Global warming discussion III

[r-j]

I'll make a claim. Last month was the warmest June on Record.
And May was the warmest May on Record.

How strange, both GISS and RSS show you are wrong. And those two almost never agree on anything.

 

[Haig]

Something else to consider in Global Warming and the Sun - Earth connection.

The Sun is weakening with each solar cycle and with it it's magnetic field. As the Earths own magnetic shield rapidly continues it's decline.

Earth's Magnetic Field Flip Could Happen Sooner Than Expected

Earth's magnetic field, which protects the planet from huge blasts of deadly solar radiation, has been weakening over the past six months, according to data collected by a European Space Agency (ESA) satellite array called Swarm.

 

[Reality Check]

NASA had predicted it would be stronger than solar cycle 23.

Wrong yet again, Haig!
Cycle 23 peaked at 120.8 sunspots per month (Smoothed Sunspot Number).
The predictions just after the start of cycle 24 (2008) in May 2009 were < 90 sunspots per month.
Solar Cycle 24

Prior to the minima between the end of Solar Cycle 23 and the beginning of Solar Cycle 24, there were essentially two competing theories about how strong Solar Cycle 24 would be. The two camps could be distinguished by those postulating the Sun retained a long memory (Solar Cycle 24 would be active) or whether it had a short memory (Solar Cycle 24 would be quiet). Prior to 2006, the difference was very drastic with a minority set of researchers predicting "the smallest solar cycle in 100 years."[5] Another group of researchers, including those at NASA, were predicting that it "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago."[6]

The delayed onset of high latitude spots indicating the start of Solar Cycle 24 led the "active cycle" researchers to revise their predictions downward and the consensus by 2007 was split 5-4 in favor of a smaller cycle.[7] By 2012, consensus was a small cycle, as solar cycles are much more predictable 3 years after minima.

In May 2009 the NOAA/Space Weather Prediction Center's Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel predicted the cycle to peak at 90 sunspots in May 2013.[8] In May 2012 NASA's expert David Hathaway predicted that current solar cycle would peak by the Spring of 2013 with about 60 sunspots. This smoothed sunspot number would make it the least active cycle in the past two hundred years.[9]

 

[Reality Check]

Earth's Magnetic Field Flip Could Happen Sooner Than Expected

Learning to read an entire web page is something to consider, Haig:

"Such a flip is not instantaneous, but would take many hundred if not a few thousand years," Floberghagen told Live Science. "They have happened many times in the past."[

And maybe a new climate myth is needed! The unsupported so far fantasy that reversals in the Earth's magnetic field cause climate change.

The evidence is that the reversals have no effect on climate or any large effect. Magnetic Reversals : Back to the future?

So, what will happen when the field reverses?

The fossil record, and other geological records, seem to say 'Not much!'
...
Loess deposits in China have recently given climatologists a nearly unbroken, continuous record of climate changes during the last 1,200,000 years. What they found was that the sedimentation record shows the summer monsoons and how severe they are. The only significant variation in the data could be attributed to the coming and going of glacial and inter-glacial periods. So, summer monsoons in China were not affected by the reversal in any way that can be obviously seen in the climate-related data from this period.

The fossil record, at least for large animals and plants, is even less spectacular when it comes to seeing changes that can be tied to the magnetic reversal.

The Brunhes-Matuyama reversal happened 730,000 years ago during what paleontologists call the Middle Pleistocene Era (100,000 to 1 million years ago). There were no major changes in plant and animal life during this time, so the magnetic reversal did not lead to planet-wide extinctions, or other calamities that would have impacted existing life. It seems that the biggest stresses to plant and animal life were the comings and goings of the many Pleistocene Ice Ages. This led very rapidly to the evolution of cold-tolerant life forms like Woolly Mammoths, for example.

 

[DC]

How strange, both GISS and RSS show you are wrong. And those two almost never agree on anything.

how could they when they measure different portions of the atmosphere?

 

[Haig]

Learning to read an entire web page is something to consider, Haig:

Missing the point about Earths declining magnetic field (10 times faster than thought) is something to consider Reality Check

And maybe a new climate myth is needed! The unsupported so far fantasy that reversals in the Earth's magnetic field cause climate change.

It's NO myth that the magnetic shield around the Earth has been weakening AND that it will play a part in the changes affecting us. Earth's magnetic field is weakening

The evidence is that the reversals have no effect on climate or any large effect.

