|
|
Post by socold on Jul 2, 2010 18:33:04 GMT
It is the only energy source for this planet. How is the effect NOT big. You don't find it ironic that during the period we have had small amount of warming on this planet we also had warming on other planets. Is it your contention that the sun has little effect on us but large effect on the others? They wear blinders. The TSI changes we have seen have been minor but even 1.3w/m2 can be converted into a much more powerful force like a trickle charger on a Taser Gun. These yahoos are on a political mission so no understanding of the real ways of the world is going to change their point of view. So you are advocating positive feedback for solar causes... If you were consistent with your belief that climate has overall negative feedback you would surely believe TSI was dampened by the climate, rather than doing the opposite and proposing it must be amplified. You afterall have no reason to imagine there is a "trickle charger on a Taser Gun" effect, and if you do want to enteratin that idea why not entertain it for greenhouse gases too? At least I am consistent, I say there is a positive feedback in climate that amplifies both solar forcing and greenhouse gas forcing (and aerosol forcing, and orbital forcing, etc) |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 2, 2010 18:38:40 GMT
Problem with the projections like above is, that the relentless growth is not yet here, but will always start next year. Few decades back with cold AMO, Alpine glaciers advanced like hell, not caring about the CO2 rise. What is the mechanism, which will break the correlation in the future?  blue - advancing pink - declining gray-steady red curve - AMO index What if AMO follows temperature? Ie warming periods (early 20th century and late 20th century) cause glaciers decline and also cause the AMO to be positive. During cooling periods or flat periods (1960s/1970s) causes glaciers to grow and also causes the AMO to become negative. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 2, 2010 18:41:53 GMT
Socold, your graphs make it pretty obvious that you are blaming 100% of the warming period's temperature increases on AGW. Also they seem to show an exponential curve when the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is more linear and CO2's theoretical maximum forcing is logarithmic.  The graph is mainly to show that a) recent flatness in HadCRUT3 global temperature record does not falsify an ongoing background warming trend. But also b) that background warming trend may even be exponential. Some of the model projections show exponential trend, others don't:  |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 2, 2010 18:49:13 GMT
Socold, I'm glad to see that you've moved the starting date of your analysis back toinclude the early 1900's. Have you tried to develop a fit using a lower GHG forcing? Other Ocean Current data including PDO may help with the fit. Or you can just reflect the 60-year cycle which shows up in the Hadcrut data which goes back to the mid-1800's. And inclusion of the general natural warming trend which existed before CO2 started to increase significantly would also be in order. I know this will give you a better fit as it will not suffer from the problem that your graphs show - current temperatures are running below the curve. Could this be because you are imposing a requirement that the curve rise to 3C by 2100? The comparison with observed temperature should be between the blue line and the red line, so far they match - but then that's expected because I curve fitted everything. It could easily fall apart next year or the year after. The green curve is just showing one component of the change, that is offset by the other components to form the blue line. PDO is effectively included in the data through ENSO, which tracks PDO over time fairly well. I am not attributing the green trend to all be co2 and I could have got a fairly similar result using a linear trend rather than exponential, but I wanted to show the possibility that the background warming trend is exponential. Maybe that warming trend is largely due to things other than greenhouse gases. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 2, 2010 18:59:38 GMT
They wear blinders. The TSI changes we have seen have been minor but even 1.3w/m2 can be converted into a much more powerful force like a trickle charger on a Taser Gun. These yahoos are on a political mission so no understanding of the real ways of the world is going to change their point of view. So you are advocating positive feedback for solar causes... If you were consistent with your belief that climate has overall negative feedback you would surely believe TSI was dampened by the climate, rather than doing the opposite and proposing it must be amplified. You afterall have no reason to imagine there is a "trickle charger on a Taser Gun" effect, and if you do want to enteratin that idea why not entertain it for greenhouse gases too? At least I am consistent, I say there is a positive feedback in climate that amplifies both solar forcing and greenhouse gas forcing (and aerosol forcing, and orbital forcing, etc) A trickle charger is not feedback Socold. Its a concentration of energy temporarily stored in a place with a release mechanism. It has nothing whatsoever even remotely to do with feedback. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 2, 2010 21:45:20 GMT
Socold, I'm glad to see that you've moved the starting date of your analysis back toinclude the early 1900's. Have you tried to develop a fit using a lower GHG forcing? Other Ocean Current data including PDO may help with the fit. Or you can just reflect the 60-year cycle which shows up in the Hadcrut data which goes back to the mid-1800's. And inclusion of the general natural warming trend which existed before CO2 started to increase significantly would also be in order. I know this will give you a better fit as it will not suffer from the problem that your graphs show - current temperatures are running below the curve. Could this be because you are imposing a requirement that the curve rise to 3C by 2100? LOL, he didn't redo the graph...I did. The 3C fit on his projection is utter crap though  |
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Jul 5, 2010 20:49:29 GMT
Water has >3000 times the heat capacity of air. Upper two meters of oceans have the same heat capacity as the whole atmosphere. And even if wearing the short sleeves turns spring to summer air warms the ocean, there is no correlation with "GISS sum of forcing" whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 6, 2010 15:01:42 GMT
But what if AMO follows temperature?
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jul 10, 2010 1:25:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 10, 2010 4:35:17 GMT
Precisely! That's what I've been shouting from the rooftops for many months. The Arctic is going to cool big time in the next 12 months; there are already signs in OHC and LT data, not to mention DMI SAT. Warmologists look at MSU LT spikes as warming, but once the ocean data is examined, the obvious conclusion is a release of heat which translates into coming cooling. The same for this El Nino that has released heat from a much wider area outside the traditional NINO region. For some reason our resident alarmists can't see the forest for the trees. Watch as global SST plummet this month first. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 10, 2010 17:26:58 GMT
The ocean data shows warming too. Your argument that an El Nino means a release of heat as if that means the warming trend doesn't exist is pretty absurd, it's like saying if it's hot therefore it's cold.  |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jul 10, 2010 17:35:20 GMT
The ocean data shows warming too. Your argument that an El Nino means a release of heat as if that means the warming trend doesn't exist is pretty absurd, it's like saying if it's hot therefore it's cold. and in Kelvins the same graph looks like a pancake with a blueberry or two |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 10, 2010 17:37:15 GMT
In Kelvins a drop enough to kill someone would look like a pancake
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jul 10, 2010 21:22:15 GMT
In Kelvins a drop enough to kill someone would look like a pancake (a) You're not being clear, at all, i.e. do you mean a drop of internal body temperature? (b) Like the global mean temperature's paltry fluctuations over the course of the current interglacial my body temperature has its own minor ups and downs but I tend toward homeostasis. The same could be said, roughly, of SSTs during the Holocene (with a minor decline over the last 7,000 years or so) -- more than stable enough to present the best-ever scenario for human development. We are lucky to be living during such favorable conditions. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 10, 2010 21:34:08 GMT
In Kelvins a drop enough to kill someone would look like a pancake Woodstove is talking about the chart you published which showed natural variations of about a 1/2 degree and a trend of 1/5th of a degree. You come in and say those would kill you? I have lived in different parts of the country where day temperatures have more than a 145 deg Farenheit temperatures. From 115degrees to -30degrees. In fact I have seen a lot more 115 degF days than negative 30 degree days. Neither of those killed me though. So you need to use a little math to clarify what the heck you are talking about. |
|
