|
Post by magellan on Mar 11, 2009 16:16:56 GMT
Where is the heat hiding? Oceans? Nope. Atmosphere? Nope.
Where is the missing heat?
There is no heat "in the pipeline". How does this address my point. I never claimed there was any "missing heat". I have simply maintained (from the outset) that predictions of cooling were not only premature - but probably wrong. I stand by that. If I go back over previous posts I'm sure that a number of posters (including yourself) predicted plunging temperatures over the past NH winter - mainly due to reduced solar activity. I disputed this and suggested that the drop in 2008 was a result of the 2007/08 La Nina. Even then temperatures didn't drop any where the levels they had during previous La Nina episodes. I've already stated on another thread that there is an unexplained underlying warming trend since ~1900. I don't see it as catastrophic but it is there and it will likely continue. I accept a PDO shift may cause the warming to stall but I don't believe we'll go back to the temperatures we saw in the 1970s. The data is currently supporting my reading of the situation. Yes there may well be another La Nina but this willl not be as strong as the one in 2007/08, so I don't expect 2009 to be as cool as 2008. The future long term temperature trend will be gently upwards. There are cracks forming in the d**e, Met O and now NOAA. Explain where the warming you claim will continue is coming from. You have failed over and over to explain (or acknowledge) why the warming stopped, OHC waned and no "hot spot" in the atmosphere. There can be no continued surface warming if the oceans do not continue to retain more heat.The only why your scenario to work is to promote the enhanced GH effect, which does not exist. Since it is your view the sun is basically an incandescent light bulb (ala Svalgaard), what will overcome a now negative PDO, which until this post you have denied exists. Waming on hold for 30 years? Please analyze. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/Next we have this. Svalgaard will have a cow, but as he has on occasion will simply refer to Scafetta and Willson as "ilk": www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036307.shtmlwith the snippet See also: climatesci.org/2009/03/11/a-new-paper-on-solar-climate-forcing-acrim-gap-and-tsi-trend-issue-resolved-using-a-surface-magnetic-flux-tsi-proxy-model-by-scafetta-et-al-2009/And of course you deny all correlations between cosmic rays and weather or climate. Please explain as Leif Svalgaard avoids when asked in WUWT. www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h2eLthVbBG2KB428zgeirvoWrHIw
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 11, 2009 16:57:20 GMT
You have failed over and over to explain (or acknowledge) why the warming stopped,The build up of ghgs alters the radiative balance at the "top of the atmosphere" such that the earth's atmosphere needs to heat up in order to restore the balance (i.e. incoming = outgoing). Even among the sceptic community there is pretty widespread agreement on this fact. It's a simple truth that more CO2 in the atmosphere is more likely to lead to warming than cooling. Waming on hold for 30 years? Please analyze. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/I did say that a "PDO" shift could stall the warming trend for a bit but that I would still expect temperatures to remain above 1970s levels at the low point of the cycle - just as 1970s temperatures were higher than those in the early 20th century. There is an underlying trend of roughly 0.05 deg per decade over the past 70 years. Why wouldn't this continue? Re: Scafetta & West Assuming their study has produced valid results. How much does the TSI trend contribute to global warming? These are pretty small numbers which are quoted - particularly when you consider that the amount of solar energy the earth receives varies by around 7% over a year. And of course you deny all correlations between cosmic rays and weather or climate. Please explain as Leif Svalgaard avoids when asked in WUWT. www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h2eLthVbBG2KB428zgeirvoWrHIwRead your link. It doesn't mention warming - just precipitation (which is plausible). It also concludes by saying "The two scientists acknowledged that CO2 plays an important role in the changing climate"
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 11, 2009 21:49:14 GMT
Where is the heat hiding? Oceans? Nope. Atmosphere? Nope.
Where is the missing heat?
