Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

mhaze said:
But I've already done just that. Quoting from my post #911:

....Georgieva 2005, showing that high solar influences continued through year 2000 and correlate with temperature > R = 0.85?

Good.

Then we don't need to hear any more nonsense about "Solar can't have influenced or contributed to GW during the last 50 years, so it must have been man's effects".
Click to expand...

So you think Anthony Watts is wasting his time, and measurements are accurate?
 
mhaze said:
Not sure where you are going with that. "Available" is not equal to "Available Online".

I put it online in 2008, and agree with Lambert that it was not available online previously. It was from microfiche records, and those from 1988 were not / are not digitized/on line. That should include not available Lexus/Nexus.
Click to expand...
Can you provide the link, please?
 
For collective amusement....anything akin to certain parties here is purely coincidental I'm sure..... .:rolleyes:....:garfield:
The AGW denialists rules for discussion

Category: Global Warming
Mercurius has listed the things AGW denialists will accept as evidence:
1) Nothing that was recorded by instruments such as weather-stations, ocean buoys or satellite data. Since all instruments are subject to error, we cannot use them to measure climate.


2) Nothing that has been corrected to account for the error of recording instruments. Any corrected data is a fudge. You must use only the raw data, which is previously disqualified under rule #1. Got that? OK, moving along...


3) Nothing that was produced by a computer model. We all know that you can't trust computer models, and they have a terrible track record in any industrial, architectural, engineering, astronomical or medical context.


4) Nothing that was researched or published by a scientist. Such appeals to authority are invalid. We all know that scientists are just writing these papers to keep their grant money.
​
Click to expand...

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
 
BenBurch said:
We'll go one at a time with the many things wrong with that; 1. Correlation does not imply causation. Show me a proven mechanism?
Click to expand...
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

Possible mechanisms are discussed in the paper, as is something more to the point: why this ak index should and is a better predictor of solar influence on temperature than sunspot counts.

Mechanism for that is described in terms of solar physics.

a_unique_person said:
So you think Anthony Watts is wasting his time, and measurements are accurate?
Click to expand...
Already answered.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

Possible mechanisms are discussed in the paper, as is something more to the point: why this ak index should and is a better predictor of solar influence on temperature than sunspot counts.

Mechanism for that is described in terms of solar physics.
Click to expand...

However, the paper contains no explanation of why the temperature trend sometimes changes a decade after a change in the AK Index and sometimes changes a decade before a change in the AK Index and sometimes changes at about the same time as a change in the AK Index. Nor does it attempt to quantify the alleged change in cloud cover caused by changes in GCRs, so does not refute all the studies that have shown that any effect is much too small to account for the observed climate change.
 
Last edited:
Ok! Now we are getting somewhere!

In the first graph of your referenced paper;

3. Why does temperature LEAD sunspot activity? Does increasing temperature on earth cause sunspots?

4. Why does the corelation stop at exactly the time when GHG effects are claimed to have become a significant effect?

Off to my day (helping run charity event) I will be amused to hear your answers.

Oh, none of those mechanisms from your answer to #1 are proven. Got any proven ones?
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
However, the paper contains no explanation of why the temperature trend sometimes changes a decade after a change in the AK Index and sometimes changes a decade before a change in the AK Index and sometimes changes at about the same time as a change in the AK Index. ....
Click to expand...
Check the presumptions you have regarding y variable scaling please. Scale Y(ak) by 2 or 0.5 just for fun. Note the two lines are set by convention to a common start point. Also not the effect on the graphic of the 30 year decadal averages.

Then discard Megalodon's argument.

TellyKNeasuss said:
....Nor does it attempt to quantify the alleged change in cloud cover caused by changes in GCRs, so does not refute all the studies that have shown that any effect is much too small to account for the observed climate change.
Click to expand...
Focusing on GCRs? That is a derail from the subject of the paper, isn't it? Yes GCRs interact with the solar wind and a comprehensive index of solar activity might (should) include more than irradiance or sunspot counts.

The paper addresses what constitutes a good measure of solar activity, and why. The clear conclusion based on solar physics does not seem disputable.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
The paper addresses what constitutes a good measure of solar activity, and why. The clear conclusion based on solar physics does not seem disputable.
Click to expand...

I've said it before about other data: r = 0.85 just is not an convincing correlation.

Is it possible that I am being to particular? I usually like having r>0.95 in my regressions.
 
