I have a question about CO2

[gdnp]

As far as I know no one is claiming that sunspots have any particular effect on weather. They are simply a marker that some have hypothesized correlate with slight fluctuations in solar output. Thus the 11 year periodicity of sunspot activity is relevant, or at least was until we had more accurate measurements of solar output.

Now if you wish to argue that there are "solar effects" other than irradiance, that is an interesting hypothesis. Solar flares and charged particles, perhaps? Any evidence?

 

[mhaze]

As far as I know no one is claiming that sunspots have any particular effect on weather. They are simply a marker that some have hypothesized correlate with slight fluctuations in solar output. Thus the 11 year periodicity of sunspot activity is relevant, or at least was until we had more accurate measurements of solar output.

Now if you wish to argue that there are "solar effects" other than irradiance, that is an interesting hypothesis. Solar flares and charged particles, perhaps? Any evidence?

Well, sunspots coming and going define the solar cycle. Speculation in several directions exist, CERN has a pretty rigorous test series in progress. Various scientists determine solar's effect from 30-69 % of 20th century warming, but not by looking strictly at watts/sq meter.

Brief overview , easy to read, lots of references.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temperature.html

 

[gdnp]

Brief overview , easy to read, lots of references.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temperature.html

Thanks. It does give a nice introduction to some of the issues.

It is frustrating that the two camps seem to be so polarized, each demonizing the other. I guess when debating items of this import those in the middle ground tend to get drowned out.

 

[Spud1k]

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.

Here's another one for your list - it's entirely possible (and many people deem likely) that there is nothing wrong with the science that describes the big climate shifts like that, it is merely that we lack the appropriate data from that time period. Back then they didn't have satellites, radiosondes, CTD profilers, AWS networks, GAW stations, etc., so all we have to go on are a fairly incomplete smuttering of surface observations, ice cores and casual observations. I'm not trying to slight the sterling efforts of the scientists that reconstruct historic climate data, but it's no substitute for the tools we have nowadays. My point is that a lot of the other possible contributions to the LIA (e.g. ocean currents, volcanic activity) are very hard to pin down with the data we have, which is in contrast to things governing today's climate.

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).

Given that it's irradiance that governs the total amount of energy the sun puts into the earth system, I'd call that a very fundamental quantity rather than a red herring.

The error bar in the change in radiative forcing may be big, but it still doesn't compete with the influence of anthropogenic emissions even in the high extreme. I'm sure 0.12 would look a little small to an AGW sceptic, but if you have any research you can cite that would put that figure significantly higher, you're more than welcome.

 

[Cuddles]

Thanks. It does give a nice introduction to some of the issues.

It is frustrating that the two camps seem to be so polarized, each demonizing the other. I guess when debating items of this import those in the middle ground tend to get drowned out.

The problem is that there aren't two camps. There are people who are interested in reality, who come almost unanimously to one conclusion. There are people who refuse to accept this, for various different reasons, and have a disturbing willingness to lie and distort as much as possible to convince others. Then there are various political groups and media who pick up and run with statements from whoever they think supports their agenda at the time. And then you have people who don't really know or care, but often give their opinion based mainly on what they have been told by the third group.

There really is no middle ground when it comes to reality. Either something is right or it isn't. As can be clearly seen in this thread, the science says one thing, although there is plenty of debate about the exact details and especially the consequences. As has also been seen here, deniers like Mhaze and David Rodale happily lie as much as they can, and don't even care when their lies are clearly demonstrated for everyone to see, they simply move on to the next lie. It's not a question of demonising anyone. There is simply reality, those who refuse to accept reality, those who don't care about reality and those who don't really know. Pointing out which group a person falls into is not demonising them, it's just the truth.

 

[quarky]

Most deniers that I've met have some investment in the notion of continuing to use fossil fuels at present rates. Yet, we have good reason to hone in on this useage and refine our technologies, even if the CO2 we're pumping out isn't heating the globe. i feel that the argument is disingenuous in some way, because the true solutions to so many present day problems imply a shared direction.

 

[Tubbythin]

[/INDENT]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.

Brief overview , easy to read, lots of references.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temperature.html

From this refernce:

The shorter the cycle whose average length is about 11 years is, the more magnetically active the Sun is expected to be. A lecture about solar effects on the climate includes the graph above.

So you have a go at people who say the solar cycle is 11 years. And then recommend a website that says the solar cycle is 11 years.

 

[mhaze]

From this refernce:


So you have a go at people who say the solar cycle is 11 years. And then recommend a website that says the solar cycle is 11 years.

Misleading or else you didn't understand the prior discussion...

Is the solar cycle 11 years or does it average 11 years, (not taking into account the magnetic reversal and the resulting 22 year long cycle)?

How long is the solar cycle we are now in?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Misleading or else you didn't understand the prior discussion...

Is the solar cycle 11 years or does it average 11 years, (not taking into account the magnetic reversal and the resulting 22 year long cycle)?

How long is the solar cycle we are now in?

The Schwabe cycle has varied between 9 and 14 years.

The 1755-66 cycle was Cycle 1 (Wolf). We are now at the end of Cycle 23. What does that make the average?

What are you even arguing about?

 

[Tubbythin]

Misleading or else you didn't understand the prior discussion...

Is the solar cycle 11 years or does it average 11 years, (not taking into account the magnetic reversal and the resulting 22 year long cycle)?

How long is the solar cycle we are now in?

I understood the prior conversation. You said:

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.

And then proceeded to big-up a website talking about the (average) 11 year cycle. So its alright to make claims about an 11 year cycle, but not to dispute them? If you dispute them you have to dispute a 22 year cycle?

 

[Dancing David]

Wow, Mhaze sure did something, here is a good source, an average of 11.1 yaers, what a hoot!

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

 

[mhaze]

Here's another one for your list - it's entirely possible (and many people deem likely) that there is nothing wrong with the science that describes the big climate shifts like that, it is merely that we lack the appropriate data from that time period. Back then they didn't have satellites, radiosondes, CTD profilers, AWS networks, GAW stations, etc., so all we have to go on are a fairly incomplete smuttering of surface observations, ice cores and casual observations. I'm not trying to slight the sterling efforts of the scientists that reconstruct historic climate data, but it's no substitute for the tools we have nowadays. My point is that a lot of the other possible contributions to the LIA (e.g. ocean currents, volcanic activity) are very hard to pin down with the data we have, which is in contrast to things governing today's climate.

Given that it's irradiance that governs the total amount of energy the sun puts into the earth system, I'd call that a very fundamental quantity rather than a red herring.

The error bar in the change in radiative forcing may be big, but it still doesn't compete with the influence of anthropogenic emissions even in the high extreme. I'm sure 0.12 would look a little small to an AGW sceptic, but if you have any research you can cite that would put that figure significantly higher, you're more than welcome.

A coincidence that minimal sunspots tracked with the LIA?

Given that it's irradiance that governs the total amount of energy the sun puts into the earth system, I'd call that a very fundamental quantity rather than a red herring.

It does become a red herring, though, when AGW advocates use the irradiance argument to shrug off solar, when much of the work actually is not in irradiance but interaction with cosmic rays, as I am sure you are aware.

Which is why I brought up the issue of "framing the argument", eg, answering the wrong question (or the question that carries the answer you'd like heard) , as particularly inappropriate when solar isn't well understood.

 

[mhaze]

Wow, Mhaze sure did something, here is a good source, an average of 11.1 yaers, what a hoot!

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

Yes, indeed, an average of 11 some ...

Yaers?

big-up a website talking about the (average) 11 year cycle. So its alright to make claims about an 11 year cycle, but not to dispute them? If you dispute them you have to dispute a 22 year cycle?

Nobody is disputing a periodicity in the 11 year average, I simply indicate that calculations based only on irradiance only using the 11 year average would miss a lot of factors of known importance. One of those factors is the 22 year cycle. There are others.

Big-upping the website? Yes, it is a good source for simple explanations of recent technical papers.

 

[Spud1k]

A coincidence that minimal sunspots tracked with the LIA?

It may have contributed, but like you say, it doesn't explain it all.

It does become a red herring, though, when AGW advocates use the irradiance argument to shrug off solar, when much of the work actually is not in irradiance but interaction with cosmic rays, as I am sure you are aware

Please, that theory about cosmic rays has been dead in the water for a long time in serious scientific circles. The original hypothesis was founded on a passive relationship noted in the seventies but now that we have a bigger dataset to work with, it has been shown to have been simply a coincidence at the time.

