Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[CapelDodger]

The most used historical sunspot series are not accurate. They have some serious errors in them.

1. The International Sunspot Number has at least one error of about 20%:
All numbers after 1945 are about 20% too high relative to the preceeding ones in the series. The reason is an undocumented 1945 change in the spot counting method discovered only recently.

2. The Group Sunspot Number has at least one 50% error:
All numbers before ~1885 in the series are about 50% too low. The reason is a set of inaccuracies when the series was first compiled by Hoyt&Schatten in 1998.

Thanks spin0, a most informative post.

These errors have been discovered fairly recently (2011-), they have been confirmed to exist, their sources have been identified, the researchers have been able to quantify them, and the researches responsible for those series have admitted to them (or those still alive that is).

If you'll excuse a style note, I think "acknowledged" would be preferable to "admitted to". In fact that whole paragraph, taken out of context and presented by an expert, could appear very sinister. "... their sources have been identified ...", "... those still alive that is ..." (those who wouldn't admit it having wound up dead, by implication). All very totalitarian .

So what does that mean?

Well, a lot of line-fitting exercises are going to have to be re-done. Easier to declare that these are mendacious adjustments done by climate scientists.

Science's interesting, innit?

It surely is. Just as well, considering how little money there is in it.

 

[spin0]

If you'll excuse a style note, I think "acknowledged" would be preferable to "admitted to". In fact that whole paragraph, taken out of context and presented by an expert, could appear very sinister. "... their sources have been identified ...", "... those still alive that is ..." (those who wouldn't admit it having wound up dead, by implication). All very totalitarian .

Thanks. For me English is a second language and I do appreciate all helpful advice on my style, grammar and even spelling.

Let me rephase:
Ken Schatten and the pilot observatory of Locarno have acknowledged the errors in the respective sunspot records, have confirmed the sources of those inaccuracies, and embrace the effort to reconcile the sunspot record.

My intention was not to reprimand the solar scientists about the issue. As an amateur astronomer with a special interest on our star I do respect the solar scientists in question as through the decades and centuries they have contributed a lot to our knowledge and understanding of Sun, and their observations are very valuable.

I constructed parts of my post by copying bits from old posts of mine on another forum, where I was having a rather heated discussion about the issue. The style of that paragraph reflects my frustation not towards the solar scientists but rather towards those who simply deny the existence of the errors in sunspot records even when faced with the conclusive evidence. It's quite like Leif Svalgaard put it: "I expect a strong reaction against ‘fixing’ the GSN from people that ‘explain’ climate change as a secular rise of TSI and other related solar variables."

Well, a lot of line-fitting exercises are going to have to be re-done. Easier to declare that these are mendacious adjustments done by climate scientists.

Indeed.

GSN should not be used at all. Yet it's for example copied all over solar related Wikipedia articles.

Whole another discussion is how good a basis sunspot numbers are for curve-fitting with the TSI in the first place. In some papers the assumption has been that sunspot numbers could work as a backbone which 'carries' the TSI, and that large variation in past sunspot numbers would indicate large variation in the TSI especially with GSN record.

I think these two presentations by Leif Svalgaard give a good overview of some of the main issues regarding sunspot indexes and inferred solar variability:
Vistas in Solar Activity
Another Maunder Minimum?

It's also interesting and a bit surprising that counting sunspot groups (GSN) vs. counting groups+sunspots (ISN, aka Wolf number) appear to capture different physics into their respective indexes: Sunspot numbers: what their
statistical properties tell us


Oh, BTW: Not sure but I think angrysoba's co-worker's idea of a 50-year cooling originates from this sort of TSI extrapolations:

(img.source)

 

[CapelDodger]

Let me rephase:
Ken Schatten and the pilot observatory of Locarno have acknowledged the errors in the respective sunspot records, have confirmed the sources of those inaccuracies, and embrace the effort to reconcile the sunspot record.

Yup, that's neutral.

My intention was not to reprimand the solar scientists about the issue.

It never crossed my mind .

The style of that paragraph reflects my frustation not towards the solar scientists but rather towards those who simply deny the existence of the errors in sunspot records even when faced with the conclusive evidence. It's quite like Leif Svalgaard put it: "I expect a strong reaction against ‘fixing’ the GSN from people that ‘explain’ climate change as a secular rise of TSI and other related solar variables."

As predictable as the Sun coming up tomorrow .

I think these two presentations by Leif Svalgaard give a good overview of some of the main issues regarding sunspot indexes and inferred solar variability:
Vistas in Solar Activity
Another Maunder Minimum?

