I have a question about CO2

[varwoche]

That ipcc report draws different conclusions from the scientists who did the actual work.

Which scientists and which actual work?

I read the Lockwood paper and it is wrong. It looks at an eleven year part of the solar cycle only, which is cherry picking. That is much too small a time frame to 'debunk' that solar activity isn't affecting temperature.

First, I don't buy your characterization of the Lockwood paper. Second, that paper hardly stands alone:

Sunspots alter the amount of energy Earth gets from the sun, but not enough to impact global climate change link

no indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming link

Solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades link

 

[mhaze]

So you cited .....
Where is your source.....
Again no cites to back you claim....

the issue is that CO₂ is a possible factor, and one we can control. .....

...rapid warming has led to the extinction of the megafauna of the north american continent.....

Ever heard of drought.....

No the solar cycle is eleven years......

CO2 is a possible factor and one we can control? Where are your cites and please include the issue of controlling emissions of India, China and Africa in your cites. No cites to back your claim?

Rapid warming has led to the extinction of the megafauna of the north american continent? No cites to support your claim? Where is your source? Is it peer reviewed?

Drought? Is that related with any degree of certainty? Again, no cites to back your claim?

The solar cycle is eleven years? Got a cite for that? Can you back your claim? No? Didn't think so, because the claim is ridiculous, isn't it?

I hope that you can back all these claims up. Where are your sources? Do your sources have cites for the claims? Do your claims have cites? You've made a lot of claims, you know. Most of the time without cites.

 

[mhaze]

Which scientists and which actual work?

First, I don't buy your characterization of the Lockwood paper. Second, that paper hardly stands alone:

Thanks for bringing some additional evidence to the table, since Lockwood isn't worth talking about. I have to make a small comment on solar, which is that we really don't understand it's effects on climate very well.

For example, the LIA was devoid of sunspots. Now that was a cold period, so you presume no sunspots lead to cold, lots of sunspots lead to warm, etc. These are testable hypotheses and they get investigated - results seem inconclusive. This does not mean that you can say "solar has no or negligible effect on climate", it means that the results of the hypotheses which were tested are inconclusive and we still do not understand the full set of solar mechanisms at work.

There is not anything wrong with a lack of certainty whatsoever.

Which by the way certainly was not in the mind of Lockwood when he bragged his paper "Drove the final nails in the coffin of the theory of solar warming" or some such drivel.

 

[Spud1k]

Thanks for bringing some additional evidence to the table, since Lockwood isn't worth talking about. I have to make a small comment on solar, which is that we really don't understand it's effects on climate very well.

For example, the LIA was devoid of sunspots. Now that was a cold period, so you presume no sunspots lead to cold, lots of sunspots lead to warm, etc. These are testable hypotheses and they get investigated - results seem inconclusive. This does not mean that you can say "solar has no or negligible effect on climate", it means that the results of the hypotheses which were tested are inconclusive and we still do not understand the full set of solar mechanisms at work.

There is not anything wrong with a lack of certainty whatsoever.

Which by the way certainly was not in the mind of Lockwood when he bragged his paper "Drove the final nails in the coffin of the theory of solar warming" or some such drivel.

I'm going to get bored reiterating this point: Lockwood didn't ever say that solar effects do not affect climate. Besides, it wasn't even Lockwood that came out with the 'coffin nail' quote and it wasn't referring to solar effects overall, it was Svensmark and Friis-Christensen's claim that solar effects are the sole cause of climate change.

Granted there are things left to learn about solar cycles (as with pretty much all aspects of climate science), but according to the best current science has to offer, their current effects on climate are small compared to CO2.

 

[TrueSceptic]

CO2 is a possible factor and one we can control? Where are your cites and please include the issue of controlling emissions of India, China and Africa in your cites. No cites to back your claim?

Yes, can, in principle, given that we can stop or change what we are doing. Not saying that it's easy or even possible because of other factors.

The solar cycle is eleven years? Got a cite for that? Can you back your claim? No? Didn't think so, because the claim is ridiculous, isn't it?