ETA: I knew there was a picture somewhere:

This (specifically the bit in the late seventies) was the original source of the hypothesis about cosmic rays being inversely correlated with climate, which turned out to be completely bogus in hindsight. However, some people, such as Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, still cling onto the notion despite the fact that there is scant evidence to support it. They used it as a way of explaining the relationship they claimed to have found over ten years ago, which as discussed before, also turned out to be more than a little flimsy.

 

[lenny]

The problem is that there aren't two camps.

no, i fear there are four. but first another question closer to the topic of this thread: in his presentations Monkton shows a graph of temperature "from IPCC (1990)" showing the Mediaeval Warm Period and Little Ice Age (labeled as such), it is actually a zoom from a graph. no detailed citation.

he then shows a complete graph from the AR4;

does anyone off hand know which figure the 1990 zoom was from? (or have it online)

is this a fair comparison?

thanks

 

[mhaze]

no, i fear there are four. but first another question closer to the topic of this thread: in his presentations Monkton shows a graph of temperature "from IPCC (1990)" showing the Mediaeval Warm Period and Little Ice Age (labeled as such), it is actually a zoom from a graph. no detailed citation.

he then shows a complete graph from the AR4; .... does anyone off hand know which figure the 1990 zoom was from?...

The graph is 7C from 1990 IPCC, but 1990 IPCC is not on line. In the Skeptic's Guide, chapter four, you will find a discussion of the 1990 IPCC chart and the drift in opinion in years after that. Or for the entire story you can go to the discussion by Steve McIntyre at www.climateaudit.org, here.

Why bother with this? If you simply believe in Warmology, then you have belief. You can just call people that don't agree with you deniers and liars. Life is easy street.

Please, that theory about cosmic rays has been dead in the water for a long time....

CERN has an active research program in this area. Which would seem to mean that your opinion and that of the scientists at CERN is quite different, wouldn't it? If so, then your statement "that theory about cosmic rays has been dead in the water" is more a personal opinion than the broad view of "serious scientists". So which is it? Nothing wrong with personal opinion, of course.

Nonetheless, what plausible explanations for the remarkable congruence of a lack of sunspots with the Little Ice Age?

Also. Are you certain that that train of logic does not lead you (or those who espouse it) up a blind canyon?

 

[Tubbythin]

Nobody is disputing a periodicity in the 11 year average, I simply indicate that calculations based only on irradiance only using the 11 year average would miss a lot of factors of known importance. One of those factors is the 22 year cycle. There are others.

The 11 and 22 year cycles are the same thing.

 

[TrueSceptic]

The graph is 7C from 1990 IPCC, but 1990 IPCC is not on line. In the Skeptic's Guide, chapter four, you will find a discussion of the 1990 IPCC chart and the drift in opinion in years after that. Or for the entire story you can go to the discussion by Steve McIntyre at www.climateaudit.org, here.

Why bother with this? If you simply believe in Warmology, then you have belief. You can just call people that don't agree with you deniers and liars. Life is easy street.

Easy street is where you continually lie and then move on, without shame or the slightest admission of wrong-doing, to another lie. You are called a denier and a liar because you are both.

CERN has an active research program in this area. Which would seem to mean that your opinion and that of the scientists at CERN is quite different, wouldn't it? If so, then your statement "that theory about cosmic rays has been dead in the water" is more a personal opinion than the broad view of "serious scientists". So which is it? Nothing wrong with personal opinion, of course.

Even if there is an "active research program", it means nothing until the results are in.

Nonetheless, what plausible explanations for the remarkable congruence of a lack of sunspots with the Little Ice Age?

Do you have something new?

Also. Are you certain that that train of logic does not lead you (or those who espouse it) up a blind canyon?

Funny that you would say that.

 

[Tubbythin]

Even if there is an "active research program", it means nothing until the results are in.

Even when the results are in it doesn't mean an awful lot if there is no trend in the cosmic ray data.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Even when the results are in it doesn't mean an awful lot if there is no trend in the cosmic ray data.

Trend? No problem. Just do a bit of data mangling and you can easily invent one to satisfy the solar enthusiasts.