There is no heat "in the pipeline". How does this address my point. I never claimed there was any "missing heat". I have simply maintained (from the outset) that predictions of cooling were not only premature - but probably wrong. I stand by that. If I go back over previous posts I'm sure that a number of posters (including yourself) predicted plunging temperatures over the past NH winter - mainly due to reduced solar activity. I disputed this and suggested that the drop in 2008 was a result of the 2007/08 La Nina. Even then temperatures didn't drop any where the levels they had during previous La Nina episodes. I've already stated on another thread that there is an unexplained underlying warming trend since ~1900. I don't see it as catastrophic but it is there and it will likely continue. I accept a PDO shift may cause the warming to stall but I don't believe we'll go back to the temperatures we saw in the 1970s. The data is currently supporting my reading of the situation. Yes there may well be another La Nina but this willl not be as strong as the one in 2007/08, so I don't expect 2009 to be as cool as 2008. The future long term temperature trend will be gently upwards. I agree with some of this, but I don't think any of us can honestly predict the future long term temperature trend with any level of confidence. How do you explain the warming prior to 1900?
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 11, 2009 21:53:06 GMT
You have failed over and over to explain (or acknowledge) why the warming stopped,Re: Scafetta & West Assuming their study has produced valid results. How much does the TSI trend contribute to global warming? These are pretty small numbers which are quoted - particularly when you consider that the amount of solar energy the earth receives varies by around 7% over a year. This is actually a very good point. Stop and think about what you are stating: a 7% change in solar energy results in the change from summer to winter every year. We're talking a huge swing in temperatures for many places. So why does that lead you to believe that smaller solar variation could not lead to smaller (but still pretty significant) temperature changes?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 11, 2009 22:00:59 GMT
I did say that a "PDO" shift could stall the warming trend for a bit but that I would still expect temperatures to remain above 1970s levels at the low point of the cycle - just as 1970s temperatures were higher than those in the early 20th century. There is an underlying trend of roughly 0.05 deg per decade over the past 70 years. Why wouldn't this continue? I would rate that as likely as well. Cooling trends have been stunted since coming out of the LIA and before that temperature data is really sparse. It is reasonable to presume that while radical changes are occurring not seen before that these may not be persistent or may take some time to strongly reverse recent trends. It also concludes by saying "The two scientists acknowledged that CO2 plays an important role in the changing climate" LOL! Thats a rather crafty construction! Guess its much more accurate than to say CO2 plays an important role in changing the climate.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 11, 2009 22:57:36 GMT
You have failed over and over to explain (or acknowledge) why the warming stopped,Re: Scafetta & West Assuming their study has produced valid results. How much does the TSI trend contribute to global warming? These are pretty small numbers which are quoted - particularly when you consider that the amount of solar energy the earth receives varies by around 7% over a year. This is actually a very good point. Stop and think about what you are stating: a 7% change in solar energy results in the change from summer to winter every year. We're talking a huge swing in temperatures for many places. So why does that lead you to believe that smaller solar variation could not lead to smaller (but still pretty significant) temperature changes? Then take the Nir Shaviv paper that uses the Oceans as a Calorimeter and shows that the effect of variance in TSI on ocean heat content appears to be an order of magnitude greater than would be expected from the recorded change in TSI. The smaller (but still pretty significant) temperature changes could lead to more warming than expected from an active sun as compared to a weak sun.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 12, 2009 0:56:23 GMT
This is actually a very good point. Stop and think about what you are stating: a 7% change in solar energy results in the change from summer to winter every year. We're talking a huge swing in temperatures for many places. So why does that lead you to believe that smaller solar variation could not lead to smaller (but still pretty significant) temperature changes? Then take the Nir Shaviv paper that uses the Oceans as a Calorimeter and shows that the effect of variance in TSI on ocean heat content appears to be an order of magnitude greater than would be expected from the recorded change in TSI. The smaller (but still pretty significant) temperature changes could lead to more warming than expected from an active sun as compared to a weak sun. For the record, I attended the sceptics' conference in NYC this week, where I interviewed Shaviv for my book and listened to him give a presentation and sit on a panel. In my estimation, he was the most astute scientist at the conference (among many).