There are other, longer term cycles, some of them still controversial, but the TSI/sunspot cycle is (about) 11 years. Why is that claim ridiculous? Note that you said the solar cycle, as if there is only one.

 

[mhaze]

I'm going to get bored reiterating this point: Lockwood didn't ever say that solar effects do not affect climate. Besides, it wasn't even Lockwood that came out with the 'coffin nail' quote and it wasn't referring to solar effects overall, it was Svensmark and Friis-Christensen's claim that solar effects are the sole cause of climate change.

Granted there are things left to learn about solar cycles (as with pretty much all aspects of climate science), but according to the best current science has to offer, their current effects on climate are small compared to CO2.

I agree, the phrase seemed to have first been used by Rahmsdorf then more or less picked up as a catchy phrase by many in many ways in that short moment of glee when the Lockwood paper first came out.

But my point remains - to conclude there is no current effect of solar, or a current effect that is in some bounded range with some scientific accuracy, it is first necessary to completely explain how the LIA occurred and the relation of that to the complete lack of sunspots.

We can't do that, so we do not have a predictive capability on solar.

 

[Spud1k]

But my point remains - to conclude there is no current effect of solar, or a current effect that is in some bounded range with some scientific accuracy, it is first necessary to completely explain how the LIA occurred and the relation of that to the complete lack of sunspots.

We can't do that, so we do not have a predictive capability on solar.

Ermm... is that what you really meant to say? I ask because for once I am in agreement with you; we indeed can't predict the earth's climate based on solar because it is only part of the story, highlighted by the fact it can't be used to fully explain the LIA (other theories include the effects of ocean currents and volcanoes).

The inclusion of solar effects in the models will capture some, but not all, of the global temperature trends of the last century and a half. This means we have to look at other factors if we want to fully explain the earth's climate. To that end, including CO2 in the models vastly improves the match to the data. Funny that.

 

[Ocelot]

The solar cycle is eleven years? Got a cite for that? Can you back your claim? No? Didn't think so, because the claim is ridiculous, isn't it?

Phew thank goodness you confessed to telling lies. Otherwise I might have believed you that the well known 11 year sunspot cycle was somehow eroneous. Thankfully I'm aware of your shenanigans and you claim seems to be based upon the lack of citations. Something easily recitified

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm

"Solar activity waxes and wanes in 11-year cycles. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

"The average duration of the sunspot cycle is about 11 years (about 28 cycles in the 309 years between 1699 and 2008), but cycles as short as 9 years and as long as 14 years have been observed. "

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/solar-cycle-24-has-officially-started/

There have been some questions about solar cycle length, and “when does one cycle end and another begin or is there overlap”? Thanks to Joe D’Aleo of ICECAP, please see the graph below:

I could go on but my that should be enough to convince a reasonable person.

 

[a_unique_person]

I agree, the phrase seemed to have first been used by Rahmsdorf then more or less picked up as a catchy phrase by many in many ways in that short moment of glee when the Lockwood paper first came out.

But my point remains - to conclude there is no current effect of solar, or a current effect that is in some bounded range with some scientific accuracy, it is first necessary to completely explain how the LIA occurred and the relation of that to the complete lack of sunspots.

We can't do that, so we do not have a predictive capability on solar.

Once again, "If I can't understand it, you can't prove it".

 

[mhaze]

Phew thank goodness you confessed to telling lies. Otherwise I might have believed you that the well known 11 year sunspot cycle was somehow eroneous. Thankfully I'm aware of your shenanigans and you claim seems to be based upon the lack of citations. Something easily recitified

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm

"Solar activity waxes and wanes in 11-year cycles. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

"The average duration of the sunspot cycle is about 11 years (about 28 cycles in the 309 years between 1699 and 2008), but cycles as short as 9 years and as long as 14 years have been observed. "

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/solar-cycle-24-has-officially-started/

There have been some questions about solar cycle length, and “when does one cycle end and another begin or is there overlap”? Thanks to Joe D’Aleo of ICECAP, please see the graph below:

I could go on but my that should be enough to convince a reasonable person.

