General Climate Change

[Yorkshiresnows]

I've put the accepted science forward. What, if I'd gone, I'd have leanrt at uni or the Met Office.

I don't see the need for you to call me stupid or (and it's a worse slurr tbh) imply I'm am on a wind up. I reply to people's posts, I can do without such replies for my trouble. This is a debate, we both have differing views, I don't accept yours and I put forward my case as to why. Address my points, don't resort to ad hom.

Buit, how can this happen if the PDO has no trend? A trendless indicator cause a trend in temperature? How? Why wasn't temp as high last time the PDO was as it is now. No insults, why?

No it does not. It relies on accepted, known, shown physics. Not proven, but certainly not disproven.

Sorry,

But you clearly do not understand science or you would not be posting such total rubbish.

No, the CO2 feedback mechanisms are built on soley positive feedback mechanisms to do with water vapour and cloud cover changes. Please show me the analytical and actual measured data that goes into these ....... they are all assumptions for which the experts are split on. Assumptions that rely on computed modelling to generate the predicted temps. Currently we should be a lot warmer than we are (no overal warming since 2000 ..... thats around 10 years).

CO2 has an association with temp change no problem with that. That it is a cause of rather than a result of is not proven one little bit. The period of the little ice age and medieval warm period showed this (remember the doctored hockey stick graph that conveniently got rid of these well documented periods).

Here's another pinch from Accu-weather (Joe laminate floori blog)

SOME PRETTY COMPELLING EVIDENCE ON WHAT IS DRIVING CO2

The table below shows c02 increases on Mt Loa since 1959. One can notice the spiking of co2 when el ninos occur, and how the co2 increases were higher when the PDO went warm. This further supports my idea that we are going to get our answer as to what is causing the warming. Cycles of c02 and the evidence that the co2 RESPONDS to warming not causes is pretty straightforward with co-ordinating the data. The real kick in the teeth of co2 being the driver is the big fall with the Pinitubo cooling!

Anyway look for yourself

check this out:

COLD PDO YEARS year ppm/yr

1959 0.95

1960 0.51

1961 0.95

1962 0.69

1963 0.73 el nino starts

1964 0.29 el nino ends

1965 0.98el nino starts

1966 1.23el nino ends

1967 0.75

1968 1.02 el nino starts

1969 1.34 el nino

1970 1.02el nino ends

1971 0.82

1972 1.76 el nino starts

1973 1.18 el nino ends

1974 0.78

1975 1.10

1976 0.92 el nino starts

WARM PDO STARTING:

1977 2.09 el nino ends, starts

1978 1.31 el nino ends

1979 1.68

1980 1.80

1981 1.43

1982 0.72 el nino starts

1983 2.16 el nino ends

1984 1.37

1985 1.24

1986 1.51 el nino starts

1987 2.33 el nino

1988 2.09 el nino ends

1989 1.27

1990 1.31

1991 1.02 el nino starts

1992 0.43 PINITUBO! EARTH COOLS!!!! el nino ends

1993 1.35

1994 1.90 el nino starts

1995 1.98 el nino ends

1996 1.19

1997 1.98 el nino starts

1998 2.93 super nino ends

1999 0.94

2000 1.74

2001 1.59

2002 2.56 nino starts

2003 2.29 nino ends

2004 1.55 el nino starts

2005 2.52 el nino ends

2006 1.70 el nino starts

2007 2.16 el nino ends

2008 1.66

Cold PDO starting 2009 2.02 nino starts

2010 ----- nino ends

When you put it against the global temps, the co2 is plainly following the Pacific.. the new cold PDO should see a flattening out of the rate of rise.

So lets see who is right.

Her's another look at the PDO Chart from1900 to 2008:

We have the warming period of the 20's, 30's and early 40's, a slight cooling from 1940's to the late 1970's and then a warming thereafter, all coincidentally falling to the pattern of global temp changes. Yes, could be just coincidence ..... maybe not.

Y.S

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi V.P.! Long time no see? No , no more options just a wonder if folk strong on 'natural' see any room for human over time.

C-Bob, the one thing that leaps out from the PDO plot to me is the suppression over the 'Globally Dimmed' period.