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 12, 2009 2:57:34 GMT
Then take the Nir Shaviv paper that uses the Oceans as a Calorimeter and shows that the effect of variance in TSI on ocean heat content appears to be an order of magnitude greater than would be expected from the recorded change in TSI. The smaller (but still pretty significant) temperature changes could lead to more warming than expected from an active sun as compared to a weak sun. For the record, I attended the sceptics' conference in NYC this week, where I interviewed Shaviv for my book and listened to him give a presentation and sit on a panel. In my estimation, he was the most astute scientist at the conference (among many). Did you hear Willie Soon? www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.htmlTuesday March 10 'watch uncut video' about 40 min into the video for those wishing to skip to his talk on the sun and politics of IPCC and politically motivated scientists.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 12, 2009 10:39:57 GMT
This is actually a very good point. Stop and think about what you are stating: a 7% change in solar energy results in the change from summer to winter every year. We're talking a huge swing in temperatures for many places. So why does that lead you to believe that smaller solar variation could not lead to smaller (but still pretty significant) temperature changes?
No - you haven't thought about this. This is an IMPORTANT point. I'm not talking about the seasonal change in solar energy which, depending on Latitude, can be much more than 7% (e.g the Arctic is more like 100%). I'm referring to the change due to the earth's orbit which means that the earth is closer to the sun in January than it is in July. If you want to study the effect of this (~7% change) you'd probably need to look at temperatures near to the equator.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 12, 2009 11:22:52 GMT
This is actually a very good point. Stop and think about what you are stating: a 7% change in solar energy results in the change from summer to winter every year. We're talking a huge swing in temperatures for many places. So why does that lead you to believe that smaller solar variation could not lead to smaller (but still pretty significant) temperature changes? No - you haven't thought about this. This is an IMPORTANT point. I'm not talking about the seasonal change in solar energy which, depending on Latitude, can be much more than 7% (e.g the Arctic is more like 100%). I'm referring to the change due to the earth's orbit which means that the earth is closer to the sun in January than it is in July. If you want to study the effect of this (~7% change) you'd probably need to look at temperatures near to the equator. What a difference a sampling period makes. I have noticed here - and I am close to the equator - that we also get a 100% variation in solar energy - at midday compared to midnight. The original discussion was on change of TSI between solar cycles - this is being obfuscated and ignored by changing the period from 11 years to 6 months and talking of variance due to the Earth's elliptical orbit. The research is on the comparison of TSI incident on the entire earth during solar sunspot cycles over a 50+ year period and the resultant effect on ocean heat content and flux. If you wish to be pedantic there are already many corrections that can be made to account for the elliptical orbit as is done for solar wind strength for example. It would appear that Shaviv's research has demonstrated that changes in TSI have an order of magnitude greater effect on Ocean Heat than has been assumed in the GCMs currently being used. His recommendation is that these models need to take this empirical measurement into account. It adds nothing to the discussion to evade the results of this research by confusing the issue with known seasonal variations due to Earth's orbit.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 12, 2009 16:14:56 GMT
You have failed over and over to explain (or acknowledge) why the warming stopped,The build up of ghgs alters the radiative balance at the "top of the atmosphere" such that the earth's atmosphere needs to heat up in order to restore the balance (i.e. incoming = outgoing). Even among the sceptic community there is pretty widespread agreement on this fact. It's a simple truth that more CO2 in the atmosphere is more likely to lead to warming than cooling. Waming on hold for 30 years? Please analyze. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/I did say that a "PDO" shift could stall the warming trend for a bit but that I would still expect temperatures to remain above 1970s levels at the low point of the cycle - just as 1970s temperatures were higher than those in the early 20th century. There is an underlying trend of roughly 0.05 deg per decade over the past 70 years. Why wouldn't this continue? Re: Scafetta & West Assuming their study has produced valid results. How much does the TSI trend contribute to global warming? These are pretty small numbers which are quoted - particularly when you consider that the amount of solar energy the earth receives varies by around 7% over a year. And of course you deny all correlations between cosmic rays and weather or climate. Please explain as Leif Svalgaard avoids when asked in WUWT. www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h2eLthVbBG2KB428zgeirvoWrHIwRead your link. It doesn't mention warming - just precipitation (which is plausible). It also concludes by saying "The two scientists acknowledged that CO2 plays an important role in the changing climate" It really doesn't matter what the evidence is, you will always obfuscate. It's getting hardly worth the time to even read your posts. What do you think clouds are? Precipitation systems are a climate regulatory mechanism; a change in cloud cover does what? Less clouds=________ more clouds=_______. Sheesh, must it be spelled out? Yes, the obligatory CO2 disclaimer must accompany every new discovery; wouldn't want to alienate themselves from the "consensus". So many of these scientists are heavily invested in funding based on CO2 dogma, bucking the status quo is dangerous ground to tread on. I note you didn't mention the false statements on GHG levels waiting there to cause temperatures to rise aggressively after 30 years of cooling. That is the "heat in the pipeline" malarkey the IPCC has been pushing ala Hansen et al. It is pseudoscience. Willie Soon isn't afraid to say it like is. He referred to CO2 measurements taken in Salt Lake City, Utah that exceeded 600 ppm yet temperatures show no correlating rise. How about watching the ICCP videos, namely those discussing the solar connection, being that your're a skeptic and all
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 12, 2009 16:56:15 GMT
What do you think clouds are? Precipitation systems are a climate regulatory mechanism; a change in cloud cover does what? Less clouds=________ more clouds=_______. Sheesh, must it be spelled out?
It's not a straightforward as you seem to think. Do you mean high clouds or low clouds? Where are these clouds? And when? As far a my sceptcism is concerned: if you're really a sceptic (or skeptic) you should be sceptical (skeptical) of everything even if it doesn't support your argument. At least we seem to have stepped back from the 'imminent dramatic cooling' scenario that was all the rage a few months. I suppose that's progess of sorts.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 12, 2009 17:08:29 GMT
The original discussion was on change of TSI between solar cycles - this is being obfuscated and ignored by changing the period from 11 years to 6 months and talking of variance due to the Earth's elliptical orbit.
Quite - and I pointed out that the TSI trend reported in the S&W study was tiny. The change in solar energy received by ALL the earth's surface over the annual cycle (not 6 months) is more than 200 times the S&W increase over the ~11 year period.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 12, 2009 23:01:11 GMT
GLC, your core belief is that the underlying warming trend seen since 1900 is due to CO2 increases. But there are two essential questions you have not been able to answer.
1. How do you explain the warming prior to 1900?
2. If C02 is driving the warming trend, then why haven't we warmed faster in the past 50 years than the 50 years prior to that? C02 has been increasing faster over the past 50 years, and the concentration today is much higher than it was 50 or 75 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 13, 2009 2:19:26 GMT
The original discussion was on change of TSI between solar cycles - this is being obfuscated and ignored by changing the period from 11 years to 6 months and talking of variance due to the Earth's elliptical orbit. Quite - and I pointed out that the TSI trend reported in the S&W study was tiny. The change in solar energy received by ALL the earth's surface over the annual cycle (not 6 months) is more than 200 times the S&W increase over the ~11 year period. I do suggest you read the Shaviv paper which looked at variance of ocean heat flux during sunspot cycles over a 50+ year period. Note NOT a single solar cycle or an annual cycle, or a 6 month cycle. 50 years of cycles within which you have your annual 200 times changes up and down and the seasonal changes and the diurnal changes. After which he found that the empirically observed OHC and heat flux varies by an order of magnitude more than expected from TSI changes and this level of variance is not reflected in the current models and that it should be included in these GCMs.
|
|