Thank you for the nice bar chart which shows NO 11 year solar cycles, and for the explanation that 11 years is the Average of cycle length. You are well on your way to convincing people that solar cycles are NOT 11 YEARS in LENGTH.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Thank you for the nice bar chart which shows NO 11 year solar cycles, and for the explanation that 11 years is the Average of cycle length. You are well on your way to convincing people that solar cycles are NOT 11 YEARS in LENGTH.

They are about 11 years on average, varying between 9 and 14. What is your point?

Some idiotic claim that an average can't be used to describe something?

 

[Ocelot]

Thank you for the nice bar chart which shows NO 11 year solar cycles, and for the explanation that 11 years is the Average of cycle length. You are well on your way to convincing people that solar cycles are NOT 11 YEARS in LENGTH.

Danicng david's brief comment that the Solar Cycle was 11 years was in resposne to tyr_13's claim that the solar cycle was 22 years.

You jump on DD for missing out the word average but in context the disitinction is irrelevant. tyr 13 is just wrong - Ganz falsch

 

[mhaze]

Danicng david's brief comment that the Solar Cycle was 11 years was in resposne to tyr_13's claim that the solar cycle was 22 years.

You jump on DD for missing out the word average but in context the disitinction is irrelevant. tyr 13 is just wrong - Ganz falsch

A little educatifying is in order. From your own linky:

The physical basis of the solar cycle was elucidated in the early twentieth century by George Ellery Hale and collaborators, who in 1908 showed that sunspots were strongly magnetized (this was the first detection of magnetic fields outside the Earth), and in 1919 went on to show that the magnetic polarity of sunspot pairs:

• is always the same in a given solar hemisphere throughout a given sunspot cycle;
• is opposite across hemispheres throughout a cycle;
• reverses itself in both hemispheres from one sunspot cycle to the next.

Hale's observations revealed that the solar cycle is a magnetic cycle with an average duration of 22 years. However, because very nearly all manifestations of the solar cycle are insensitive to magnetic polarity, it remains common usage to speak of the "11-year solar cycle".

​

As can be clearly seen, if the subject at hand is the impact of solar changes on earth's climate, consideration of the actual, 22 year magnetic cycle is important, and any attempt to shrug off solar effects based on calculations or theory using a 11 (average) year cycle is incorrect. Strictly considering solar cycle as an 11 year cycle would be a red herring and a strawman of a scientific argument because the magnetic reversals would be sort of zeroed out.


Tyr 13 was right, and you've now improved your understanding of solar cycles a bit by engaging in constructive dialoge (so considered only by my ignoring the various insults that you preface your posts with).

As for Dancing David, my argument was only that he needs to support his claims with sources, cites and the like, just as he seems to think other people should have to (but maybe you didn't get the joke ):

The solar cycle is eleven years? Got a cite for that? Can you back your claim? No? Didn't think so, because the claim is ridiculous, isn't it? I hope that you can back all these claims up. Where are your sources? Do your sources have cites for the claims? Do your claims have cites? You've made a lot of claims, you know. Most of the time without cites. ​

 

[lomiller]

mhaze, how long do you think it is between peaks in solar output? A simple 11 or 22 will suffice.

 

[mhaze]

mhaze, how long do you think it is between peaks in solar output? A simple 11 or 22 will suffice.

Schwabe, Hale, Gleissberg, Suess, possibly a Gleissberg x Suess relation:

"solar output" is vague, though; isn't it?

 

[Spud1k]

As can be clearly seen, if the subject at hand is the impact of solar changes on earth's climate, consideration of the actual, 22 year magnetic cycle is important, and any attempt to shrug off solar effects based on calculations or theory using a 11 (average) year cycle is incorrect.

I'm still not bored of pointing this out, so I'll do it again...

Who is trying to 'shrug off' solar effects? Any modern climate model worth its salt includes these effects amongst the myriad of others. It just so happens that the manifestations of solar effects on climate have been, in recent years, smaller than those caused by increases in CO2 concentrations.

What part of that are you having trouble with?

 

[Spud1k]

"solar output" is vague, though; isn't it?

OK, let's be specific. How about the total incoming solar radiation flux in Watts per square metre?

My money's on 11, incidentally.

