean ise absorbing heat from the atmosphere and storing it away.
But I could be wrong. Often am.
|
|
|
Post by quasicon on Mar 12, 2009 15:38:14 GMT
I went to that, after seeing WattsUpWihThat yesterday: Solar Cycle 24 has ended according to NASA 11 03 2009 Solar Cycle 24 has ended according to NASA. Yes you read that right. Somebody at NASA can’t even figure out which solar cycle they are talking about. Or, as commenters to the thread have pointed out, perhaps they see that cycle 24 has been skipped. We’ll be watching this one to see the outcome. I don't get it. Any help?
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Mar 12, 2009 15:58:11 GMT
glc: Regarding solar effects: Nasa has put out a call for papers to study the "extrodinarily quiet" solar minimum. Evidence & consequences of this event: ------------------------------- Causes – Solar output Lowest sustained solar radio flux since the F 10.7 proxy was created in 1947; Solar wind global pressure the lowest observed since the beginning of the Space age; Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the current solar minimum; Solar wind magnetic field 36% weaker than during the minimum of Solar Cycle 23; Effectively no sunspots; The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer belt; and ****** Cosmic rays at near record-high levels. ****** Consequences With the exception of 1934, 2008 had more instances of 3-hr periods with Kp=0 than any other year since the creation of the index in 1932; Remarkably persistent recurrent geomagnetic activity. -------------------------------------------- **The atmosphere contracted due to decreased solar activity. *** (That's activity across the spectrum of solar influence. ie, UV & X-ray in particular, a lack of CME's, proton flux, energetic electrons, solar wind.... Not limited to such a simplistic measure such as TSI) My suggestion has been that the global temperature is partially regulated by heat loss at the poles. Doesn't the fact that cosmic rays have reached near maximum levels (as mentioned above by NASA) and the fact that the atmosphere has contracted, provide support for the Svensmark theory and provide an additional factor not considered in the IPCC?? e.g. the expansion of the atmosphere during solar maxima and contraction during solar minima? Both of these are "solar influenced factors" that are not considered significant by the IPCC and (presumably) not modeled by the GCMs. Interesting!! Living in interesting times is interesting, but the consequences could be very nasty. Cold kills a lot more people than heat waves. I was born in Canada (the southern "balmy" part), and lived through the great ice storm of 1998. There was a cold front after the ice-storm and Montreal was almost frozen to death (no heat in the homes). Fortunately, one (out of 5) high voltage electrical line didn't collapse due to the weight of the ice (the other 4 did!) and that line allowed the warming shelters to keep many people alive. There would have been huge loss of life if that line had failed. Winter and cold can kill directly or indirectly through crop failure due to early/late frosts. I know that the ice-storm of 1998 occurred during the biggest El Nino of recent times, BUT I was using the ice-storm as an analogy to explain the potential loss of life from the cold. We are a tropical species and we don't do very well in the cold. Ian
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 12, 2009 16:48:12 GMT
glc, you can scream all you like, but that doesn't make all of the warming that we have seen for the last 100 years due strictly to CO2.
That is the issue the the politico's and AGW scientists have been shoving down our throat for the last 5-10 years.
Can CO2 play a role in the warming? Sure. How much? Now that is the important question. And one that the AGW "scientists" like Hansen are unwilling to relent on.
Just like the financial quant models, the AGW theory rests on man made, complex climate models that predict a result.
Neither has worked reliably. Too many variables that are poorly understood and are under or over quantified in the end product.
Is this really what you want to base "sound" fiscal policy on?
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 12, 2009 16:53:23 GMT
glc:
You have also seemed to ignore the quotes in orange.
You don't think a "cold contracted ionosphere and upper atmosphere" will affect climate?
Why is it contracting? The sun is quiet.
A basic part of heat transfer equation is the thickness of the insulator. If the insulator is thinner, then heat is transferred out more readily. Denser fluids also transfer heat more readily.