It's NOT the magnetic reversal OR it's timing I'm pointing out ... it's the declining magnetic field around the Earth going on NOW and affecting us NOW.

The importance of geomagnetic field changes versus rising CO2 levels for long-term change in the upper atmosphere

Abstract
The Earth’s upper atmosphere has shown signs of cooling and contraction over the past decades. This is generally attributed to the increasing level of atmospheric CO2, a coolant in the upper atmosphere. However, especially the charged part of the upper atmosphere, the ionosphere, also responds to the Earth’s magnetic field, which has been weakening considerably over the past century, as well as changing in structure. The relative importance of the changing geomagnetic field compared to enhanced CO2 levels for long-term change in the upper atmosphere is still a matter of debate. Here we present a quantitative comparison of the effects of the increase in CO2 concentration and changes in the magnetic field from 1908 to 2008, based on simulations with the Thermosphere-Ionosphere-Electrodynamics General Circulation Model (TIE-GCM). This demonstrates that magnetic field changes contribute at least as much as the increase in CO2 concentration to changes in the height of the maximum electron density in the ionosphere, and much more to changes in the maximum electron density itself and to low-/mid-latitude ionospheric currents. Changes in the magnetic field even contribute to cooling of the thermosphere at ~300 km altitude, although the increase in CO2 concentration is still the dominant factor here. Both processes are roughly equally important for long-term changes in ion temperature.

http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/abs/2014/01/swsc130050/swsc130050.html

Full PDF Here

Magnetic Field in Trouble Video

 

[Pixel42]

Still waiting for clarification on this, Haig:

Time will tell who is right my man ... not too long to wait

What precisely are you expecting to happen over what timescale that will show who is right, and what happening instead would show who is wrong?

I'm looking for something like:

To show you right: In the next 5 years there will be no year with average global temperatures greater than the fifth warmest in the instrumental record

To show you wrong: there will be at least one year in the next five years which will break the record for average global temperature

If neither criteria is fulfilled in the next five years the timescale to be extended for a further five years.

Doesn't need to be that, of course, just something that specific.

 

[greybeard]

How strange, both GISS and RSS show you are wrong. And those two almost never agree on anything.

From Scientific American

The world just experienced its hottest June on record. The heat was driven in large by part by the hottest ocean temperatures since recordkeeping began more than 130 years ago. That makes this the third-warmest start to the year.

The global temperature was 1.3°F above the 20th century average in June according to data released on Monday by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). That bests the previous hottest June record, set in 1998, by 0.05°F.

June was the 352nd consecutive month in a row with temperatures that were above the global average. The last cooler-than-average month was February 1985,

 

[DC]

Missing the point about Earths declining magnetic field (10 times faster than thought) is something to consider Reality Check

It's NO myth that the magnetic shield around the Earth has been weakening AND that it will play a part in the changes affecting us. Earth's magnetic field is weakening

It's NOT the magnetic reversal OR it's timing I'm pointing out ... it's the declining magnetic field around the Earth going on NOW and affecting us NOW.

The importance of geomagnetic field changes versus rising CO2 levels for long-term change in the upper atmosphere
http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/abs/2014/01/swsc130050/swsc130050.html

Full PDF Here

Magnetic Field in Trouble Video

so according to your own links, the CO2 increases are still dominant also in the Region where the declining magnetic Feld has an influence.

and they didn't even talk about the lower troposphere, wich is the Region we are worried about.

so the changes in the magnetic field are yet another red herring that has nothing to do with AGW. just more distraction.
nothing of your Posts changes anything about AGW.
you are grasping at straws.

 

[Haig]

Still waiting for clarification on this, Haig:

What precisely are you expecting to happen over what timescale that will show who is right, and what happening instead would show who is wrong?

I'm looking for something like:

To show you right: In the next 5 years there will be no year with average global temperatures greater than the fifth warmest in the instrumental record

To show you wrong: there will be at least one year in the next five years which will break the record for average global temperature

If neither criteria is fulfilled in the next five years the timescale to be extended for a further five years.

Doesn't need to be that, of course, just something that specific.

Excuse my missing your question, I don't read every post or page, just as time allows.

From what I've read and understood on the skeptic views ... this is what I expect ...