BenBurch said:
So, MHaze, were there marked climate excursions you can document in the years 1006, 1054, 1181, 1572, and 1604?
Click to expand...
Relevance?

BenBurch said:
Ok! Now we are getting somewhere!

In the first graph of your referenced paper;

3. Why does temperature LEAD sunspot activity? Does increasing temperature on earth cause sunspots?...
Click to expand...
You are looking at Figure 1 which I reproduce here for clarity.

The whole point of this paper is to show a better way than comparing temperature to sunspot counts. Therefore, Georgieva starts with this chart to show the "old method".

Sunspots are like a "symptom of a disease". They are a visual indication of something going on in the sun. Nobody to my knowledge suggests that they are causative in and of themselves of temperature changes.

The article describes those processes, and why another measure of solar activity - the aK index - which is directly related to the physical mechanisms (and more comprehensive than sunspot counts), should (and is) more highly correlated with temperature on Earth than sunspots.

This is illustrated with figure 6:


BenBurch said:
4. Why does the corelation stop at exactly the time when GHG effects are claimed to have become a significant effect?
Click to expand...
The article notes that the divergence with sunspots has been an argument (I think the phrase was used "a strong argument") for man made global warming. However, the "better measure", the aK index, does not show such a divergence. One would then think that this part of the argument for AGW, that solar cannot explain the warming of the last half of the 20th century, is incorrect.

Starting to get the picture?
 
Last edited:
Wangler said:
I've said it before about other data: r = 0.85 just is not an convincing correlation.

Is it possible that I am being to particular? I usually like having r>0.95 in my regressions.
Click to expand...
With a system that has multiple components interacting, such as the climate, lower correlations have meaning.

For example, the correlation of Co2 to temperature, depending on how it is done, ranges from r=0.21 to r=0.44. Correlations of the PDO to world temperature are r=0.79, IIRC.

At this state of the art many of the causes and interrelationships are poorly understood and cannot be accurately separated out.
 
mhaze said:
The article describes those processes, and why another measure of solar activity - the aK index - which is directly related to the physical mechanisms (and more comprehensive than sunspot counts), should (and is) more highly correlated with temperature on Earth than sunspots.

This is illustrated with figure 6:
Click to expand...
Hey, Steve, you use this image to indicate "high correlation"

142244a71a73b40961.jpg


Didn't you claim temperatures had an error margin of 2° back to 1920 and earlier. How come now old temperatures to be a reliable measure to get the "high correlation" you need to support your theory? Aren't you drawing and erasing error bars at your will? Explain the y-axis and its origin (temperatures, not spots). Doesn't your "high correlation" come from older temperatures and breaks last years with new and more reliable temperatures?



mhaze said:
Starting to get the picture?
Click to expand...
Oh, yes! a whole picture mister!
 
MHaze, even with your preferred diagram, delta T leads delta AK. If I were looking for a causal relationship, I would have to say that earth temperature controls the sun. Can you explain that? I might be able to believe this if it were the other way around...

And here I need to clarify my position, do understand that I am not saying the sun has no effect on climate. I am saying that the effect that it has does not adequately explain the last 75 years, and that its effects at the EXTREME for brief periods of time is less than 2w/m2 which were it consistent might explain warming, bit this is only during major solar events, the "Forbush" decreases in GCR. This is because over much of the globe there is always a plethora of nucleation particles regardless of GCR flux, and there is a limit to the extent of the power of the Wilson effect as show by nuclear testing.

So, I am sorry if I have given you the idea that I deny the whole effect, I do not. What I deny is that it causes the warming we are seeing. It cannot.
 
aleCcowaN said:
Hey, Steve, you use this image to indicate "high correlation"

Didn't you claim temperatures had an error margin of 2° back to 1920 and earlier. How come now old temperatures to be a reliable measure to get the "high correlation" you need to support your theory? Aren't you drawing and erasing error bars at your will? Explain the y-axis and its origin (temperatures, not spots). Doesn't your "high correlation" come from older temperatures and breaks last years with new and more reliable temperatures?
Click to expand...
No, the article states the problem with divergence by using Figure 1. The improved correlation is shown with Figure 6. As for the 2C issue, I don't claim it. Hadley Center states it (and my reason for mentioning it to you was that GISS/Hansen thinks they have much higher accuracy and precision. Quite likely they have much less).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom