|
|
Post by glc on Sept 3, 2011 19:38:32 GMT
While its about a degree difference, 1780 to 1800 was warming at a rate of .72C/century over the 21 year window whereas 1990-2010 only warmed at .38C/century over its 21 year period even with overwhelming AGW in place.
And the warming rate for 1989-2009 was 1.85 deg per century over the 21 year window. In other words the lower rate was solely due to the cooler 2010. However, this is totally irrelevant The climate was quite different despite the similarity of solar activity.
Actually, though, your point does highlight the fact that temperatures had dropped BEFORE the Dalton Minimum and actually increased slightly as the DM approached thus providing us with a further demonstration of the lack of correlation between solar activity and climate.
Obviously if you smooth data you need some explanation for the smoothing, like system momentum.
I take it you've now given up attempting to show a correlation. I can understand that but spare us the justification for filtering, smoothing or whatever jiggery pokery is used to force some semblance of a fit - because, trust me, it'll only break down at some point (usually around the 1980s).
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 3, 2011 20:01:20 GMT
I asked "Was there a lag during the Dalton minimum?"
Icefisher replied
I think we answered that question above in test #2. The answer is yes
The weak Dalton Minimum cycles began in 1798. Icefisher claims there was cooling from 1800. What lag? Admittedly it was also much cooler in the mid-1780s when solar activity was very high but that ddeosn't sem to matter when you're looking for solar-climate links.
The trend continues down. The last ten years shows -.3deg/century cooling
Not true. The UAH trend shows a warming of ~0.1 deg (1 deg per century )over the past 10 years. We agreed to use UAH on this thread. This was agreed over 18 months ago because no-one trusted Hadley or GISS. What data are you using, icefisher?
|
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 3, 2011 20:22:11 GMT
Wow, so where did you guys find perfect TSI numbers, perfect UV v visible spectrum numbers, and perfect sunspots numbers for the Maunder and Dalton minima? Also, who measured the lower atmosphere and global surface temp during this period?
Kinda sounds like you guys are significantly over-reading available data by, well, an order of magnitude? or two?
Trends are fine, but lets get over oursleves and admit we are guessing at Maunder based on B10 and other proxies which may be way off if the solar "constant" is wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by justmeanu on Sept 3, 2011 20:23:34 GMT
Well it's good to see the science is settled then! as for climate change I'll just stick to wearing a hat, or wooly cardie eh' bit cheaper than the 76 trillion estimate to change the World
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 4, 2011 0:35:15 GMT
Kinda sounds like you guys are significantly over-reading available data by, well, an order of magnitude? or two?
GLC is the one who expressed certainty regarding his conclusions about delays in temperature response to solar forcing and he provided the data as he has done several times here over the years.
I simply showed him his data does not support his conclusions.
However, we do have CET climate measurements from the period and sunspot counts. Certainly one cannot use a single region as representing the entire globe but its the only record with sufficient details to estimate delays from. Thus if one wants to make claims based upon the data, as GLC desires to do, one should at least do the analysis properly. When you do the analytical part correctly one finds the findings are not supportive of GLC's conclusions.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 4, 2011 1:31:22 GMT
I asked "Was there a lag during the Dalton minimum?" Icefisher replied I think we answered that question above in test #2. The answer is yes The weak Dalton Minimum cycles began in 1798. Icefisher claims there was cooling from 1800. What lag? Admittedly it was also much cooler in the mid-1780s when solar activity was very high but that ddeosn't sem to matter when you're looking for solar-climate links. The trend continues down. The last ten years shows -.3deg/century cooling Not true. The UAH trend shows a warming of ~0.1 deg (1 deg per century )over the past 10 years. We agreed to use UAH on this thread. This was agreed over 18 months ago because no-one trusted Hadley or GISS. What data are you using, icefisher? How did you test the trend glc? Of course I'm just a bumbling idiot compared to your self described expertise on the subject. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=globalwarming&thread=1606&post=66901solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=globalwarming&thread=1606&post=66964Gotta love those endpoints yes? |
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 4, 2011 2:32:39 GMT
And WTF does your work hour comment mean and how is it relevant? BTW, I just got off a call with our Indian legal team, what did you do tonight smart guy? I was enjoying my retirement, thank you. By the way, I'm learning quite a bit on this thread. I still think that a grand minimum is not probable, and that even if it does occur, it won't change things too terribly much, perhaps a temporary few tenths of a degree C. We're warming up, and transient factors, such as volcanoes and grand minimums, are just bumps in the road. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 4, 2011 2:38:00 GMT
And WTF does your work hour comment mean and how is it relevant? BTW, I just got off a call with our Indian legal team, what did you do tonight smart guy? I was enjoying my retirement, thank you. By the way, I'm learning quite a bit on this thread. I still think that a grand minimum is not probable, and that even if it does occur, it won't change things too terribly much, perhaps a temporary few tenths of a degree C. We're warming up, and transient factors, such as volcanoes and grand minimums, are just bumps in the road. Actually, if we do go into a grand minimum, the temp decline will prob me more than a few tenth of a degree C. This will have profound effects on food supply, and that will be the driving cause of disruption throughout global society. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 4, 2011 2:57:44 GMT
And the warming rate for 1989-2009 was 1.85 deg per century over the 21 year window. In other words the lower rate was solely due to the cooler 2010. However, this is totally irrelevant The climate was quite different despite the similarity of solar activity.