 

[gdnp]

we are looking at the periodicity of a sine wave function. Each period contains one positive maximum, one negative maximum, and two null points. Thus the length of the cycle depends on whether one is discussing an effect which is dependent merely on the absolute value or on direction (positive or negative).

Assuming that solar radiation is positively correlated with sun spot activity, does it make a difference whether these are positive polarity sunspots or negative polarity sunspots? No. Maxima and minima in solar radiation should occur on an 11 year cycle. Thus for the purposes of the AGW debate, it makes more sense to refer to an 11 year cycle with one maximum and one minimum per cycle than to a 22 year cycle with two maxima and minima.

ETA: As pointed out by lomiller while I have been waxing poetic

 

[Ocelot]

A little educatifying is in order. From your own linky:

Hale's observations revealed that the solar cycle is a magnetic cycle with an average duration of 22 years. However, because very nearly all manifestations of the solar cycle are insensitive to magnetic polarity, it remains common usage to speak of the "11-year solar cycle".

​

As can be clearly seen, if the subject at hand is the impact of solar changes on earth's climate, consideration of the actual, 22 year magnetic cycle is important, and any attempt to shrug off solar effects based on calculations or theory using a 11 (average) year cycle is incorrect.

Erm. No. It's the solar output that's relavent in this context, not the polarity of the magnetic field.

Tyr said

I read the Lockwood paper and it is wrong. It looks at an eleven year part of the solar cycle only, which is cherry picking. That is much too small a time frame to 'debunk' that solar activity isn't affecting temperature. Besides that, if CO2 warms the Earth by absorbing and re-emitting, wouldn't the sun providing them more energy to absorb and re-emit warm the Earth with CO2? Doing just a little checking I found that they released that paper before it was published, and that the solar cycle is 22 years long. And you can't even draw a scientific conclusion looking at ONE cycle, let alone half of it.

In terms of solar intensity 11 years is a full cycle, not half. The polarity doesn't matter.

 

[mhaze]

Erm. No. It's the solar output that's relavent in this context, not the polarity of the magnetic field.

Tyr said...

In terms of solar intensity 11 years is a full cycle, not half. The polarity doesn't matter.

Sez who?

It seems I've already summed this train of thought up nicely a few posts back:

if the subject at hand is the impact of solar changes on earth's climate, consideration of the actual, 22 year magnetic cycle is important, and any attempt to shrug off solar effects based on calculations or theory using a 11 (average) year cycle is incorrect. Strictly considering solar cycle as an 11 year cycle would be a red herring and a strawman of a scientific argument because the magnetic reversals would be sort of zeroed out.
​

To clarify (If it isn't clear) not many are disputing the 11 year periodicity, average, of solar intensity. What is questioned is the net sum of solar effects, and why they are somewhat different than the 11 year periodicity of solar intensity. So as I already noted:

to conclude there is no current effect of solar, or a current effect that is in some bounded range with some scientific accuracy, it is first necessary to completely explain how the LIA occurred and the relation of that to the complete lack of sunspots.
​

One illustration, since apparently this wasn't understood (Spud1k got it, methinks).

Hypothesis: Presence or absence of sunspots caused the Little Ice Age.

(results of research and study) --> Hypothesis fails, although the Little Ice Age was a period with no sunspots.

• Possible conclusion #1: Sunspots are not related to Earth's warming or cooling.
• Possible conclusion #2: Sunspots or some aspect of solar which also occurs with sunspots are likely related to the LIA effect but we have not figured out how.
• Ancillary conclusion of #2: IF we don't know how the sun caused the effects of the LIA, we also don't know how much or little it has affected 20th century climate.

#1 is obviously ridiculous, #2 is where I'm at.

Therefore the arguments about solar irradiance are red herrings, strawmen, etc. (IPCC notes radiative forcing change since 1750 is 0.12 w/sq meter, but with a high uncertainty - and the 0.12 looks low in any case).

Isn't what's going on here called "Framing the argument?" A statement or a question is made, precisely. The responder then "reframes it", so that he can answer the question he wants to answer - a different one than the one first stated.

"Framing the argument" reeks more of politics than science, in my opinion.