|
Post by socold on Jun 21, 2009 16:21:22 GMT
So why did you claim they are not represented in GCMs if you didn't actually know?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 21, 2009 18:14:31 GMT
Temperature contributions (2003-2009)-0.2C from sun +0.15C from rising greenhouse gases Net change = -0.05C Conclusion: net cooling doesn't falsify warming from rising greenhouse gases. Wow!!!!! .2C in 5 years!!!!!!! Thats 4C per century!!!!!!! And the sun has only been in deep minimum for a bit over a year!!! Imagine if we got 80 years of this or 4 centuries and then it recovered!?! Gee, wouldn't the recovery look something like this? But then on the other hand .2C in five years (4C per century) doesn't fit so well pre-significant CO2 emissions. A better fit would be .05C per 5 years positive solar anomaly (1C per century) jumping around some from noise and PDOs etc but trending at that level. . . .or maybe you could squeeze in a .5 per century AGW. . . .meaning maybe if the trend is reversing it will only be .5 cooler a century from now. But who knows? Certainly not the dodo bird with the calculator up his butt and his head in the sand. Thanks for the astute observation on this Socold!!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 21, 2009 18:19:41 GMT
Temperature contributions (2003-2009)-0.2C from sun +0.15C from rising greenhouse gases Net change = -0.05C Conclusion: net cooling doesn't falsify warming from rising greenhouse gases. Wow!!!!! .2C in 5 years!!!!!!! Thats 4C per century!!!!!!! And the sun has only been in deep minimum for a bit over a year!!! Imagine if we got 80 years of this or 4 centuries and then it recovered!?! Continued cooling for 80 years would require continued drop in solar output for 80 years.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 21, 2009 19:07:10 GMT
socold you ducked the GCM source question with a convenient retort that I didn't know the code. But my grievous error was reading how no one understood noctilucent clouds, but how about a little wager say $1000 that the noctilucent clouds are not in the GCM, are you interested? I will do with the decoding of the GCM but you pick the model and get the source code and data sets. The number is typically what I would charge for a couple hours of my time and I suspect that it will probably take me way longer to understand the code then explain it to you, so you win either way.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 21, 2009 19:25:46 GMT
Wow!!!!! .2C in 5 years!!!!!!! Thats 4C per century!!!!!!! And the sun has only been in deep minimum for a bit over a year!!! Imagine if we got 80 years of this or 4 centuries and then it recovered!?! Continued cooling for 80 years would require continued drop in solar output for 80 years. The source of the graph above is: Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, IARC Founding Director and Professor of Physics, Emeritus, was the the director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks from its establishment in 1998 until January of 2007. He originally came to the University of Alaska Fairbanks in 1958 as a graduate student to study the aurora under Sydney Chapman, receiving his PhD in 1961. He has been professor of geophysics since 1964. Dr. Akasofu has published more than 550 professional journal articles, authored and co-authored 10 books and has been the invited author of many encyclopedia articles. He has collaborated with numerous colleagues nationally and internationally, and has guided nine students to their Ph.D. degrees. You claim to not know much about physics so you must have a source for that and you can't just rely on LW models because water is mostly transparent to SW and opaque to LW, not to speak of what it says about your "the heat is in the pipeline" argument. ROTFLMAO!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 21, 2009 20:09:47 GMT
socold you ducked the GCM source question with a convenient retort that I didn't know the code. But my grievous error was reading how no one understood noctilucent clouds, but how about a little wager say $1000 that the noctilucent clouds are not in the GCM, are you interested? I will do with the decoding of the GCM but you pick the model and get the source code and data sets. The number is typically what I would charge for a couple hours of my time and I suspect that it will probably take me way longer to understand the code then explain it to you, so you win either way. I am not claiming they are in the models, so why would I bet on it? You stated they are not in the GCMs without knowing. Now if you said "I suspect they are not in the GCMs" fair enough. But you stated they weren't in there as if you knew this for a fact and even formed an argument based on this. I took nautonnier to task for doing the same thing when he argued "'so much for the 'there is no water vapor above the tropopause' claims". Where is this stuff coming from? Are you just imagining people saying stuff and imagining what the models contain? As for the source code I am also unsure how you would determine if noctilucent clouds were in the models unless it is explicitly commented as such.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 21, 2009 20:16:58 GMT
Continued cooling for 80 years would require continued drop in solar output for 80 years. The source of the graph above is: If we stay in solar minimum for 80 years that won't cause 80 years of linear cooling. It will cause only about 0.1C cooling in total and most of that will happen in the first decade. This is compatible with climate sensitivities from climate models as reported by the IPCC. If you are claiming maintained solar minimum would cause 0.6C warming you are proposing a climate sensitivity of about 16C per doubling of co2. Also if it was that high we would see a very big cycle in the temperature record corresponding to the 11-year solar cycle. Plenty of reasons to think the solar cycle contribution is about 0.1C from min to max, possibly less. I don't know much about physics, only the basics. But calculating the forcing from solar max to minimum is basics. Noting that if minimum continues for 80 years that just leaves longer timeframe for the climate to respond to the same max->min forcing is also just basics.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 21, 2009 21:19:12 GMT
I don't know much about physics, but that doesn't stop me from incessantly yammering on about the subject. If I can keep this particular circular argument going for a couple of more rounds, I will get another merit badge from my scoutmasters at realclimate.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 21, 2009 23:30:03 GMT