1. The Pause in no-statistically significant Global Warming to continue.

2. Statistically significant Global Cooling to become obvious before the end of solar cycle 24. It's twin peak maximum appears to have just finished.

3.The on set of a very very weak solar cycle 25 will confirm the Sun entering a Grand Solar Minimum and a rapid cooling of the Earth as it has in previous GSM times.

4. Along with solar cycle 25 the start of a New Little Ice Age and that will continue for as long as the last LIA.

This is just MY understanding of the likely events (don't hold ALL skeptics to it) but if ANY of the above points are falsified then I would reconsider my position and views.

so according to your own links, the CO2 increases are still dominant also in the Region where the declining magnetic Feld has an influence.

and they didn't even talk about the lower troposphere, wich is the Region we are worried about.

so the changes in the magnetic field are yet another red herring that has nothing to do with AGW. just more distraction.
nothing of your Posts changes anything about AGW.
you are grasping at straws.

Your missing the point DC ...

The paper puts magnetic field changes on an EQUAL footing with the increase in CO2 concentration. Yet little is heard about this declining magnetic field in the debate on Global Warming. Why Not?

As for the rise in C02 ... it continues it's climb past 400 ppm with no statistically significant rise in temperature for the last 17 yrs at least.

Read again the quote below and think on WHY this important factor of a declining magnetic field is being ignored.

The importance of geomagnetic field changes versus rising CO2 levels for long-term change in the upper atmosphere

This demonstrates that magnetic field changes contribute at least as much as the increase in CO2 concentration to changes in the height of the maximum electron density in the ionosphere, and much more to changes in the maximum electron density itself and to low-/mid-latitude ionospheric currents. Changes in the magnetic field even contribute to cooling of the thermosphere at ~300 km altitude, although the increase in CO2 concentration is still the dominant factor here. Both processes are roughly equally important for long-term changes in ion temperature.

More bad news for the Warmists ...

New paper finds transient climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 is about 1°C

climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 concentrations is significantly lower than estimates from the IPCC and climate models which “utilize uncertain historical data and make various assumptions about forcings.” The author instead uses a ‘minimal model’ with the fewest possible assumptions and least data uncertainty to derive a transient climate sensitivity of only 1.093C:

 

[a_unique_person]

I already stated that. It's no secret that some are claiming that. It's that there are so many other things being claimed, and it can change at any time, that's my point.

The problem is your inability to understand the science and the claims based on it.

 

[DC]

...

Your missing the point DC ...

The paper puts magnetic field changes on an EQUAL footing with the increase in CO2 concentration. Yet little is heard about this declining magnetic field in the debate on Global Warming. Why Not?

As for the rise in C02 ... it continues it's climb past 400 ppm with no statistically significant rise in temperature for the last 17 yrs at least.

Read again the quote below and think on WHY this important factor of a declining magnetic field is being ignored.

The importance of geomagnetic field changes versus rising CO2 levels for long-term change in the upper atmosphere


More bad news for the Warmists ...

New paper finds transient climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 is about 1°C

speaking about missing points.....

they put it equal in the ionosphere / thermosphere / upper atmosphere.
AGW is a problem in the lower atmosphere, more precisely the lower troposphere.

but you ignore that it seems. Why?

 

[Pixel42]

Excuse my missing your question, I don't read every post or page, just as time allows.

From what I've read and understood on the skeptic views ... this is what I expect ...

1. The Pause in no-statistically significant Global Warming to continue.

2. Statistically significant Global Cooling to become obvious before the end of solar cycle 24. It's twin peak maximum appears to have just finished.

3.The on set of a very very weak solar cycle 25 will confirm the Sun entering a Grand Solar Minimum and a rapid cooling of the Earth as it has in previous GSM times.

4. Along with solar cycle 25 the start of a New Little Ice Age and that will continue for as long as the last LIA.

This is just MY understanding of the likely events (don't hold ALL skeptics to it) but if ANY of the above points are falsified then I would reconsider my position and views.

Thank you for the reply.

I just need one further clarification: for how many years must there be no statistically significant warming for you to consider that point 1 continues to be the case? For example if the warming trend is not statistically significant over the last 10 years but is over the last 15 years would you consider the "pause" to be over and point 1 falsified?

 

[Haig]

speaking about missing points.....

they put it equal in the ionosphere / thermosphere / upper atmosphere.
AGW is a problem in the lower atmosphere, more precisely the lower troposphere.

but you ignore that it seems. Why?