If we know (and measured) pan evap. rates drop off over that 40yr period then that lack of energy would also impact on ocean warming would it not ?(and hence global temps?).

I have not revisited the 'dimmed period' recently but from what I remember of it I would expect it's fingerprints across large swathes of Global climate signals? If folk have 'new info' on our impacts over that period please point me at the studies please.

[VillagePlank]

Hi V.P.! Long time no see? No , no more options just a wonder if folk strong on 'natural' see any room for human over time.

Hi GW -> work to do, etc etc.

Well, in my (very) limited experience, I have always found that the answer is somewhere in-between: ie natural + manmade drivers are causally to blame. What the balance is, I must add, I think is yet to be determined fully.

That means to my mind that there are an infinte amount of choices between black and white, and characterising one person or another at either extreme, by only offering a small minutae of choice, is simply pandering for an argument at the expense of debate.

Edited May 25, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Yorkshiresnows]

Hi V.P.! Long time no see? No , no more options just a wonder if folk strong on 'natural' see any room for human over time.

C-Bob, the one thing that leaps out from the PDO plot to me is the suppression over the 'Globally Dimmed' period.

If we know (and measured) pan evap. rates drop off over that 40yr period then that lack of energy would also impact on ocean warming would it not ?(and hence global temps?).

I have not revisited the 'dimmed period' recently but from what I remember of it I would expect it's fingerprints across large swathes of Global climate signals? If folk have 'new info' on our impacts over that period please point me at the studies please.

Hi GW

Global Dimming is another 'misconception' I'm afraid.

I am assuming you are referring to the period of supposed reflection via supposed aerosal pollution that the modelling community wheel out to attempt to explian the 1945-1980 cooling period?

If so, its a non-starter. The global dimming thesis has been often quoted in peer-reviewed literature, but with no reference to the data that would support the conclusion that global-scale industrial emissions had followed the necessary pattern.

Scientific opinion on this area has in any case shifted. It is now clear that sulphate pollution from either industruial emissions or other sources such as volcanoes could not have been responsible for the 'dimming' because it was too localised. The most recent reviews of satellite data show that changes in natural aerosols and cloud patterns are implicated and that attributing the source of 'global dimming' to industrial aerosols was led by an artefact of measurement protocols that were biased to land and certain polluted regions of the northern hemisphere.

When global data are analysed (quoting from Peter Taylor - Chill here), the effect is seen to occur in areas where anthropogenic pollution is not significant. Furthermore there are pubished indices of the 'dust veil' from volcanoes that do not provide any supporting evidence for any contribution to this dimming.

This paper, the book by Peter Taylor and other references, come back to the same conclusion, that natural factors were at play, that relate to the transparency of the atmosphere to sunlight, ...... back to the question of clouds.

One paper that deals with this is Wild et al (2005) "From Dimming to brightening: decadal changes in solar radiation at the earth's surface", Science, 308, 847-850.

Y.S

Hi GW -> work to do, etc etc.

Well, in my (very) limited experience, I have always found that the answer is somewhere in-between: ie natural + manmade drivers are causally to blame. What the balance is, I must add, I think is yet to be determined fully.

That means to my mind that there are an infinte amount of choices between black and white, and characterising one person or another at either extreme, by only offering a small minutae of choice, is simply pandering for an argument at the expense of debate.

Hi, V.P

Good answer,

Its all too easy to 'try too hard' to get one's point across and I guess this can seem to be dogmatic. Think I'm falling into this camp !!!

Time to ease off the throttle.

Nothing is settled, that is the point I have been attempting to put across.

Peace and calm now !

Y.S

[laserguy]

Oh, and the argument that because something is in trace concentrations it isn't significant has been shown over and over again to be wrong. But, there are endless highly poisonous substances you can partake of in similar concentrations if you don't believe me

We ingest on a daily basis the most pernicious substances,intentionally or not. Most we are blissfully unaware of due to their tiny amounts. Sounds familiar? I can't tell which is most likely to induce madness in the long term - the slow build up of mercury in my system or the nonsense threshold being breached by my daily intake of anything CO2/climate related. Think it might be the latter. Time for several pints and some strong tobacco....