Thanks.

It's also interesting and a bit surprising that counting sunspot groups (GSN) vs. counting groups+sunspots (ISN, aka Wolf number) appear to capture different physics into their respective indexes: Sunspot numbers: what their
statistical properties tell us

That's interesting, if it's not an artefact. We shall see. Solar science is progressing incredibly rapidly these days and I haven't been keeping up. What I do know, of course, is that nobody serious is making projections fifty years out. Apart from "The Sun will come up in the morning".

 

[Ibn Khaldun]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/s...ears-will-be-warmer-than-hottest-in-past.html

If greenhouse emissions continue their steady escalation, temperatures across most of the earth will rise to levels with no recorded precedent by the middle of this century, researchers said Wednesday.

Scientists from the University of Hawaii at Manoa calculated that by 2047, plus or minus five years, the average temperatures in each year will be hotter across most parts of the planet than they had been at those locations in any year between 1860 and 2005.

To put it another way, for a given geographic area, “the coldest year in the future will be warmer than the hottest year in the past,” said Camilo Mora, the lead scientist on a paper published in the journal Nature.​

 

[CapelDodger]

The Mora et al paper is, of course, just one paper but a very interesting one. It suggests that the tropics could be outside the recorded range within ten years or so, which means many of us here will (with luck) see whether that pans out.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7470/full/nature12540.html

Ecological and societal disruptions by modern climate change are critically determined by the time frame over which climates shift beyond historical analogues. Here we present a new index of the year when the projected mean climate of a given location moves to a state continuously outside the bounds of historical variability under alternative greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Using 1860 to 2005 as the historical period, this index has a global mean of 2069 (±18 years s.d.) for near-surface air temperature under an emissions stabilization scenario and 2047 (±14 years s.d.) under a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario. Unprecedented climates will occur earliest in the tropics and among low-income countries, highlighting the vulnerability of global biodiversity and the limited governmental capacity to respond to the impacts of climate change. Our findings shed light on the urgency of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions if climates potentially harmful to biodiversity and society are to be prevented.

 

[macdoc]

and that... is that.....well done..
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57606909/l.a-times-cuts-off-climate-change-deniers

 

[Frozenwolf150]

A question. How does one address the claim that global warming is proof that humanity has doomed itself to extinction? I'm referring to the Doomer claims that current climate change trends will render the planet uninhabitable within a matter of centuries. Both that and the global warming denier claims seem extremist to me. I would argue that there's a distinct difference between acknowledgement of a crisis, and jumping to the conclusion that we're all going to die, but I admittedly don't know where to find the hard figures to back this up.

 

[DC]

A question. How does one address the claim that global warming is proof that humanity has doomed itself to extinction? I'm referring to the Doomer claims that current climate change trends will render the planet uninhabitable within a matter of centuries. Both that and the global warming denier claims seem extremist to me. I would argue that there's a distinct difference between acknowledgement of a crisis, and jumping to the conclusion that we're all going to die, but I admittedly don't know where to find the hard figures to back this up.

like Stephen Schneider used to say, the "it's the end of the world" vs "It's good for you" are the two outcomes with the least propability.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

like Stephen Schneider used to say, the "it's the end of the world" vs "It's good for you" are the two outcomes with the least propability.

Right, but would you happen to have studies I can cite to prove that global warming won't spell the end of the world? I'm trying to argue that climate change is manageable and that it's not too late to change our course. I already tried searching on my own, but ran into problems. Most of the sources I found fell towards either extreme, that is to say, they were written by alarmists or deniers.

Is there no middle ground?

 

[aleCcowaN]

I would argue that there's a distinct difference between acknowledgement of a crisis, and jumping to the conclusion that we're all going to die, but I admittedly don't know where to find the hard figures to back this up.

I don't think you need to find those figures. The depth of such a crisis depends more on decisions to be made in a periodical basis in the future and not on past decisions. So, it has little value any possible projection that considers technology to be constant and "wrong" decisions stubbornly made systematically during decades or centuries.

Scenarios of dire consequences are just the counterbalance of notions held by those who think of global warming in an infantile irresponsible way, similar to those young people who believe that they can just eat, drink, smoke, inject and practice whatever they want, as much as they feel like, on the only condition of them, when arriving their 60s, making a promise to behave and take care of themselves, so they will be that way able to live healthy and full of energy until the reach three digits.

