Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Meehl to Georgieva is apples to oranges.

Then, why you insist in pairing them? You know well the figure was used just to see two curves.....

Ok, we agree Meehl is irrelevant to the discussion. Since you've clarified why you brought the graph up.

I used 11 years because that "is" the solar cycle. I invited everyone to find the "error". The matter is the solar cycle varying between 9 and 14 years and averaging 10.66 to 11.04 -it depends on the criteria chosen-.....

Except it's not, as far as the geomagnetic effects noted by Giorgieva. The magnetic field reverses, and the complete cycle is two of commonly phrased "solar cycles" (reference George Hale). The same reasoning that Reid used to justify averaging with 15 years for the sunspot cycle (11 years) would be 30 years for the full magnetic cycle (Hale cycle). Because Giorgieva was looking at the geomagnetic cycle and not the sunspot cycle, this would be correct for smoothing. Circumstantially, 30 years is the "climatic normal".

RE: Assumption of error in use of 11 year smoothing
It isn't an error in cycle average length but in method. Rather than smooth, one would detrend by simply subtracting out a presumed forcing effect on global temperature which varies with the known sunspot cycles. This is exactly the effect that we think does not adequately explain past 1950 temperatures.

Alec, you might know this paper, in it Reid looks at solar irradiance through a proxy constructed from a 15-year Gaussian filter of the sunspot number. He chose 15 years so as to minimize the high variance in sunspot numbers between solar minimum and maximum, while keeping sight of long term trends....So in answer to your question, perhaps there was some other climate mechanism that changed the time constant of the system at about that time.....

what about a longer time constant, then, I dunno).

RE: Delays in time constants.
Generally, we conceive of TSI has having a fairly immediate effect on temperature. However, Reid notes that his weakest and most questionable assumption is:

(3) that there is a linear relationship between the sun’s average level of magnetic activity and its total irradiance

He uses the phrase "magnetic activity" as synonymous with sunspot levels. Giorgieva shows pretty clearly that sunspot numbers are an inferior measure of magnetic activity, and produce an inferior correlation with temperature compared to the aK index.

I can't see any reason that there would not necessarily be differences in time constants of effects on Earth from (1) solar irradiance (2) solar magentic effects. Going down this road, one would have to disagree with Reid's "weakest assumption". If we define for the moment TSRI - total solar radiative imbalance at top of troposphere as that net effect over and above what solar effect maintains a constant temperature, then (conjecture only)...

• Year A 70% TSI and 30% aK
• Year B 60% TSI and 40% aK

With some differences in the timing of the effects. But after having accepted aK as the measure of magnetics and throwing out "sunspot cycles", then the relative effects of aK and TSI have to be looked at.

If possible.

 

[aleCcowaN]

RE: Delays in time constants.
Generally, we conceive of TSI has having a fairly immediate effect on temperature. However, Reid notes that his weakest and most questionable assumption is:

(3) that there is a linear relationship between the sun’s average level of magnetic activity and its total irradiance

He uses the phrase "magnetic activity" as synonymous with sunspot levels. Giorgieva shows pretty clearly that sunspot numbers are an inferior measure of magnetic activity, and produce an inferior correlation with temperature compared to the aK index.

I can't see any reason that there would not necessarily be differences in time constants of effects on Earth from (1) solar irradiance (2) solar magentic effects. Going down this road, one would have to disagree with Reid's "weakest assumption". If we define for the moment TSRI - total solar radiative imbalance at top of troposphere as that net effect over and above what solar effect maintains a constant temperature, then (conjecture only)...

• Year A 70% TSI and 30% aK
• Year B 60% TSI and 40% aK

With some differences in the timing of the effects. But after having accepted aK as the measure of magnetics and throwing out "sunspot cycles", then the relative effects of aK and TSI have to be looked at.

If possible.

You may continue playing Rorschach inkblot tests with variables, values and figures or you might explain the physics underlying your claims. Last time you claimed "resonance" -I think you meant "coupling"- and later became suddenly dumb on those physical aspects.

You can cut all the exuberant weed around these argumentations and explain what links average earth temperatures changing values with solar geomagnetic activity, and why aK is the right index to measure it -besides a circumstantial correlation-.