[Devonian]

Sorry,

But you clearly do not understand science or you would not be posting such total rubbish.

I must say I don't much like my intelligence being insulted on a repeated basis but it seems acceptable and I reserve the right (if you persist) to respond in kind...

No, the CO2 feedback mechanisms are built on soley positive feedback mechanisms to do with water vapour and cloud cover changes. Please show me the analytical and actual measured data that goes into these ....... they are all assumptions for which the experts are split on. Assumptions that rely on computed modelling to generate the predicted temps. Currently we should be a lot warmer than we are (no overal warming since 2000 ..... thats around 10 years).

I'm pretty sure (depending of course upon which precise date one chooses) globe shows warming since 2000 up to the present.

CO2 has an association with temp change no problem with that. That it is a cause of rather than a result of is not proven one little bit. The period of the little ice age and medieval warm period showed this (remember the doctored hockey stick graph that conveniently got rid of these well documented periods).

Why do you simply accept the view of people like Dr Spencer and 'blog professors' Watts and McIntyre? You're running with fringe blog science you know. The kind of stuff promoted by politically inspired astroturfers.

Here's another pinch from Accu-weather (Joe laminate floori blog)

SOME PRETTY COMPELLING EVIDENCE ON WHAT IS DRIVING CO2

The table below shows c02 increases on Mt Loa since 1959. One can notice the spiking of co2 when el ninos occur, and how the co2 increases were higher when the PDO went warm. This further supports my idea that we are going to get our answer as to what is causing the warming. Cycles of c02 and the evidence that the co2 RESPONDS to warming not causes is pretty straightforward with co-ordinating the data. The real kick in the teeth of co2 being the driver is the big fall with the Pinitubo cooling!

Oh c'mon! The temperature of oceans effects rates of CO2 absorption.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

I am assuming you are referring to the period of supposed reflection via supposed aerosal pollution that the modelling community wheel out to attempt to explian the 1945-1980 cooling period?

We had exactly that problem when producing the LI. It turns out that there is also an error in the way temperature records were measured during that period (thanks to TWS for the link) Once corrected for we ended up with this if you scroll back to the previous page, you'll find TWS' link to the paper that describes the error. We had to manually adjust for it. A fiddle factor, for sure.

Note on the chart, there, that with the purely natural factors that make up the LI model - it thinks it is still going to get warmer. What's been observed, despite low solar activity, over the last year?

Does a model that correlates, and then predicts qualify for further interest?

Edited May 26, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Yorkshiresnows]

We had exactly that problem when producing the LI. It turns out that there is also an error in the way temperature records were measured during that period (thanks to TWS for the link) Once corrected for we ended up with this if you scroll back to the previous page, you'll find TWS' link to the paper that describes the error. We had to manually adjust for it. A fiddle factor, for sure.

Note on the chart, there, that with the purely natural factors that make up the LI model - it thinks it is still going to get warmer. What's been observed, despite low solar activity, over the last year?

Does a model that correlates, and then predicts qualify for further interest?

Hi V.P,

Thanks for the link. Yes interesting.

But, it is my belief that we will begin to see a drop off in world temps as the effects of the swing in PDO come into effect.

Of course, time will tell.

Please also note that I have never stated that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas, only that the effects we are seeing are predominantly of a natural cause.

Y.S

I must say I don't much like my intelligence being insulted on a repeated basis but it seems acceptable and I reserve the right (if you persist) to respond in kind...

I'm pretty sure (depending of course upon which precise date one chooses) globe shows warming since 2000 up to the present.

Another Daft post (your good at these !!).

Have a look at the graphs I have posted - no overall warming since 2000.

The most accurate satellite for measuring certain aspects of global temperature is the NASA AQUA Satellite as this is able to ajust its Earth orbit position so ensure measurements are made at the same period. But, doesn't really matter which record you look at, they all indicate the same.

All this is NOT what the IPCC forecasts for global temperature show - we have deviated far off the field .... as such I would suggest that other factors other than greenhouse gas forcing is affecting the picture.