You are the one that tried to make a point with the 1990-2010 versus 1780-1800 trends GLC!
If one looks at the Dalton CET for 1782 to 1802 you get a 3.24deg warming trend! Golly Gee GLC the lag grows huh?
CET variability is simply too great to arrive at the conclusions you arrived at GLC. Thats all I was demonstrating to you. According your own argument nothing is constrained, no evidence exists of a lack of solar correlation to temperature variation. It only exists in your mind and when you misrepresent CET.
The bottom line is in order to understand natural variation we need a lot more information on the dynamics of both the ocean and clouds and we will most likely need that knowledge to learn what the future holds no matter what mankind is doing.
Actually, though, your point does highlight the fact that temperatures had dropped BEFORE the Dalton Minimum and actually increased slightly as the DM approached thus providing us with a further demonstration of the lack of correlation between solar activity and climate.
You mean the CET record is not solely influenced by the sun? I can agree with that. I am pretty sure there is natural variability for both clouds and oceans that is not solar. But none of that distracts from solar possibly being the primary long term influence.
For example I have made an issue about bottom side cloud IR reflection.
While clouds are almost certainly a cooling influence that doesn't mean that when properly accounted for the greenhouse effect will be someplace between 76 watts and 155 watts. If clouds are cooling you can rule out 76 watts and if cloud bottom sides reflect IR you can rule out 155 watts assuming the lack of other errors.
I take it you've now given up attempting to show a correlation. I can understand that but spare us the justification for filtering, smoothing or whatever jiggery pokery is used to force some semblance of a fit - because, trust me, it'll only break down at some point (usually around the 1980s).
GLC, its no different than the curve fitting done to design the models to implement CO2 as an explanation for recent warming.
Parameters are tweaked within reasonable bounds to get the desired response. You have lots of models with lots of different tweaking as the uncertainty within the many variables is pretty much loose enough to come up with what you want to come up with. Financial models have the same kind of sensitivity to tweaking.
Thats why everybody gets so sensitive when somebody suggests that maybe the greenhouse effect does not produce 155 degrees warming as that is sacrosanct on the inside of the IPCC so whatever you do you are required to meet that standard or get blackballed.
Scientists of course can easily avoid getting blackballed for undercutting the propaganda program by playing with negative feedback. Negative feedback seems to be a lesser crime than challenging the assumption of 155 watts as then its getting technical and not directly challenging the "MESSAGE"!
Finally, the diversion noted in the padding region (at the end of the solar/temperature record) for solar can be justified by system momentum considering we have really no handle on that. At least its in the right direction. Whereas the explanation for the diversion from CO2 forcing needs something to overcome system momentum and CO2 both.