Except it's not, as far as the geomagnetic effects noted by Giorgieva. The magnetic field reverses, and the complete cycle is two of commonly phrased "solar cycles" (reference George Hale). The same reasoning that Reid used to justify averaging with 15 years for the sunspot cycle (11 years) would be 30 years for the full magnetic cycle (Hale cycle). Because Giorgieva was looking at the geomagnetic cycle and not the sunspot cycle, this would be correct for smoothing. Circumstantially, 30 years is the "climatic normal".

RE: Assumption of error in use of 11 year smoothing
It isn't an error in cycle average length but in method. Rather than smooth, one would detrend by simply subtracting out a presumed forcing effect on global temperature which varies with the known sunspot cycles. This is exactly the effect that we think does not adequately explain past 1950 temperatures.

More sci-fi? Instead of speaking of "detrend" and other niceties of the prose you could have realized that Georgieva's doesn't intend to prove any relation between aK and climate change (read it well). The paper is a master piece of politics, there are some induced inferences:

PERIOD. The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01
for the whole period studied. PERIOD.

Following:

PERIOD.
It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades. PERIOD.

And ending:

PERIOD. So the sunspot number is not a good indicator of solar activity, and using the sunspot number leads to the under-estimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming. PERIOD.

The second paragraph is the reasoned conclusion of the paper. First paragraph is a value I discussed -well done r and p, meaning?-. I have no problem with the last paragraph and I believe nobody has it. The consequence of the study is a greater uncertainty for values inferred from sunspots in period 1650-1850. What's the problem with that?

Paragraph 3 doesn't mean that solar is the main origin of GW, nor paragraph 1 proves it. This is twisting what the paper says -though the abstract and title favours that-. The paper is then "buyable" for the anti-GW advocacy though not conceptually "affordable" for the average "advocate". That's why the paper is so popular: 30 Helens agree "It must have been ak-index"

 

[aleCcowaN]

Would you be able to put up some LATEX? I afraid don't understand what derivatives and integrals you are referring too.

The nature of aK index makes you to get the same values for a week with 56 3-hour values of 1 for K index and another week 55 zero values and one K value of 8. So, the difference between an aK-index of 20 for a year and an ak-index of 21 could be a couple of nines instead of fives. Averaging that for 30 years and getting 21 instead of 20 may come from 20 values of 9 instead of 8, 50 values of 8 instead of 7, and 100 values of 7 instead of 6, all from 87656 3-hour values in those 30 years.

aK values mainly accounts for episodic magnetic activity that use to happen more intensely in periods of more solar activity, including a little increment of sun's diameter that translates into more radiation emitted, a variation in UV percentage of the spectrum that influences the ozone layer. Then, aK is changing day by day (from 0 to 400) and its smoothed tendencies only relate to variations in solar activity (derivative of solar activity).

On the contrary, average temperatures in Earth (not daily variations) integrates the energy flux balance. Suppose for a second that the Sun is the only cause of that balance (when it is more active it radiates more and it generates more ozone that keeps that extra energy trapped). Then, a sudden change in magnetic activity (measured by a daily aK raising from 10 to 30 and keeping there) will provoke a slow reaction in average temperatures, and -if sustained- will move the average temperature to a new constant level, maybe 30 years later -that's why climatic normals-. All this is not shown in the figures. My position is that any pseudo-exponential tendency (where function, derivative, integral and average show the same properties) is what allows the mistaken relations between variables.

There would be a thousand ways to show a changing sun as the obvious major driver of GW. Taking land temperatures for dry regions and wet regions and taking sea temperatures you can monitor trends. But this kind of papers won't be discussed along with Georgieva's and similar ones. Why?

So is your conclusion that aK and temperature are not related?

aK-index of course not, as it varies from 0 to hundreds day by day and temperature don't follow it at all. About long term smoothed valued, they are not more related than total sales of bathing suits and total sales of mosaic tiles (for any intended use of both categories).

The whole thing made me remember that old problem at school: position is the cause of velocity as the highest r value shows

 

[DogB]

DogB - you need to be careful about terms like " heat hidden" etc

Yeah I expressed myself poorly.

 

[aleCcowaN]

...

The continental structures alter the flow of currents and formation of pools, there is a paper about the significance of the gap near Australia /Indonesia ( will try and find - there is a little here
http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/ocean-conveyor-belt.htm - good illustration that shows how critical that Indonesian gap is ) that indicates it may have a role to play in the geologically recent shift in ice age cycle patterns -

...