Its a free country pal, so you have every right to believe what you will, we'll soon see if I'm barking up the wrong tree, couple of years should be enough time ... if global temps stay static or drop off, then there must be something in what I have presented. If not, then I will be wrong and your views vindicated.

Y.S

[Devonian]

Another Daft post (your good at these !!).

Have a look at the graphs I have posted - no overall warming since 2000.

Ahh, I think I see the confusion. Your graphs are for 60N to 60S. That is not the whole globe.

The most accurate satellite for measuring certain aspects of global temperature is the NASA AQUA Satellite as this is able to ajust its Earth orbit position so ensure measurements are made at the same period. But, doesn't really matter which record you look at, they all indicate the same.

Ditto. The globe consistst of more than the bit between 60N and 60S.

All this is NOT what the IPCC forecasts for global temperature show - we have deviated far off the field .... as such I would suggest that other factors other than greenhouse gas forcing is affecting the picture.

Its a free country pal, so you have every right to believe what you will, we'll soon see if I'm barking up the wrong tree, couple of years should be enough time ... if global temps stay static or drop off, then there must be something in what I have presented. If not, then I will be wrong and your views vindicated.

Y.S

You could start by being consistent and that when you talk about global temperatures you mean the globe not a bit of it.

[Yorkshiresnows]

Ahh, I think I see the confusion. Your graphs are for 60N to 60S. That is not the whole globe.

Ditto. The globe consistst of more than the bit between 60N and 60S.

You could start by being consistent and that when you talk about global temperatures you mean the globe not a bit of it.

You could make the effort and look at some data and then make a relevant comment ?

Where's all the data that shows the Earth has been warming since 2000?

Y.S

Edited May 26, 2010 by Yorkshiresnows

[Devonian]

You could make the effort and look at some data and then make a relevant comment ?

Where's all the data that shows the Earth has been warming since 2000?

Y.S

If you plot a trend line from 2000/1 to today (2010/4) through that data you'll get a positive waming trend.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Devonian

[Yorkshiresnows]

Why do you simply accept the view of people like Dr Spencer and 'blog professors' Watts and McIntyre? You're running with fringe blog science you know. The kind of stuff promoted by politically inspired astroturfers.

Oh c'mon! The temperature of oceans effects rates of CO2 absorption.

It is really sad, when recognised scientists that have published and are still active in the field are dismissed as 'fringe' or fanatics or even heretics ....... and all because they do not support, or in both of the above cases have published data that question the role of greenhouse gases in global warming. What a world we live in.

How does temperature of the oceans effect rates of CO2 absorption.

Devonian, if you are going to make such bold comments, please back them up with some reason why you believe that this is not so.

Around 50% of the Co2 that mankind churns out is absorbed back into the land/oceans

One thing that can be measured and has been measured is the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. How does this do this, well one of the main contributors is phytoplankton growth.

During unusually warm years, the ocean gives up more CO2 than it absorbs. For instance, during a strong El Nino such as that of 1997/1998, more CO2 is released by the ocean than that taken out of the atmosphere by the ocean. Part of the explanation is the soda 'fizz' effect: warm water can hold less CO2 than cold water, with the main reason being that there is less plankton growth during El Nino's so there is less CO2 required for photosynthesis.

During the strong El Nino of 1982-1983 changing ocean circulation patterns caused the deaths of trillions of marine organisms.

In contrast, during cool La Nina conditions, the combination of cooler waters absorbing more Co2 and faster plankton growth leads to an anomalously large uptake of CO2 by the ocean.

You can see these spikes in some of the CO2 charts:

Y.S

Edited May 26, 2010 by Yorkshiresnows

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

C-Bob, we have been here before and I have offended your sensibilities with similar in the past (and always apologised for any discomfort I brought you for having you interpret such as a personal 'slur').

This is not a matter for us to 'judge' but merely my perception of how history will 'Judge' this generation for it's complacency at matters which ,by then ,will be oh so clear.

My hands are as bloody as yours or anyone else's (and no matter how 'Pilate' I be about it I cannot wash off this stink/stain) and ,as ever, our children will despair at the gaffs we have made.