I think this is a major part of the missing link to the sun-earth question that we have not been able to measure but for the last ~50 years. A time when the sun has been active.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 12, 2009 17:23:42 GMT
you can scream all you like, but that doesn't make all of the warming that we have seen for the last 100 years due strictly to CO2.
I'm not screaming. I've spent much of the last 4 years arguing on AGW blogs that AGW will not be catastrophic, so if warming doesn't progress as expected by the alarmist crowd, I'll be more than happy . Some of the same points (the sensible ones) I see on here and WUWT, I was making 2 or 3 years ago. But I'm not going to fall in behind any and every crackpot idea just because it happens to counter the AGW argument.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 12, 2009 23:11:36 GMT
If CO2 was the primary driver of temperature increases, why was there basically the same amount of warming from the 1910s to the 1940s as there was from the 1970s to the 2000s? Should the temperature increase have been greater, since the concentration of CO2 was considerably higher?Possibly - but that assumes all other factors (apart from CO2) are the same in the 2 periods. The way I see it, the 'ocean effect' provides the dominant signal, i.e. the cyclical pattern and it is this that dominates the warming trend. CO2 (or perhaps something else) just amplifies it a bit while damping the cooling trend during the cool phase(s) of the cycle. Also, what caused the warming during the 19th century? CO2 increases were miniscule then compared to what they are today. The oceans again. Look at the CET record here www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcet.htmlI know it's only a small region but it's not a bad proxy for the NH. Between 1780 and 1900 there are a number of warm peaks and cold troughs. Even the Dalton Minimum (1790-1820) doesn't disrupt this pattern to any great extent. I know I'm repeating myself but here goes again. While on a voyage in 1817, William Scoresby (Jnr), an English Arctic explorer, "noted a remarkable diminution of polar ice" (see www.whitby-yorkshire.co.uk/scoresby/scoresby.htm). Ok - you can argue that this is only a single piece of anecdotal evidence, but Scoresby (and his father) was a highly experienced sea captain. It's interesting to speculate why there was an apparent lack of polar ice in a period when the sun was in a deep minimum. So the question then becomes, what would be driving the oceans to warm over time? You are saying that they were largely responsible for the warming trend seen over the 19th century...so why do you think they were warming then, and why do you think C02 suddenly took over as the underlying driver in the 20th century? Every GLOBAL temperature trend chart that I have seen shows a warming trend from 1800-1900.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 12, 2009 23:31:34 GMT
glc:
If you refer back to my CET link (previous post) you'll note that the Dalton Minimum was no colder than many other periods in the 19th century.
. This is not correct. Globally, the Dalton Minimum was colder than any other period in the 19th century.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 13, 2009 0:18:31 GMT
This is not correct. Globally, the Dalton Minimum was colder than any other period in the 19th century.
Any evidence? I haven't seen any long term data which supports a particularly cold Dalton Minimum. CET - No; Uppsala - there was a cooling trend after the Dalton minimum period. Armagh & De Bilt are similar to the CET. Of course there were cold spells but there were cold spells throughout the 19th century - and don't forget that the Tombura eruption took place in 1815 which was likely responsible for the "year without a summer" (1816).
But if you've got something else let's have it.
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Mar 13, 2009 0:39:19 GMT
glc:
If you refer back to my CET link (previous post) you'll note that the Dalton Minimum was no colder than many other periods in the 19th century.
. This is not correct. Globally, the Dalton Minimum was colder than any other period in the 19th century. Actually, most of the Dalton minimum was the same temps as the preceeding and following decades. The period from 1810 to 1820 was very cold, due to two VEI 6 volcanic eruptions in 1809 and the Tambora eruption (VEI 7) in 1812, the year without a summer. Mt. Pinatubo caused a measureable (and well modelled) dip in temperatures from 1992 to 1994, and it was only a VEI 6 volcano. Also, as Dr. Svalgaard has explained elsewhere on this site, there was very little difference between the solar energy during the Dalton minimum and the minimums we experience every 9 to 13 years during the recent solar cycles. Face it, the sun does control climate, but the variations in the sun's output can't explain the climate change we're experiencing now.
|
|