Global warming discussion III

[greybeard]

That is impossible. Because if that is true, it makes a lot of important people wrong, and since they can't be wrong, it didn't happen.

That is how science works now. Since the majority of scientists who matter believe all the warming is human caused, it can't be the sun. The sun can't have any influence on climate, because humans control the climate now. So it must be wrong.

Please don't ask me to actually look at data and research, it would be a waste of time, because I already know everything that matters.

You do realise that climate scientists know that the suns output varies and can have an effect on climate. Just the same as they realise that if we put billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year the climate will change. If you want to call them very important people then that's up to you but I think we are getting into the realm of conspiracy fantasies again.

 

[CapelDodger]

You should take it up with NASA ... the study is VERY clear ... the average TSI in the 20th century INCREASED by .05 percent per decade.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/93620main_sun5m.jpg

You show a graph from 1980 and call it the 20th century; DC shows one from 1895. TSI went up for half the century then stayed flat. Most of the global warming occurred in the latter half.

Increased TSI has no doubt contributed to global warming since 1900, and was in fact discussed as an explanation for the warming of the 1910-20's during the 1930's. Another contributor has been the low volcanic activity since the 19thCE, which saw a lot of activity.

Global temperatures aren't influenced by just one factor. The main factor of global warming now is, of course, the enhanced greenhouse effect due to our industrious society. In the short term - the term of the mythical Pause, say - the Sun has had a cooling influence.

 

[r-j]

Here it is ... deal with it!

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/93617main_sun4m.jpg

In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of NASA's ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, he needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989 to 1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM 'gap.' Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). This major finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on climate.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

The thing you must remember, is that just because it states there was an increase in solar energy, that doesn't actually mean what it says.

"The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present)."

When they say "a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present)", it doesn't actually mean that. Remember, facts aren't important, it's how you view facts that matters.

I mean, if you think the sun has any influence on climate, you would expect to see current temperatures dropping, rather than the incredible increase we are measuring.

If you look at the global temperature trends for the last solar cycle, which is going down, you can clearly see global temperatures are rising faster than ever.

If the sun was the cause of climate change, we would expect to see colder winters, and the land temperature dropping, while the ocean didn't.

 

[CapelDodger]

You do realise that climate scientists know that the suns output varies and can have an effect on climate. Just the same as they realise that if we put billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year the climate will change. If you want to call them very important people then that's up to you but I think we are getting into the realm of conspiracy fantasies again.

I'm no great expert but I think "very important people" is code for Al Gore in the relevant circles.

 

[DC]

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

The thing you must remember, is that just because it states there was an increase in solar energy, that doesn't actually mean what it says.

"The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present)."

When they say "a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present)", it doesn't actually mean that. Remember, facts aren't important, it's how you view facts that matters.

I mean, if you think the sun has any influence on climate, you would expect to see current temperatures dropping, rather than the incredible increase we are measuring.

If you look at the global temperature trends for the last solar cycle, which is going down, you can clearly see global temperatures are rising faster than ever.

If the sun was the cause of climate change, we would expect to see colder winters, and the land temperature dropping, while the ocean didn't.

nobody here has disputed the trend, what i dispute is teh claim Haig made. this claim was not supoprted by the article he linked to.

and as Willson points out in his paper, his composition will not be without controvery. and indeed, the experts are debating, a trand in a composed dataset is always a bit problematic.

but i have no problem accepting the trend that is pointed out, but iot does not change the fact that average TSI (not only during sola minima) is decreasing sine the 1960 and not increasing. Willson does not dispute that at all.

 

[Haig]

This is worth repeating since DC thinks I'm mis-quoting the NASA article, the first two paragraphs say ...

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

Here is the two posts by me that started the spat for easy ref ...

That's true but since the the 70's (despite the weakening solar cycles) the amount of solar radiation steadily increased for the rest of the 20th century, it's now decreasing in the 21st century along with much much weaker cycles. NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE



It's not that impossible a problem, in fact it will be obvious to all very shortly that AGW isn't an important facture. It isn't Humans driving the climate.

An empirical approach to predicting the key parameters for a sunspot number cycle

Looks like isn't NOT AGW but SGC (Solar Global Cooling) for the 21st century.

Slump into Solar Grand Minimum

Coldest Antarctic June Ever Recorded

So who is mis-quoting who?

 

[greybeard]

I'm no great expert but I think "very important people" is code for Al Gore in the relevant circles.

Oh I see. I think it was an excusable error though as I thought we were in the science forum. Not the politics or conspiracy theory forums.

 

[aleCcowaN]

It's not that impossible a problem, in fact it will be obvious to all very shortly that AGW isn't an important facture. It isn't Humans driving the climate.