At risk of being overlong 'Y.S.'s' complacency is that of the group to whom he adheres to and (it would seem from the words the poster uses) who feel we have no need for alarm/concern at the state of the climate system (or the projections science brings us as to the direction the climate system is headed in) and not a direct assault on the poster themselves. It is that 'set' of people, that 'clan' ,that 'ideology'.

If anyone else feels I have laid humanities fate at the feet of Y.S. (and have urged the global population to blame that poster alone for any large scale humanitarian disaster that our climate meddling brings us) I am sorry, I have been clumbsy, I will try and be less so in the future but can make you no promises.

His 'complacency' in your eyes is simply his own reasonable and respectful judgement about the science. You are making assumptions about his (in your view) disregard for the 'planet' and environment due to contamination through your own standpoint of over zealous fanaticism for AGW as a means to impose it on others and subsequently you appear to feel justified in personal slurs and preaching on the basis that such imposition is (in truth rightly) rejected by those you target it towards. In this case YS.

Have your view by all means, as extreme and fanatical as it is, but don't keep trying to impose it on others or make moral judgements about them if they differ to you. I think that is a reasonable promise that you should be able to make.

Edited May 26, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Devonian]

It is really sad, when recognised scientists that have published and are still active in the field are dismissed as 'fringe' or fanatics or even heretics .......

It would but you're putting words in my mouth, attacking a strawman. I used the word fring but not fanatic or heritics - oh, and I used the term 'Dr' for Dr Spencer because that is what he is, the fringe stuff is Watts and McIntyre territory. If you're going to comment on my posts, at least comment on what I said.

and all because they do not support, or in both of the above cases have published data that question the role of greenhouse gases in global warming. What a world we live in.

Again, you strawmanning - attacking a easy target you've made up.

How does temperature of the oceans effect rates of CO2 absorption.

Devonian, if you are going to make such bold comments, please back them up with some reason why you believe that this is not so.

Around 50% of the Co2 that mankind churns out is absorbed back into the land/oceans

One thing that can be measured and has been measured is the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. How does this do this, well one of the main contributors is phytoplankton growth.

During unusually warm years, the ocean gives up more CO2 than it absorbs. For instance, during a strong El Nino such as that of 1997/1998, more CO2 is released by the ocean than that taken out of the atmosphere by the ocean. Part of the explanation is the soda 'fizz' effect: warm water can hold less CO2 than cold water, with the main reason being that there is less plankton growth during El Nino's so there is less CO2 required for photosynthesis.

During the strong El Nino of 1982-1983 changing ocean circulation patterns caused the deaths of trillions of marine organisms.

In contrast, during cool La Nina conditions, the combination of cooler waters absorbing more Co2 and faster plankton growth leads to an anomalously large uptake of CO2 by the ocean.

You can see these spikes in some of the CO2 charts

Right, the temperature of the oceans effects CO2 uptake rates.

[noggin]

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/poster_paul_holper_final.pdf

Good grief......."thought police" anyone?

So Australian governmental money is now to be used to find a way to "deal with" those pesky types who don't think that climate change is man-made.

How long before it comes to our shores? I am waiting for a knock on my door. Oh, hold on though....we have already had that seminar at the University of the West of England to discuss the mental deficiencies of the non-believers, haven't we? It was two-ish years ago, IIRC.

Tsk, tsk.

[VillagePlank]

http://wattsupwithth...olper_final.pdf

Good grief......."thought police" anyone?

So Australian governmental money is now to be used to find a way to "deal with" those pesky types who don't think that climate change is man-made.

How long before it comes to our shores? I am waiting for a knock on my door. Oh, hold on though....we have already had that seminar at the University of the West of England to discuss the mental deficiencies of the non-believers, haven't we? It was two-ish years ago, IIRC.

Tsk, tsk.

Paul Holper is the manager of the $15 million fund for that neck of the woods. Of course, someone's got to do it, but the question must be asked - if there were no problem with the climate, would there be a fund?