 

[DC]

Right, but would you happen to have studies I can cite to prove that global warming won't spell the end of the world? I'm trying to argue that climate change is manageable and that it's not too late to change our course. I already tried searching on my own, but ran into problems. Most of the sources I found fell towards either extreme, that is to say, they were written by alarmists or deniers.

Is there no middle ground?

no i dont have such a study. and as we are still not really acting, the chances of the "end of the world" side is geting more and more possible.

the end of the world side ( btw, what exactly is the definition here?)
depends on topping points, like the "clathrate gun hypothesis"

but for others warming above 4°C is already the end of the world. or huge troubles for civilisation.

As we don't know much about tipping points and what happens if we trigger one, we do not really have an upper limit to what could happen. but they are very unlikely, i stick to the IPCC projections. they are rather conservative projections and not very speculative. and those do not really support a end of the world scenario.

but i for example do not count collapse of civilisation into the end of the world scenarios. for me a runaway greenhosue effect would be the end of the world. but i think that is extremely unlikely. but the longer we talk instead of taking action, the more likely it gets.

 

[DC]

Right, but would you happen to have studies I can cite to prove that global warming won't spell the end of the world? I'm trying to argue that climate change is manageable and that it's not too late to change our course. I already tried searching on my own, but ran into problems. Most of the sources I found fell towards either extreme, that is to say, they were written by alarmists or deniers.

Is there no middle ground?

btw , what do you mean with alarmists. wich scientist do you consider alarmist and wich studies?

i mean AGW is very very alarming, so every scientist should be an alarmist.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

btw , what do you mean with alarmists. wich scientist do you consider alarmist and wich studies?

i mean AGW is very very alarming, so every scientist should be an alarmist.

By alarmist I mean encouraging the spread of irrational panic, as opposed to proposing real solutions to the problems at hand.

I suppose I should rephrase my questions.

What is the most realistic scenario if we stay on the current course?
What are the most realistic solutions to the problem?
What can the average person realistically do to make a difference?

 

[bobdroege7]

Have you heard the news the past couple weeks, or days or whatever?

Cosmic rays bit the dust.

Land use changes are responsible for cooling, not warming.

 

[uke2se]

and that... is that.....well done..
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57606909/l.a-times-cuts-off-climate-change-deniers

Here's hoping this example is followed by many more. Granting denialist ideas some sort of equivalence to science because of a distorted notion of "fairness" is a major factor in the public confusion about AGW. Relegate the denialists to the internet message boards and out of public view. Let them bellow at street corners while the world takes steps.

 

[CapelDodger]

Here's hoping this example is followed by many more. Granting denialist ideas some sort of equivalence to science because of a distorted notion of "fairness" is a major factor in the public confusion about AGW. Relegate the denialists to the internet message boards and out of public view. Let them bellow at street corners while the world takes steps.

I don't think it's public opinion that's a problem, it's the political and diplomatic institutions we have - or rather, don't have. They are not fit for purpose.

I think one can get a false perspective of the denier movement, just as they have a false perspective on the power of Al Gore. Governments and scientists know there's a problem, but they have others more pressing and familiar (such as war and economics). The IPCC was a typical response - set up a committee to produce a report. Then another. And another ...

The denier movement hasn't really affected that. Politicians might use their product as an excuse for inaction, but the Cheney-Rove administration or the Blair government or any other wouldn't have acted any differently without it.

On the plus side, I can recall when wind turbines and solar panels were an unusual sight, but not any more. Progress is being made for quite other reasons than AGW.

 

[DC]

By alarmist I mean encouraging the spread of irrational panic, as opposed to proposing real solutions to the problems at hand.

I suppose I should rephrase my questions.

What is the most realistic scenario if we stay on the current course?
What are the most realistic solutions to the problem?
What can the average person realistically do to make a difference?

1. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

the upper end of this propably, maybe even more.

2. CO2 tax , more cap less trade. IMO, is debatable.

3. i thinkk reducing your CO2 footprint. many ways to do that.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

1. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

the upper end of this propably, maybe even more.

Thanks, this is what I was looking for. What do you think it would mean for the world socially, economically, and politically? How long would it take to get the environment back on track?

2. CO2 tax , more cap less trade. IMO, is debatable.

3. i thinkk reducing your CO2 footprint. many ways to do that.

