Global warming discussion III

[Red Baron Farms]

Are you calling Hansen an alarmist? His 1986 predictions are not even close at this point.

Just post a link to the list of them. Then we can focus on them.

Actually you are the one making the claim. So your list will have to do. Most the models I keep seeing seem reasonable. There is only one (to my personal knowledge) actual alarmist that seems to have gone off the deep end... That would be Guy McPherson. Seems to me that the vast majority of climate scientists are making reasonable claims backed by loads of evidence, with maybe only a couple alarmists or denialists here or there. My point was why focus on the extremists at either end of the spectrum? You could look at them sure. They may have something. But surely you understand it is unreasonable to focus on them only.

 

[Trakar]

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.

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

This image does not support "the average TSI in the 20th century INCREASED by .05 percent per decade."

A reduction of peak-to-peak amplitude does not indicate, much less confirm, an increase of the mean value.

As you can see, TSI has been declining over the latter portion of the 20th and first portion of the 21rst centuries (along with sunspot declines), while average global surface temperatures have been rising.

Graphs:

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2013/01/08/tsi_composite_strip.jpg

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

 

[Haig]

This image does not support "the average TSI in the 20th century INCREASED by .05 percent per decade."

A reduction of peak-to-peak amplitude does not indicate, much less confirm, an increase of the mean value.

As you can see, TSI has been declining over the latter portion of the 20th and first portion of the 21rst centuries (along with sunspot declines), while average global surface temperatures have been rising.

Graphs:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=8898[/qimg]
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2013/01/08/tsi_composite_strip.jpg

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=8900[/qimg]
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

Think again, the full paper is very clear. (my hilite)

Secular total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21–23

6. Conclusions
[22] The philosophies of the ACRIM and PMOD TSI composite constructions are very different. The ACRIM composite uses results originally published by the science teams of contributory experiments and the NIMBUS7/ERB comparisons to relate ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. This approach is based on our belief that in most cases the science teams had unique knowledge of each experiment that could produce results that most accurately represent their instrumentation's performances.

[23] The PMOD approach modifies published contributory TSI results. Their modifications have the effect of conforming the ACRIM1/ACRIM2 ratio to ERBS during the ACRIM gap and matching composite TSI to the lower values predicted by solar-proxy models during the activity maximum of solar cycle 21.

[24] Construction of TSI composite databases will not be without its controversies for the foreseeable future. However we believe the ACRIM composite and trend represents the best interpretation of the information presently available for solar cycles 21–23.

[25] The ∼0.05%/decade minimum-to-minimum trend appears to be significant. If so it has profound implications for both solar physics and climatology. For solar physics it means that TSI variability can be caused by unknown mechanisms other than the solar magnetic activity cycle. Much longer time scales for TSI variations are therefore a possibility, which has obvious implications for solar forcing of climate.
[26] The absence of a minima-to-minima trend in the PMOD composite is an artifact of uncorrected ERBS degradation. ERBS degradation during the gap equals the trend difference and the PMOD offsets (within computational uncertainty).

So Trakar, the NASA article on the paper confirms a trend of a .05 percent per decade increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) in watts per meter squared from the 70's to the end of the 20th century.

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

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.

 

[DC]

Think again, the full paper is very clear. (my hilite)

Secular total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21–23



So Trakar, the NASA article on the paper confirms a trend of a .05 percent per decade increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) in watts per meter squared from the 70's to the end of the 20th century.
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

no, it doesn't . why does Willson and NASA , every single time mention "minimum to minimum" or "during times of quiet sunspot activity"?
they are both very clear in what they say. you just leave out that part.

 

[DC]

This image does not support "the average TSI in the 20th century INCREASED by .05 percent per decade."

A reduction of peak-to-peak amplitude does not indicate, much less confirm, an increase of the mean value.

As you can see, TSI has been declining over the latter portion of the 20th and first portion of the 21rst centuries (along with sunspot declines), while average global surface temperatures have been rising.

Graphs:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=8898[/qimg]
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2013/01/08/tsi_composite_strip.jpg

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=197&pictureid=8900[/qimg]
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

aparantly one must call this TSI1AU here.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Think again, the full paper is very clear. (my hilite)

Secular total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21–23

No doubt Willson and his team have the definition of TSI well:

The Earth’s weather and climate regime is determined by the total solar irradiance (TSI) and its interactions with the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and landmasses. Evidence from both 34 years of direct satellite monitoring and historical proxy data leaves no doubt that solar luminosity in general, and TSI in particular, are intrinsically variable phenomena. Subtle variations of TSI resulting from periodic changes in the Earth's orbit (Milankovich cycles: ~20, 40 and 100 Kyrs) cause climate change ranging from major ice ages to the present inter-glacial, clearly demonstrating the dominance of TSI in climate change on long timescales. TSI monitoring, cosmogenic isotope analyses and correlative climate data indicate that variations of the TSI have been a significant climate forcing during the current inter-glacial period (the last ~ 10 Kyrs.). Phenomenological analyses of satellite TSI monitoring results, TSI proxies during the past 400 years and the records of surface temperature show that TSI variation has been the dominant forcing for climate change during the industrial era. The periodic character of the TSI record indicates that solar forcing of climate change will likely be the dominant variable contributor to climate change in the future.

A series of Active Cavity Radiometers (ACRs), a new generation of sensors with the precision required for compiling a long term TSI database for climate, were developed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) of the California Institute of Technology under the direction of ACRIM Principal Investigator, Dr. Richard C. Willson. Their use in a series of Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) space flight experiments has provided a precise and traceable component of the TSI database during more than 90 % of its 34 year history. The ACRIM Science Team moved its operation to Columbia University in 1995 and then back to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory under contract in 2008. The ACRIM Instrument Team, directed by ACRIMSAT Program Manager Sandy Kwan, operates the ACRIMSAT satellite, ACRIM instrument and ground telemetry instrumentation at JPL.

source
​

Yet all your link-storming, blog-citing and paper-messing boils down to you arguing something like a person freezes to death because of this or that temperature (the sun), while you forget about the wind, the person's health and mainly, the clothing that person is wearing (the atmosphere).

If you didn't get it yet, you're saying "that person is sweating because of the Sun which became a bit stronger; but that person is going to shiver soon because the Sun's activity is dropping 0.05% per decade but a lot more in the part of the spectra with woo-woo powers". Meanwhile you fail to see that the person is sweating because this person was forced to wear a straitjacket made of mouton (anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions).

You even failed to know or relate that the Earth orbit is elliptic or what TSI really is, and yet you continue to lecture about climate and electric comets, so stop messing around with your faulty arguments and reasoning.

 

[Trakar]

So Trakar, the NASA article on the paper confirms a trend of a .05 percent per decade increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) in watts per meter squared from the 70's to the end of the 20th century.

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

First a "trend" that only covers the difference between the previous 2 cycles (22 and 23), is not a clear and definable trend. The so-called trend does not extend back to previous cycles nor does it apply to the current cycle (24). The paper does not "confirm" a trend, it posits that there may be a trend (or perhaps an artifact of stitching together all the different TSI monitoring systems that have been used to measure TSI over the last 40 years into a single dataset). Secondly, as the maxima of these cycles is declining as much as (or more than) the minima is rising, there is no rise in average (mean) strength ("A reduction of peak-to-peak amplitude does not indicate, much less confirm, an increase of the mean value."). Graphing of solar cycle TSI seems to indicate a general flattening of the TSI energy oscillation. Thusly, the declining overall average value of TSI over the last 44 years (1970 - 2014) does not fit with a solar causation of increasing Earth surface temperatures over the same time frame. If Solar activity cycles were the primary forcing agency of modern climate change, we would be experiencing a cooling climate. All available current data supports a accelerating warming climate over all of the last half century without break or decline (but with some variation in rates of acceleration).

Again, nothing in this paper compellingly supports (much less "confirms") that the recent solar cycles are a dominant factor in modern climate change:

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2013/01/08/tsi_composite_strip.jpg

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

 

[Trakar]

aparantly one must call this TSI1AU here.

LOL, well, when you use annual average TSI, the average 1AU is implicit in the "annual" average. For most consideration that I focus on, daily or even monthly TSI averages and variations are not tremendously relevant.

 

[aleCcowaN]

LOL, well, when you use annual average TSI, the average 1AU is implicit in the "annual" average. For most consideration that I focus on, daily or even monthly TSI averages and variations are not tremendously relevant.

Every time you link what you call TSI with global temperatures you are fostering a conceptual confusion. The matter is if you are also confused about that or not. That makes me wonder, have I lost from you or Haig's a link, paper of figure showing correlation between solar cycles and global temperatures? It all starts there and it's built from there on.

Haig's notions are faulty, I know, but the fact that John killed Paul don't justify Matthew to shoot Ringo in his knees.

 

[CapelDodger]

Perhaps I'm missing something but is all this talk over 0.05% per decade? Five parts in ten thousand? Per decade? Over four decades that's 0.2% (of what exactly?), one part in 500.

Is that really significant? Especially if it doesn't include the current cycle which, as I understand it, has been on the low side for TSI.

I realise some people will grasp at anything - I can see it happening right here - but this seems unusually desperate.

 

[DC]

in context of AGW, TSI @ 1 AU is interesting, TSI True earth is not so itneresting in this context.

the IPCC calls it Total Solar Irradiance without any reference to 1AU or true earth, and they always give the 1AU value. and so do the papers they cite.
so does Greg Kopp in his papers and his blog. Natalie Krivova calls it Total Solar Irradiance , Judith Lean calls it Total Solar irradiance. Solanki calls it Total Solar Irradiance, Ball calls it Total Solar Irradiance.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Ch08SM_FINAL.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3554
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682609003058
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/

TSI usualy means TSI@1AU, especially in the context of climate change.
we are interested in long term changes, not seasonal changes.

TSI true earth is basicly weather (seasons) , TSI 1 AU is climate. (on the other hand long term changes in TSI true earth are also part of climate, the milankovitch cycles)

 

[DC]

Perhaps I'm missing something but is all this talk over 0.05% per decade? Five parts in ten thousand? Per decade? Over four decades that's 0.2% (of what exactly?), one part in 500.

Is that really significant? Especially if it doesn't include the current cycle which, as I understand it, has been on the low side for TSI.

I realise some people will grasp at anything - I can see it happening right here - but this seems unusually desperate.

good question, im not sure about the per decade detail.

but the significance is made clear in the Article Haig linked to

"Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. "

 

[CapelDodger]

good question, im not sure about the per decade detail.

but the significance is made clear in the Article Haig linked to

"Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. "

A bridge we'll cross if we come to it .

As an explanation for the last few decades of global warming it's just silly, of course, but some people's devotion to the Sun blinds them to the fact.

 

[DC]

A bridge we'll cross if we come to it .

As an explanation for the last few decades of global warming it's just silly, of course, but some people's devotion to the Sun blinds them to the fact.

indeed it is silly. especially considering the early 20th century, where the main cause of warming was indeed increased solar activity, and that was a relatively big trend and not just some tiny little trend that might be an artefact from combining different measurements into one dataset.

 

[Trakar]

Perhaps I'm missing something but is all this talk over 0.05% per decade? Five parts in ten thousand? Per decade? Over four decades that's 0.2% (of what exactly?), one part in 500.

Is that really significant? Especially if it doesn't include the current cycle which, as I understand it, has been on the low side for TSI.

I realise some people will grasp at anything - I can see it happening right here - but this seems unusually desperate.

Which is the reason I keep tying discussion and responses back to the overall argument that this paper and issue do not reflect or support (much less "confirm") the assertion that modern climate change is more the result of TOA insolation cycles/variances than any other factor.

 

[ehcks]

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.

Your graph and his are the same graph, with different time scales. Your graph is the tiny bit on the tail end of his, after the last big decrease. You're attempting to claim that the one little spike at around 1995 is the cause of the entire motion of the blue line, most of which happened before that year.

Or do I need to brush up on my MSPaint skills?

