Simple Question About AGW

[mhaze]

mhaze:1,2, or 4% charge in global cloud cover....
is a really big deal!
​

1,2 or 4 degree rise in temperature
is a really big deal!

Cloud cover.... CAUSE
Temperature: Effect

 

[a_unique_person]

100% increase in CO2

BIG DEAL

 

[fsol]

Cloud cover.... CAUSE
Temperature: Effect

Ooh pretty colours, it must be true!

 

[TrueSceptic]

I understand how this works, but you appear not to. Let me help you.

No hypothesis or theory is ever proven. In fact, hypothesis and theories can only be refuted. Those theories which explain as much or more than others, and cannot be refuted, are the winners. They are the ones you see in textbooks.

OK, so proven is the wrong word, but it doesn't mean that you can automatically assume that something is valid or even just the best answer until it is refuted.

Those would be great theories if only they explained anything or predicted anything. They don't.

I agree. That is the point.

 

[TrueSceptic]

No serious person is doubting that global temperatures are increasing.

Actually, some do doubt that. They claim that the reported increases are due to poor station data or doctoring the figures. Others claim that the increase has now stopped anyway.

 

[varwoche]

This post is so out of touch with reality that it's hard to take seriously.

Time to think Varwoche.

Sheesh, and I thought it was a time to sow.

There are no trend lines, no R2 statistics. It is your side that beats the drum of "record" temps, so with 1998 being the "record" temp, it only stands to reason to view as the baseline for the current discussion.

Cherry-picking this egregious is a sorry sight to behold.

It was Met O and others who predicted 2007 was the beginning of "record" temps exceeding 1998. I am simply showing it is going in the opposite sign.

On the planet I inhabit, 12 of the 13 warmest years on record occurred in the past 13 years, 2007 amongst. link

You need to answer the following question: why is GISS diverged so far from HadCRU and others?

I know you've already been told this but with hope springing eternal: it hasn't.

 

[jimbob]

Why would using the cumulative sum be valid with highly autocorrelated data?

Why is the data autocorrelated, is it because there is noise added to a "typical" parameter and that this "typical" is moving?

A drunkard's walk might be autocorrelated, but this doesn't resemble that.

Anyway, as I said before, you don't need a cusum when you look at the simple mean-temperature vs time plot.

This resembles data for a parameter that is increasing.

 

[CapelDodger]

The data fits going back before the time of the Vikings. The graph is in the Danish article I referred to previously. But if you are especially interrested in the latest decades, I can provide this random article I googled for AUP here.

Nothing about cosmic rays in there. I suppose you're using solar activity as a proxy. There is this though :

"He said firm conclusions about whether the present changes involve a long-term trend or a relatively brief aberration should come with continued monitoring into the next solar minimum, expected around 2006."

So how did that work out?

Hard to summarize a summary. Sorry. I suppose I could translate the entire article....

You said it was informative, so you surely carried away some salient points. But, whatever.

In other words, you didn't read it. OK.

Perhaps you thought they were top-notch and just failed to make your view clear.

I felt that "I don't know that I can refute a Torygraph article to your satisfaction, but I'll give it a shot" was unambiguous. You even thanked me, and then suggested that I "have a look at the article before criticizing". There's only one article involved at that point, so your confusion seems rather contrived.

See above.

Quite.

Then stop making throw-away comments which I can only answer in the way I did. Make substancial, constructive ones. Thanks.

I try, but "It's also hard to take this kind of 'refutation' seriously" doesn't give me much to work with. It's a bit throw-away, don't you think? If you simply say "You are mistaken" and move on, what's a man to do? Let it pass?

No, the scale goes from -2% to + 2%. Not sure which figure you were looking at?

The scale goes there, the graph doesn't. There's not much blue above 1% or below -1%. There's quite a lot of it closer to zero - but that's the way of it with cycles. Mostly there's just not much going on.

To see any trend requires examining multiple cycles, obviously. Any such trend will be considerably less than variation within a cycle. As an explanation for three decades of warming, the cloud-cover thing just doesn't hack it. Not without postulating cloud-cover as the dominant influence on climate.

You can respond by admitting that you were misinformed. Very simple.

I am not misinformed.

I shall do my best. Let me know when you become a skeptic.