Here's a good article showing how the hot pools drive weather and local climate worldwide

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WarmPool/

If you overlaid that with ocean currents and atmospheric currents PLUS topography under both above and below the ocean it's easy to see how complex the gradients and subsequent circulation in ocean and atmosphere become.

...

As for the PDO - the pools build in different locations...nicely shown here

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

Very much terra incognita.

Bottom line tho - none of these are drivers as much as a few of the denier crowd are postulating lately - they are consequences of heat build up at the equator in air and ocean. None add energy into the geo-sphere.

Thank you again for your explanations and those links. I started a plan of readings to learn more about this interesting subject -a subject I have neglected being so important to understand how the planet reacts-. These are the anomalies in sea surface temperature I was wondering the other day and they match aproximately the areas where the conveyor belt sinks and emerges (sst anomalies for week ending 10aug09)

 

[macdoc]

The risk is that the conveyor shuts down due to salinity versus density issues especially in the North Atlantic.....= a very chilly Europe.

You can see how critical that flow through Indonesia is.....

It may part of the ice age cycle - sea levels drop far enough to cut that flow down and the poles get real cold and around we go.

There was a good article on the Indonesian gap and I can't find it.

 

[Wangler]

It may part of the ice age cycle -

For sure.

There have been climate changes since before H. Sapiens learned how to make tools from a Monolith.

There are signs that H. Sapiens is affecting climate to some degree, but it is hard to quantify the final result on the future climate.

 

[macdoc]

It's akin to kicking off an avalanche....your step has little energy - the consequences have large energy until a new equilibrium is reached.

It's the knock on effects when the current climate regime is destabilized and feedbacks like methane release kick in.

No more BAU for H Sapiens as far as climate is concerned...wider excursions, more often.

If you are trying to imply we are NOT primarily responsible for the climate regime changes occurring now....you're wrong..period.

Previous ice ages have started with orbital perhaps aided by volcanic dimming and once the regime changes feedback occurs int hat direction as well.

We are very very slowly slipping into the cool part of the orbit - we might just have changed things enough to delay or cancel the next round of ice.

The effects of burning fossil fuels today will extend long beyond the next couple of hundred years, possibly delaying the onset of Earth's next ice age, more properly called a glacial period, says researcher Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom.

interesting times..

 

[DogB]

There was a good article on the Indonesian gap and I can't find it.

Don’t know if it'll help but here's an ancient presentation I had banging around in my favourites folder. I’m sure I kept it for a good reason but it escapes me right at this moment.

 

[macdoc]

Cool info - far more detail but the article was talking about how important the gap ( or the stoppage of the flow ) in glacial/ice age evolution. I didn't realize how big the volume is.

 

[Wangler]

We are very very slowly slipping into the cool part of the orbit - we might just have changed things enough to delay or cancel the next round of ice.

Mac, do you have a linky?

As always, thanks for the response/discussion MacDoc.

 

[themusicteacher]

I talked with the climate scientist (an actual one) I know today.

Me: How are things in the climate science world?

Him: We're still getting warmer...

It's like a global game of hide-and-go-seek: You're getting warmer, warmer...you're RED HOT. Ahhh, you're dead.

Oh, btw, he denied being involved in any sort of conspiracy to take over the world or destroy the economy or being in love with Al Gore. I told him, though: "We're on to you buddy. You and all your commie, fascist, hippie, capitalism-hating, pumpkin-pie freak friends. You won't be peddling your pseudo-science much longer. Us here in the chat room...we've got it all figured out. People from Senator Inhofe's will be calling you real soon." Then I gave him the "I've got my eyes on you" thing as I walked away. He was scared out of his mind. I think he called his liberal nazi handlers after I left his sight. Don't worry, guys. I'm on this.

 

[aleCcowaN]

...

Oh, btw, he denied being involved in any sort of conspiracy to take over the world or destroy the economy or being in love with Al Gore. I told him, though: "We're on to you buddy. You and all your commie, fascist, hippie, capitalism-hating, pumpkin-pie freak friends.

...

In my country people who are worried about GW are conservative, capitalism-lovers, etc. Those who don't believe there is a GW or who think mankind has nothing to do with it are: 1)a fifth of USA's (%), and 2) regarded as "commies", "fascist", "hippies", "capitalism-haters", postmodern, etc.