 

[Reality Check]

You must have missed this post Solar Notch-Delay Model Released

No Haig: A blog post is not science or a model! You really need to learn to distinguish between climate change cranks on the Internet and real climate scientists presenting valid climate science, Haig.

Too much ignorance stated on one web page to really address but basically this ignorant persons thinks that TSI can explain global warming and has an invalid idea that TSI will decrease producing cooling.
Dr David Evans (the Climate Denier List a list of scientists, real or imagined, pundits and loud mouths)

...has written 1 science peer-reviewed paper back in the 80s not related to climate change science.

David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold Posted on 15 April 2011 by dana1981

Computer modeler David Evans has written an opinion article published in the Financial Post which has apparently been spread throughout the "skeptic" blogosphere. Numerous readers have asked that Skeptical Science respond to this article, and we aim to please.

The article contains a lot of empty rhetoric about "the carbon gravy train," "alarmists," and governments' "tame climate scientists." There are a whole lot of words in the article devoted to not saying very much. We'll stick to our usual policy and ignore the fluff, focusing on what little scientific content the article contains.

Why are AGW alarmists claiming the West Antarctic Glacier Melting is human caused when they haven't included volcanic activity?

Because no "AGW alarmists" claimed that, Haig !
Climate scientists looked at the West Antarctic Glacier Melting and saw that it would be a reasonable consequence of global warming. Hotter temperatures = ice melts !

Now climate scientists know that there is an extra constant factor unrelated to the climate or GW - geothermal heating melts some of the underside of the glacier.
Researchers Find Major West Antarctic Glacier Melting from Geothermal Sources June 10, 2014
This is bad, Haig. It suggests that a collapse of the West Antarctic Glacier is more likely, i.e. the melting due to GW + the water underneath the glacier = the glacier slides off land into the sea.


The irrelevancy of Volcano discovered smoldering under a kilometer of ice in West Antarctica should be obvious to you, Haig, simply by reading the article .
It has nothing to do with the melting of the West Antarctic Glacier.
The melt water from the volcano goes into the MacAyeal Ice Stream.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: It is not the Sun; a Maunder Minimum will have little effect on GW

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.

No, Haig: The total solar irradiance (TSI) has been constant or decreasing slightly since the mid-1970s. You are repeating the well known and well debunked "Its the Sun" climate myth yet again!
Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

What you are citing is from 2003 (11 years ago!) 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.

It is Humans driving the climate according to climate scientists: Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

Even a Maunder Minimum will have little effect on global warming: The warming effect from more CO2 greatly outstrips the influence from changes in the Earth's orbit or solar activity, even if solar levels were to drop to Maunder Minimum levels.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Citing the well-known climate change denial web site WattsUpWithThat That is not good, Haig: Haig: It is not the Sun; a Maunder Minimum will have little effect on GW!

Study predicts the sun is headed for a Dalton-like solar minimum around 2050 cites another blog that cites:
Centennial changes in the heliospheric magnetic field and open solar flux: The consensus view from geomagnetic data and cosmogenic isotopes and its implications (2011)
and
The rise and fall of open 1 solar flux during the current grand solar maximum (2009)
* The blog was "Posted on December 2, 2013 by Anthony Watts". It refers to another blog entry from April 20, 2011. Neither paper was published today - they were published a couple of years before!
* Neither paper was published in the "Advances in Space Research" ('Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics", "Astrophysical Journal").
* "2050" does not appear in either paper.
* the graph in the blog entry does not seem to be in either of the papers.

However the actual paper Watts is talking about is An empirical approach to predicting the key parameters for a sunspot number cycle (Advances in Space Research Volume 53, Issue 3, 1 February 2014, Pages 568–573)
The author speculates that if their method accuracy "endures in the 21st century the Sun shall enter a Dalton-like grand minimum" but then goes a bit off the rails with mentioning "It was a period of global cooling." which is true but there was not the current human emission of CO2 to offset that cooling.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

No Haig: the 2003 (i.e. probably outdated) study is VERY clear ... the TSI during times of quiet sunspot activity INCREASED by .05 percent per decade. This is the TSI trend between successive solar minima as stated in the graph you cite.

The average TSI in the 20th century is a single number !

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE (2003)