Very barbed. Especially from someone who goes limp when "CERN" and "60 scientists" are paraded in front of him. I didn't notice you questioning exactly what involvement they had, you just appeared well impressed at their mere mention.

I do it my way, you do it yours. There no right way to be a sceptic, any more than there's a right way to spell it.

 

[DogB]

Deleted.

 

[Geckko]

Why is the data autocorrelated, is it because there is noise added to a "typical" parameter and that this "typical" is moving?

A drunkard's walk might be autocorrelated, but this doesn't resemble that.

Anyway, as I said before, you don't need a cusum when you look at the simple mean-temperature vs time plot.

This resembles data for a parameter that is increasing.

I think your initial intepretation was correct.

The CUSUM shows the temperature series to potentially a non-stationary series. Autocorrelation would be a potential source of this.

What this means is that the OP charts, plotting one against another, are highly susceptiable to finding spurious correlations (either statistical, or more commonly by simply looking at the two together). Which has been my point all along:

The plot in the OP is not very good statistical evidence for any inference that links the two series in any way.

 

[jimbob]

I think your initial intepretation was correct.

The CUSUM shows the temperature series to potentially a non-stationary series. Autocorrelation would be a potential source of this.

What this means is that the OP charts, plotting one against another, are highly susceptiable to finding spurious correlations (either statistical, or more commonly by simply looking at the two together). Which has been my point all along:

The plot in the OP is not very good statistical evidence for any inference that links the two series in any way.

OK, I am only arguing the case that this is evidence that the temperature is actually rising, and rising at an increasing rate.

This still leaves the question about the "A" in AGW...

However I am unable to outguess climate physicists on that.

 

[DanishDynamite]

OK, so proven is the wrong word, but it doesn't mean that you can automatically assume that something is valid or even just the best answer until it is refuted.

No, one can't assume that something is valid or the best answer. One needs to check if there are perhaps other, simpler answers. This is science. And this is what Svensmark is doing.

I agree. That is the point.

OK.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Actually, some do doubt that. They claim that the reported increases are due to poor station data or doctoring the figures. Others claim that the increase has now stopped anyway.

They aren't serious people, then.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Nothing about cosmic rays in there. I suppose you're using solar activity as a proxy.

Yes I am. I think I explained about how the connection between solar activity and cosmic rays is well known.

There is this though :

So how did that work out?

No idea, sorry.

You said it was informative, so you surely carried away some salient points. But, whatever.

It is indeed very informative and I wish I could find it for you in English. No luck so far, though.

I felt that "I don't know that I can refute a Torygraph article to your satisfaction, but I'll give it a shot" was unambiguous. You even thanked me, and then suggested that I "have a look at the article before criticizing". There's only one article involved at that point, so your confusion seems rather contrived.

OK, I suppose that my question regarding whether you read the "article" could be interpreted as the news article I linked to itself and not the article referred to in the article. In any case, did you read the article referred in the article?

I try, but "It's also hard to take this kind of 'refutation' seriously" doesn't give me much to work with. It's a bit throw-away, don't you think? If you simply say "You are mistaken" and move on, what's a man to do? Let it pass?

I was referring to your "argument" at the point in question.

The scale goes there, the graph doesn't. There's not much blue above 1% or below -1%. There's quite a lot of it closer to zero - but that's the way of it with cycles. Mostly there's just not much going on.

You must be looking at a different graph than I am. The blue curve alone varies between at least 1.6% and -1.8% as far as I can see.

To see any trend requires examining multiple cycles, obviously. Any such trend will be considerably less than variation within a cycle. As an explanation for three decades of warming, the cloud-cover thing just doesn't hack it. Not without postulating cloud-cover as the dominant influence on climate.

Not only do the 3 recent decades of data fit very well, but so does data going back to before the year 1000, including the "little iceage" and the Maunder Minimum. It may be an incredible coincidence, but denying the data by claiming it simply isn't there, is pretty close to woo.

I am not misinformed.

I have shown that you are. There is in fact an increasing solar activity and has been for decades. And there is a corresponding decrease in cosmic rays, also across the decades. You claimed this wasn't the case. Ergo, you were misinformed.

Very barbed. Especially from someone who goes limp when "CERN" and "60 scientists" are paraded in front of him. I didn't notice you questioning exactly what involvement they had, you just appeared well impressed at their mere mention.

Yes, that was barbed. But I think we both are quite adept at barbs.

I do it my way, you do it yours. There no right way to be a sceptic, any more than there's a right way to spell it.

Perhaps, but dismissing alternative explanations out of hand certainly doesn't seem very skeptic/sceptic.

 

[varwoche]

A random page regarding solar activity here.

And on the other hand, here are studies that indicate the sun is not the cause of recent warming:

Cyclical changes in the sun's energy output are not responsible for Earth's recent global warming ... Instead the findings put the blame for climate change squarely on human-created carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases—reinforcing the beliefs of most climate scientists. link

no indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming link

Sunspots alter the amount of energy Earth gets from the sun, but not enough to impact global climate change ... The difference in brightness between the high point of a sunspot cycle and its low point is less than 0.1 percent of the sun's total output ... If you run that back in time to the 17th century using sunspot records, you'll find that this amplitude variance is negligible for climate. link

 

[jsfisher]

And on the other hand, here are studies that indicate the sun is not the cause of recent warming:

Those are interesting links, varwoche. Thank you.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes I am. I think I explained about how the connection between solar activity and cosmic rays is well known.

It is. It's noisy, but across a few cycles it's pretty clear.

No idea, sorry.

A more recent meta-study concludes that there's been no trend in solar activity or cosmic rays over the last fifty years.

It is indeed very informative and I wish I could find it for you in English. No luck so far, though.

Don't worry about it. I find something informative when I go away with at least one "Well, I didn't know that" in my head.

OK, I suppose that my question regarding whether you read the "article" could be interpreted as the news article I linked to itself and not the article referred to in the article. In any case, did you read the article referred in the article?

The article of the which part? As I recall the link was to the Torygraph article. Easy meat.

I was referring to your "argument" at the point in question.
You must be looking at a different graph than I am. The blue curve alone varies between at least 1.6% and -1.8% as far as I can see.

At the extremes. 3.4%, but notice how little of the blue is out there, and how much closer to the zero-line. And, of course, most of it cancels out, so at the end of the cycle there's not much difference at all.

So the effect is there, but you've gone nowhere in demonstrating that there's a trend across solar cycles. That will necessarily be far less than the variation within a cycle.

Not only do the 3 recent decades of data fit very well, but so does data going back to before the year 1000, including the "little iceage" and the Maunder Minimum. It may be an incredible coincidence, but denying the data by claiming it simply isn't there, is pretty close to woo.

I'm certain there's no reliable cloud-cover data going back to Knut's day.

I have shown that you are. There is in fact an increasing solar activity and has been for decades. And there is a corresponding decrease in cosmic rays, also across the decades. You claimed this wasn't the case. Ergo, you were misinformed.

There is no increase in solar activity over the last fifty years.

Yes, that was barbed. But I think we both are quite adept at barbs.

That was irony. You really did go tickle-my-tummie to "CERN" and "60 scientists", so as a wannabe sceptic you don't rate yet.

Perhaps, but dismissing alternative explanations out of hand certainly doesn't seem very skeptic/sceptic.

I haven't used up all this bandwidth by being out-of-hand. I've provided good reason for my consigning this alternative to the darkest recesses of unlikelihood.

 

[BenBurch]

The problem with the Solar Constant (which is not a constant) is that until very recently there has not been a great way to measure it that excludes effects of the atmosphere. And early measurements, even those during the space age suffer from having been done in all sorts of ways that are hard to mutually calibrate.

So, it is really hard to find ANY trend in the solar output that you can be really confident of, but you can set some limits, and those limits cluster around a zero change, but do not exclude a small change up or down.

 

[mhaze]

And on the other hand, here are studies that indicate the sun is not the cause of recent warming:

The first of your links, Lockwood, has been pretty much discredited.

Have to study the other two a bit.

 

[varwoche]

The first of your links, Lockwood, has been pretty much discredited.

If I recall correctly, you made this same comment before in a different thread. As before, without a cite your feedback isn't useful.

In fact, in general, when you don't include a (meritorious) cite along with your challenges, by default I assume the truth is the opposite of what you post. (It's been a reliable system so far.)