What are some of these ways? I know it seems like a rhetorical question, but I didn't want to start another topic to discuss it, and it would be useful to have a list of these for posterity. I'll put down a few right now:

• My town has a recycling program for comingle waste and for paper. Since my home state has to truck out all garbage, it makes more economic sense to recycle waste locally.
• I don't own a hybrid vehicle, but I do get regular maintenance on my car to make sure it's running at peak efficiency and there aren't any leaks.
• I try to walk instead of drive to nearby locations, but this isn't always possible due to my failing health.
• We use fluorescent bulbs now. Mind you, they come with problems of their own, in that they burn out much faster and come with toxic mercury. We're going to switch to LED bulbs next.
• Although our windows are old, I've caulked them and redone the glazing where necessary. Still need new ones, but those are very expensive.
• We do have a compost heap. Less garbage.
• We also have a home garden most years. This year didn't turn out so well.

 

[uke2se]

I don't think it's public opinion that's a problem, it's the political and diplomatic institutions we have - or rather, don't have. They are not fit for purpose.

I think one can get a false perspective of the denier movement, just as they have a false perspective on the power of Al Gore. Governments and scientists know there's a problem, but they have others more pressing and familiar (such as war and economics). The IPCC was a typical response - set up a committee to produce a report. Then another. And another ...

The denier movement hasn't really affected that. Politicians might use their product as an excuse for inaction, but the Cheney-Rove administration or the Blair government or any other wouldn't have acted any differently without it.

On the plus side, I can recall when wind turbines and solar panels were an unusual sight, but not any more. Progress is being made for quite other reasons than AGW.

I think political will is definitely influenced by the public. As long as the public is confused, politicians won't act. Hell, politicians are also people, and thus also affected by denialist propaganda. Nobody should give these creatures a platform. Their anti-science agenda is not worth listening to. I wish and hope for the denialist voice being gone by 2020.

 

[DC]

Thanks, this is what I was looking for. What do you think it would mean for the world socially, economically, and politically? How long would it take to get the environment back on track?


What are some of these ways? I know it seems like a rhetorical question, but I didn't want to start another topic to discuss it, and it would be useful to have a list of these for posterity. I'll put down a few right now:

• My town has a recycling program for comingle waste and for paper. Since my home state has to truck out all garbage, it makes more economic sense to recycle waste locally.
• I don't own a hybrid vehicle, but I do get regular maintenance on my car to make sure it's running at peak efficiency and there aren't any leaks.
• I try to walk instead of drive to nearby locations, but this isn't always possible due to my failing health.
• We use fluorescent bulbs now. Mind you, they come with problems of their own, in that they burn out much faster and come with toxic mercury. We're going to switch to LED bulbs next.
• Although our windows are old, I've caulked them and redone the glazing where necessary. Still need new ones, but those are very expensive.
• We do have a compost heap. Less garbage.
• We also have a home garden most years. This year didn't turn out so well.

well what you do already is good. you should take a look if new windows would not pay off because you will save energy for heating,
but sure that would take a few years ot pay of. but in the long run,, who knows, but therefore you will ned expert opinion looking at your hosue i think.

i guess you do not have good access to public transportation? i do almost all traveling with public transport, run by electricity from hydro plants. but we have a extremely good public transportation system in place here.

but the big step in reducing CO2 emision will have to come from our policies. the industry needs Incentives to reduce Co2 emissions, this might come with Co2 taxes.

as for what those projections mean for society? well i could link to some impact studies, but i dont know, its very hard to say in detail. there are positive effects and negative ones. but as far i know the negative ones will overwhelm, food insecurity , water insecurity. poor coastal cities might have to move in the next few hundret years and maybe even whole regions will become not really suited for huans and those will have to move into other nations. and we all know how welcoming most nations are to new people coming

we have alot of smaller problems to solve in the future all caused by climate change.

but the crucial point to me is, the eralier we start really taking action, the less drastic actions will have to be., the longer we wait, the mosre drastic the actions need to be.

better start early, there might come alot of problems that we do not yet know, but also the other way around, there might pop up ideas that make it all easier, but we can0t count on that yet.

Some scientist think its already too late to stay below the 2°C warming we once mained at. we might be in for 4-6°C.

geting the climate system back to track might take many hundret years.
on the other hand, sooner or later we will have to manage the climate system ourself anyway. so we could already start with geoengineering.
Naturally seen we would be entering a new glacial period, wich is just as worse as the warming, maybe even worse. but that is some 10 000 years in the future. and AGW might have called that off completely, and if we continie we might catapult our system into a different climate state, and even end the curent ice age over the next 1000 years. but now i get into the end of the world era so i stop my speculation here