An empirical approach to predicting the key parameters for a sunspot number cycle

As always Haig, completely unrelated to the paragraph you quoted.

You are cheeky enough to promote new-age like theories about the sun and still can't answer why the Total Solar Irradiance dropped 7% since January 1st yet the planet warmed in the same period. And cut the poppycock, it's not water nor sunspots what caused that drop.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Those are not real Total Solar Irradiances -in one case, not even says "Irradiance"-. For those figures to be right, the vertical axis has to have a different denomination.

 

[DC]

This is worth repeating since DC thinks I'm mis-quoting the NASA article, the first two paragraphs say ...



Here is the two posts by me that started the spat for easy ref ...





So who is mis-quoting who?

i have not said miss quoting, i said missrepresenting. the quotes you ise do not support your claims, because you constantly ignore that Willson talks about a trend during solar minima......

do you really not realize this or are you just extremely dishonest?

 

[DC]

Those are not real Total Solar Irradiances -in one case, not even says "Irradiance"-. For those figures to be right, the vertical axis has to have a different denomination.

LOL , seems you need to take it up with NASA and every Solar expert on the planet .......

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'm no great expert but I think "very important people" is code for Al Gore in the relevant circles.

Oh I see. I think it was an excusable error though as I thought we were in the science forum. Not the politics or conspiracy theory forums.

I think you are over-thinking it. You are seeing too much in the source. r-j was just posting a small story that roughly matches what Haig tries to illustrate with figures and link-dropping. And as a story is 100% valid.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think you are over-thinking it. You are seeing too much in the source. r-j was just posting a small story that roughly matches what Haig tries to illustrate with figures and link-dropping. And as a story is 100% valid.

What r-j posted about "very important people" was not connected to any story. It's code for something in r-j's normal environment and I'm pretty sure it's of an algoreish meaning if not the fatman himself.

On a different tack, could we have a concise definition of TSI and its dimensions?

 

[r-j]

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

Jan. 8, 2013: In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

Full report
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519

 

[aleCcowaN]

LOL , seems you need to take it up with NASA and every Solar expert on the planet .......

Are you going to bet on that? Have you detected any errors in """scientific""" governmental web pages and I haven't? Are you defending Haig's choices and concepts? Because your figure, what expert does it have behind? Not even the right label in it.

Again, none of those figures illustrate real total solar irradiance, and you should know better as you got the same wrong about 5 or 6 weeks ago and then you apologized about that and decided not to participate in what you called "games".

 

[DC]

Are you going to bet on that? Have you detected any errors in """scientific""" governmental web pages and I haven't? Are you defending Haig's choices and concepts? Because your figure, what expert does it have behind? Not even the right label in it.

Again, none of those figures illustrate real total solar irradiance, and you should know better as you got the same wrong about 5 or 6 weeks ago and then you apologized about that and decided not to participate in what you called "games".

no this is not the same as when i was misstaken about the values of TSI.
but Willson and every other expert in the scientific literature calls that TSI, and i simply accept that, and i will continue to do so until anyone provides evidence to the contrary.

 

[DC]

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

Full report
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519

thanks, good post, shows i don0t need to take it up with NASA as Haig claimed.

"This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years. "

 

[aleCcowaN]

On a different tack, could we have a concise definition of TSI and its dimensions?

Total Solar Irradiance has one sole definition: the amount of the total radiative energy spectra -as wide as it can possibly be- the Earth gets from the Sun at the top of Earth's atmosphere. It's measured 645 km above the Earth's surface and estimated perpendicularly the sun-earth axis. Its units are [any unit of energy]/[any unit of length]^2.

And now I'm asking you, do you doubt that this very moment TSI is about 1316 W/m2? Please, only reply yes or no. Leave the details for Haig.

 

[r-j]

Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, "there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific," correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle. The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

"One of the mysteries regarding Earth's climate system ... is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific."

Seems clear enough. Since the changes in the tropical Pacific are now thought to be the reason for "the pause", and ther sun is causing the changes, it's quite scientific to propose that the sun is influencing the climate. The possible minimum underway should allow confirmation, by measuring what happens.

Science, it a beautiful thing.

 

[aleCcowaN]

no this is not the same as when i was misstaken about the values of TSI.
but Willson and every other expert in the scientific literature calls that TSI, and i simply accept that, and i will continue to do so until anyone provides evidence to the contrary.

I can assure you they don't call it that way in any formal settings. In informal settings they can perfectly call it TSI as the intention behind the measurement sometimes mixes with the variable used to measure it. The same way I have no problems using density and specific weight interchangeably when the intention, location and unit system are obvious.