When I read Poptech and mHaze labeling me as a leftist, capitalism-hater, and all the regular names attached in USA's way of thinking, I simply . Not that I don't have my own prejudices, but -thank darwinness- I'm always thankful that I can see my own stupidity in the mirror created by other's dumbness.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Since they can now see the temperature of every square mile on Earth, whats the problem? To hell with averages just add up all the temps, get a random base number and then have a Big Global Warming Globe that glows red when that number goes up and blue when it goes down. In REAL time. Either that or just combine all the square mile colors and use that as a base instead of a total temp number. Then have a Total Temp Number betting pool, for say July 13, 2011, and let everyone put their money where there mouth is

 

[Wangler]

Since they can now see the temperature of every square mile on Earth, whats the problem? To hell with averages just add up all the temps, get a random base number and then have a Big Global Warming Globe that glows red when that number goes up and blue when it goes down. In REAL time. Either that or just combine all the square mile colors and use that as a base instead of a total temp number. Then have a Total Temp Number betting pool, for say July 13, 2011, and let everyone put their money where there mouth is

What purpose would this idea serve, again?

 

[BenBurch]

Since they can now see the temperature of every square mile on Earth, whats the problem? To hell with averages just add up all the temps, get a random base number and then have a Big Global Warming Globe that glows red when that number goes up and blue when it goes down. In REAL time. Either that or just combine all the square mile colors and use that as a base instead of a total temp number. Then have a Total Temp Number betting pool, for say July 13, 2011, and let everyone put their money where there mouth is

Um, I don't think such a display would show what you think it would show, and sensor coverage isn't that exact or timely.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Can't global warming be thought of as a sine wave amplification? The jet stream usually forms a misshapen sine wave as it goes across the Pacific and N. America, with clockwise circulation on the upper half being a high pressure system, and the bottom half the counterclockwise circulation of a low pressure system. Well if the Pacific loses its ice cube in the arctic, it is going to warm up. That is going to amplify the lows and hence the highs and the high - low sine wave. You then get record events of every description because of that amplification. The amplification could lead to fearing each and every frontal system that crosses the continental US, something easily as important as hurricane development. And on a tangent how does the arctic ice melt compare this year to last. Guess I'll google it

 

[macdoc]

Can't global warming be thought of as a sine wave amplification?

You are confusing oscillation of various energy forms ( wind, latent heat, ocean currents, coriolis effects, SST, land temperatures and gradients, storm forms which move heat and energy around in the various geo-systems ...

with net warming which is an alteration in the radiative balance between incoming solar and outgoing radiation FROM the earth.

The retained energy shows up in part as increased temperature land sea and air and in part as changes in the cryosphere and other energy sinks.
Some will be increased rainfall, wind speed, storm intensities.

GW is a short form for the change in radiative balance to holding more energy.

Your sine wave idea is fine WITHIN the earth's geo-systems - lots of crazy peaks and troughs and gradients and amplification and feedback.

It's not GW tho.

GW fuels changes in the weather systems - like increased water load in the atmosphere...very complex outcomes and energy transforms...

 

[Wangler]

You are confusing oscillation of various energy forms ( wind, latent heat, ocean currents, coriolis effects, SST, land temperatures and gradients, storm forms which move heat and energy around in the various geo-systems ...

with net warming which is an alteration in the radiative balance between incoming solar and outgoing radiation FROM the earth.

The retained energy shows up in part as increased temperature land sea and air and in part as changes in the cryosphere and other energy sinks.
Some will be increased rainfall, wind speed, storm intensities.

GW is a short form for the change in radiative balance to holding more energy.

Your sine wave idea is fine WITHIN the earth's geo-systems - lots of crazy peaks and troughs and gradients and amplification and feedback.

It's not GW tho.

GW fuels changes in the weather systems - like increased water load in the atmosphere...very complex outcomes and energy transforms...

Well said!

 

[macdoc]

Thanks - thought I lost that post in a Safari hiccup...was pissed....did not go back and check until now.

TW

all you need here

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Arctic single year ice is not much of an indicator...

Excellent multi-discipline reports on the changing Arctic

Scientists in many disciplines collate the changes in reports like these
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

I prefer analogue signals.....

Some good reading on geo-systems -

Climate book is terrific and very up to date
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/Climat ... teVol1.pdf

other good getting started is here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... tart-here/
and here
http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/