I notice you don't answer my question as to why the declining magnetic field of the Earth is being ignored. Why?

The paper doesn't give the full effect of this in the Sun - Earth connection. I'll leave you to research that ... or just scroll back and see my previous posts on it!

The warmist focus on C02 is just a tool to try to blame Humans for Global Warming but nature hasn't played along.

This short video should give you Pause for thought that we are prone to want to blame others for dire situations as we have many times in the past. Global Warming is no exception ...

Dr. Baliunas on Weather Cooking Video 7 min

Thank you for the reply.

I just need one further clarification: for how many years must there be no statistically significant warming for you to consider that point 1 continues to be the case? For example if the warming trend is not statistically significant over the last 10 years but is over the last 15 years would you consider the "pause" to be over and point 1 falsified?

One of the first skeptics I read was back in 2009 and he has been proven right in his predictions things ARE going the way he thought they would ... unlike the Warmist predictions.

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory,
Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria
Published in the Russian journal "Nauka i Zhizn" ("Science and Life"), 2009, N1, pp. 34-42.
(translated from Russian by Lucy Hancock)

Full PDF HERE

So to try to answer your further clarification ....

Any significant deviation from the slope on Fig 8 would be a surprise for me but, so far, we are on-trend for severe cooling.

 

[Pixel42]

Any significant deviation from the slope on Fig 8 would be a surprise for me but, so far, we are on-trend for severe cooling.

2010 was warmer than 2009 so there has already been deviation from that graph. Would you consider at least one more new global temperature record being set in the next five years a significant enough deviation to conclude the predicted slope is wrong? In the next 10 years? The next 15?

 

[lomiller]

1. The Pause in no-statistically significant Global Warming to continue.

Oxymoronic. “Not statistically significant” means the period looked at is too short to say what’s happening. If you can’t say what’s happening, you can’t say warming has paused.

2. Statistically significant Global Cooling to become obvious before the end of solar cycle 24. It's twin peak maximum appears to have just finished.

Again, the changes in energy output associated with solar cycles is much too small to measurable climate change on these time scales.

More bad news...

One wonders how a minimal model is supposed to produce superior results to more detailed models. No doubt this is why the paper was published in a journal no one has ever heard of while the detailed model results get published in “Science” “Nature”, “PNAS”, etc...

You may also want to explain what agency you think exists that would detect the differences in energy sources and assign an ultra high sensitivity to energy from once source (the sun) but a very low sensitivity to energy from another. Perhaps if refrained from using woo-woo bloggers as your prime info source your position would be more consistent.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's impossible to actually debate the alarmists, because they won't simply make a claim. Or change what they claim (move the goalpost)

Debating alarmists is entirely possible, although making any impression can be hard. I've debated alarmists on acid rain (no, cleaning it up wouldn't bankrupt the Western economy), the ozone layer (banning CFC's wouldn't bankrupt the Western economy), Kyoto (signing up wouldn't bankrupt the economy), Little Ice Age comethers (it's not going to happen), Obama (he's not going to murder your grannie), and so on. If you have the facts and logic on your side you're good to go.

What does that actually mean?

You know perfectly well what it means. It's the "no warming since 1998, what about that, eh? Where's your global warming, eh?" lines thrown about by the likes of you and Haig. The notion that ocean warming isn't warming. The notion that climate models didn't predict it. It's been one of your primary lines for several years now at least; I first heard of "no warming since 1998" in 2005 so this is nothing new. Monckton was giving monthly updates on it until recently. "No statistically significant warming since ...", remember that? Or is the mythical Pause to be consigned to the memory hole now that there is statistically significant warming?

The last 17 years is either warming as expected ...

What does that even mean? What was "expected"?

The ENSO pattern of the last 17 years wasn't expected, but then no ENSO pattern was expected. There was going to be one, obviously, but such things are not "expectable".

Taking "expected" as "expected given the realised ENSO trend" then the Risbey et al paper demonstrates (again) show that warming has proceeded as expected, so it's that one. Warming as exected.

... or there has been a "slowdown", or "a flattening", or "a pause in warming", or there has been an increase in warming. It depends on who is talking.

Frankly, when it's you talking, nothing is ever clear.