In other words GLC if it does cool .6deg over the next 20 years and solar does go into a 3 cycle funk everything will be copacetic with solar temperature correlation and AGW would be deader than a doornail.
|
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 4, 2011 6:07:30 GMT
I still think that a grand minimum is not probable, and that even if it does occur, it won't change things too terribly much, perhaps a temporary few tenths of a degree C. We're warming up, and transient factors, such as volcanoes and grand minimums, are just bumps in the road. Well, the solar phycists should be trusted on the minima/ grand minima question and I think they are leaning that way. The Livingston and Penn effect is just wild to ignore, and unprecedented. Svalgaard and Livingston have both hinted that this is likely what happened when we entered the Maunder. As for cooling we are nearly assured a few tenths C so that is a safe bet. I expect more than that and expect a ten year or so lag from the sunspot low to really start based on articles I wont go find and link tonight. One data note, I use this proxy for land temp: ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png (lower troposphere temp) I do not fully trust this one and think it hard to get it right based on stuff like heat islands: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201001-201012.gif |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 4, 2011 6:30:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 4, 2011 8:18:59 GMT
You are the one that tried to make a point with the 1990-2010 versus 1780-1800 trends GLC!
Er - No. I was making the point about the similarity of solar activity and the difference in temperature over the 2 periods. You read it wrong (as usual) and introduced trends.
Anyway I've asked for evidence of a solar-climate correlation and you haven't managed to find any. Please note the title of this thread.
In other words GLC if it does cool .6deg over the next 20 years and solar does go into a 3 cycle funk.....
'IF' it cools 0.6 deg over the next 20 years you've got the chance to make a bit of money. However, I doubt you believe it will cool so can we forget the sillly speculation.
As I said earlier UAH shows warming of ~0.1 deg between 2001 and 2010 - and that's with 2 La Ninas near the end of the period (2007/2008 & 2010/2011) AND a huge decline in solar activity.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 4, 2011 8:43:04 GMT
A couple interesting reads on how solar variability effects the atmosphere.
www.sciencemag.org/content/284/5412/305.short
www.sciencemag.org/content/294/5549/2149.short (BRRRRRRRRR, thats cold) Firstly I have cited the second of your links numerous times mainly to show that the aGW crowd accept that the sun can have a role in climate. Just note the names of some of the authors - particularly the names highlighted. Drew T. Shindell,
Gavin A. Schmidt,
Michael E. Mann, David Rind and Anne Waple Secondly read the Abstract (or the paper itself) carefully. This bit is most relevant. However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases This paper, from ~10 years ago, is more or less saying that the solar effect comes more from the shifting of weather patterns during periods of low activity which results in colder winters in the NH. This though has got nothing to do with a change in earth's energy balance which causes warming/cooling on a global scale. Though there is a relatively small effect here (due to lower TSI) from low solar activity.
|
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 4, 2011 11:35:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Sept 4, 2011 14:38:55 GMT
Solar activity at the end of the 18th century (1780-1800) was almost exactly the same as during the last 20 years (1990-2010). Temperatures were almost one degree lower. On close analysis, there appears to be very little correlation between solar activity and climate. Sure - there were periods when the curves seemed to go in the same direction but it's only by using highly speculative data filtering (e.g. F-C & L) that an extended period (100+ years) shows any agreement but it all breaks down after 1980 anyway. Livingston & Penn say nothing about climate effects. Their hypothesis deals solely with the reduced visibility of sunspots. I'm fairly sceptical of catastrophic AGW, but I'm more sceptical of some of the straw grabbing pet solar theories that are circulating the blogosphere. AGW is backed up by sound physics which has been built up over a century or more (see the work of Plass, Callendar & others). For the past 5 years we've had lower solar activity than a century ago. Temperatures are ~0.7 deg higher. Oh yeah - it's all down to thermal lag. Was there a lag during the Dalton minimum? This year, 2011, has been strongly affected by the cooling effects of La Nina. In 1987 there was an ongoing El Nino (warm phase) which started in 1986 and continued through until 1988. The first 8 month of 2011 are sigificantly warmer than the the first 8 months of 1987. Recent La Nina years are warmer than El Nino years of ~25 years ago. The transition from El Nino to La Nina (and vice versa) results in a temperature change of at least 0.5 deg. There's no evidence of any cooling - not even down to 1980s levels let alone maunder minimum levels. You cannot compare last decades with late 1700s. We have had way above average activity for decades until a few years ago which wasn't the case in 1700s. During previous grand minimums it took about a decade or so before temperatures really started dropping. |
|