If we stay in solar minimum for 80 years that won't cause 80 years of linear cooling. It will cause only about 0.1C cooling in total and most of that will happen in the first decade. This is compatible with climate sensitivities from climate models as reported by the IPCC. Except for two things. First off, the "heat in the pipe" you need for your AGW hypothesis...would apply to solar minimums as well. It would take time for any substantial change to occur. But solar forcing usually manages to turn temperatures on a dime. Imagine whatever causes those pronounced temperature changes lasting for a decade or longer. Then you're forgetting those laughably high feedbacks. Feedbacks supposedly take even longer to kick in...they'd certainly never do anything significant in the normally short solar minimums of the recent past. Give it a decade though and that 2X-4X amplification you seem to think is workable (thankfully it's rather obviously not) would work just fine. Seems to me that a grand minimum has quite a lot more cooling capability than you give it credit for.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 22, 2009 4:20:58 GMT
socold .1 C we should be so lucky www.davidarchibald.info/papers/QuantifyingAgProductivityResponseSolarCycle%2024.pdf"The change in plant hardiness zones over the 1990 to 2006 period is explained by solar cycle length changes. Solar Cycle 20 from 1964 to 1976 was 11.6 years long. Solar Cycle 21 was shorter than average at 10.3 years and Solar Cycle 22 from 1986 to 1996 was very short at 9.6 years long. There is a correlation between solar cycle length and temperature over the following solar cycle. In the mid-latitudes of the US north-eastern seaboard, this is 0.7° C for each year of solar cycle length. With the cumulative change in solar cycle length between Solar Cycle 20 and Solar Cycle 22 of two years, this would have translated to a 1.4º C increase in temperature by early this decade relative to early 1970s. This is reflected in the northward shift of plant hardiness zones as mapped by The National Arbor Day Foundation. By virtue of a lack of Solar Cycle 23 sunspots, solar minimum of the Solar Cycle 23 to 24 transition appears to have been in late 2008. This makes Solar Cycle 23 three years long than its predecessor. Consequently, using the 0.7° C per year of solar cycle length relationship, there will be a 2.1º C decline in temperature of the mid-latitudes next decade during Solar Cycle 24." So far David Archibald has been correct on most of his calls way ahead of any guesses of .1C. Corbyn and Archibald have been calling it correctly. AGW CO2 "physics" as referenced by the IPCC charts above are totally incorrect drifting further from reality every day after 2000.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 22, 2009 4:44:35 GMT
The source of the graph above is: If we stay in solar minimum for 80 years that won't cause 80 years of linear cooling. It will cause only about 0.1C cooling in total and most of that will happen in the first decade. This is compatible with climate sensitivities from climate models as reported by the IPCC. If you are claiming maintained solar minimum would cause 0.6C warming you are proposing a climate sensitivity of about 16C per doubling of co2. Also if it was that high we would see a very big cycle in the temperature record corresponding to the 11-year solar cycle. Plenty of reasons to think the solar cycle contribution is about 0.1C from min to max, possibly less. Fact is Socold, I am not a big fat stupid know it all. I have not assumed that I know the mechanism. You ASS+U-ME it is due to a higher sensitivity, implying you also know the source of the forcing and something about that too. Myself I like to take a little time to check stuff out a little before I start doing stuff like writing checks for the purchase of bridges connecting New York City burroughs. I don't know much about physics, only the basics. But calculating the forcing from solar max to minimum is basics. Noting that if minimum continues for 80 years that just leaves longer timeframe for the climate to respond to the same max->min forcing is also just basics. Oh! You know that too. Boy you are really smart Socold. Perhaps you can tell us all about it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 22, 2009 11:33:46 GMT
socold you ducked the GCM source question with a convenient retort that I didn't know the code. But my grievous error was reading how no one understood noctilucent clouds, but how about a little wager say $1000 that the noctilucent clouds are not in the GCM, are you interested? I will do with the decoding of the GCM but you pick the model and get the source code and data sets. The number is typically what I would charge for a couple hours of my time and I suspect that it will probably take me way longer to understand the code then explain it to you, so you win either way. GCMs are one of the tools used to understand the climate. I don't think that most GCM runs would include noctilucent clouds. At a guess they might be covered by some of the atmospheric chemistry models that are being used more frequently these days. That doesn't mean they are ignored by climate science. A rough estimate of their increase in frequency plus a calculation of the estimated "forcing" effect on the climate can be used to show whether they may have an important influence on climate without using a GCM.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 22, 2009 11:57:58 GMT
GCMs are one of the tools used to understand the climate. I don't think that most GCM runs would include noctilucent clouds. At a guess they might be covered by some of the atmospheric chemistry models that are being used more frequently these days. That doesn't mean they are ignored by climate science. A rough estimate of their increase in frequency plus a calculation of the estimated "forcing" effect on the climate can be used to show whether they may have an important influence on climate without using a GCM. What is a rough estimate? May be important? Another calculation? Climate science? Who is that? You talk a very strange jargon indeed.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 22, 2009 12:05:20 GMT
GCMs are one of the tools used to understand the climate. I don't think that most GCM runs would include noctilucent clouds. At a guess they might be covered by some of the atmospheric chemistry models that are being used more frequently these days. That doesn't mean they are ignored by climate science. A rough estimate of their increase in frequency plus a calculation of the estimated "forcing" effect on the climate can be used to show whether they may have an important influence on climate without using a GCM. What is a rough estimate? May be important? Another calculation? Climate science? Who is that? You talk a very strange jargon indeed. It's (bad) English, not jargon (except for the "forcing" bit).
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 22, 2009 13:21:02 GMT
steve and socold Another link which mentions again that CO2 is rising but the temperatures are falling, which shows that the AGW physics has chosen some incorrect values. Reality climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3617sorry about the previous link now goes to the article
|
|