And of course the latest study that claims the natural cooling cycle is "hiding" the AGW.

A great one for scare-quotes, aren't you? Do you have a point?

If you confine AGW to surface temperatures then sub-surface ocean warming will indeed conceal that part of the warming

As well as the claim we just saw in topic, that the satellite data is no good, and it's actually just warming away. making all of the above wrong of course.

The climate is warming. It doesn't take satellites to tell us that. We're down here in it. Deep in it, in some cases.

It's quite remarkable. The regulars here know my view, which it seems nobody on either side gives a hoot about.

I doubt anybody knows your view.

 

[DC]

I notice you don't answer my question as to why the declining magnetic field of the Earth is being ignored. Why?

The paper doesn't give the full effect of this in the Sun - Earth connection. I'll leave you to research that ... or just scroll back and see my previous posts on it!

The warmist focus on C02 is just a tool to try to blame Humans for Global Warming but nature hasn't played along.

This short video should give you Pause for thought that we are prone to want to blame others for dire situations as we have many times in the past. Global Warming is no exception ...

Dr. Baliunas on Weather Cooking Video 7 min




One of the first skeptics I read was back in 2009 and he has been proven right in his predictions things ARE going the way he thought they would ... unlike the Warmist predictions.

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory,
Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria
Published in the Russian journal "Nauka i Zhizn" ("Science and Life"), 2009, N1, pp. 34-42.
(translated from Russian by Lucy Hancock)

Full PDF HERE

So to try to answer your further clarification ....

Any significant deviation from the slope on Fig 8 would be a surprise for me but, so far, we are on-trend for severe cooling.
[qimg]http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/scenario.jpg[/qimg][/Qevidently it is not ignored, as you were able to link to peer reviewed papers on it. And as to your ignored sun earth connection in regard to that decltreasing magnetic field. that is ignored the same way they ignored the increased sunburn rates of Unicorns and the changes migration patterns of pixies.

 

[DC]

I notice you don't answer my question as to why the declining magnetic field of the Earth is being ignored. Why?

The paper doesn't give the full effect of this in the Sun - Earth connection. I'll leave you to research that ... or just scroll back and see my previous posts on it!

The warmist focus on C02 is just a tool to try to blame Humans for Global Warming but nature hasn't played along.

This short video should give you Pause for thought that we are prone to want to blame others for dire situations as we have many times in the past. Global Warming is no exception ...

Dr. Baliunas on Weather Cooking Video 7 min




One of the first skeptics I read was back in 2009 and he has been proven right in his predictions things ARE going the way he thought they would ... unlike the Warmist predictions.

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory,
Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria
Published in the Russian journal "Nauka i Zhizn" ("Science and Life"), 2009, N1, pp. 34-42.
(translated from Russian by Lucy Hancock)

Full PDF HERE

So to try to answer your further clarification ....

Any significant deviation from the slope on Fig 8 would be a surprise for me but, so far, we are on-trend for severe cooling.
[qimg]http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/scenario.jpg[/qimg]

evidently it is not ignored, as you were able to link to peer reviewed papers on it. And as to your ignored sun earth connection in regard to that decreasing magnetic field. that is ignored the same way they ignored the increased sunburn rates of Unicorns and the changed migration patterns of pixies.

 

[CapelDodger]

Since the start of solar cycle 24. NASA had predicted it would be stronger than cycle 23. The skeptics said it would be very weak and the start of the decline into a Grand Solar Minimum, seems they are right, Pause anyone?

I followed the sun-starers' debate way back in cycle 23, and there was no opinion "the sceptics" had. There were a couple of dozen, from life-threatening activity to icy stillness. Claiming the some who were right as the whole is what we call The Big Pharma Ploy in sceptic circles.

AGW deniers have been claiming that, since the warming is cyclical, natural and anything but CO2, it could naturally and cyclically get cooler again. From that it's a short step to will get cooler again, and that right quick. The Sun has known cycles so its another short step to the Sun causing it, and from that predicting that the Sun will be less active. It doesn't even need maths or physical principles, just the will to believe.

In the field of solar science great strides have been made in understanding what's actually going on, using maths and physical principles and computer modelling. Science at its best and most fascinating.

None of this has revealed a mysterious Force X which is negating AGW and replacing it with an exact double. It does sound more exciting than the actual science, though. Let us know how you feel when it doesn't work out for you.