I think such initiatives would go a long way to approach the problem in an inclusive, rather than a 'them and us' approach; it's actually not really that hard to do, and, I presume, that these guys are intelligent enough to rise above the cacophony, to simply say - 'Look, guys: the climate is changing. What are we going to do about it?'

After all - who does that exclude?

Edited May 27, 2010 by jethro

[Devonian]

To change ths subject somewhat there is a interesting article in last weeks New Scientist about ice ages. It's available in full and I think the graphic below extends at least my understanding of the end of an ice age.

Image here.

[pottyprof]

Come on guys.. No need for name calling and picking at words.

I agree with what Dev said.

Stick to the evidence, data, observations and theory

If we can't continue along that line then it looks like we are going to need to close this thread for a while. It's not something we want to do but we will be left with no option.

Please continue the debate in a friendly manner.

Thankies..

[sunny starry skies]

Y.S., why you feel the need to be so rude to Dev when he is challenging (rightly) what you're posting is a mystery. reminds me why it's rarely worth posting here any more.

Some questions, and some data:

1: what is the trendline between 2000 and present on the UAH dataset? What direction is it? You can use woodfortrees to calculate it:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/every:1/plot/uah/from:2000/every:1/trend

2: The trendline in (1) is not significant of course, as it is insufficiently long a time period. Is the trend for 15,20 or the commonly-accepted 30 years also positive, and does it differ significantly from any other timeseries (GISS, HADCRUT3 etc)?

3: Climate sensitivity: You deride the Mann 'Hockey stick'. The best datasets show that the MWP and LIA are muted on a global scale, not least because they are not temporally synchronous, unlike modern warming. if the MWP was as pronounced as you seem to wish (say, as warm as present), what is the significance for global climate sensitivity?

4: (related to (3)) Why should you, and all of the rest of us, really hope that hockey sticks are the right shape for global temperature over the last 1000 years?

5: If it's all to do with the Sun, why does the troposphere warm when the stratosphere cools; why is warming observed day and night; why do the poles warm more than the equator; and why does winter warm more than summer?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/34/_Sf_UIQYc20

6: If it's clouds, why is there no observable link between clouds and cosmic rays (the favourite hypothesis)?

Calogovic et al. (2010); Kulmala et al. (2010) among others.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm

Here's a good summary of why it's clearly us, and not some mythical 'natural cycle' (a term I've always found amusing as even 'natural cycles' should have an identifiable cause and forcing value):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html

For general interest:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-happened-to-the-evidence-for-man-made-global-warming.html - loads of good links on research current as of late 2009. Of course the recent remarkable high temperatures and low Arctic sea ice (area and volume) are not shown there.

sss

[DeepSnow]

I watched a doc ages ago, i believe if i remember correctly that they said something about the earth warming from the cycles of sun spots and CO2 following closely behind so the warming can't be from co2 as much as some people say it is, or something like that! I could be completely wrong though and sorry if i am, but does anyone know anything about this?

[VillagePlank]

Well, since my post re:implication of 'denialism' has been edited out (for sure with reference to complaints) I am afraid that is the last you all will hear from me.

[Yorkshiresnows]

Y.S., why you feel the need to be so rude to Dev when he is challenging (rightly) what you're posting is a mystery. reminds me why it's rarely worth posting here any more.

Some questions, and some data:

1: what is the trendline between 2000 and present on the UAH dataset? What direction is it? You can use woodfortrees to calculate it:

http://woodfortrees....0/every:1/trend

2: The trendline in (1) is not significant of course, as it is insufficiently long a time period. Is the trend for 15,20 or the commonly-accepted 30 years also positive, and does it differ significantly from any other timeseries (GISS, HADCRUT3 etc)?

3: Climate sensitivity: You deride the Mann 'Hockey stick'. The best datasets show that the MWP and LIA are muted on a global scale, not least because they are not temporally synchronous, unlike modern warming. if the MWP was as pronounced as you seem to wish (say, as warm as present), what is the significance for global climate sensitivity?

4: (related to (3)) Why should you, and all of the rest of us, really hope that hockey sticks are the right shape for global temperature over the last 1000 years?

5: If it's all to do with the Sun, why does the troposphere warm when the stratosphere cools; why is warming observed day and night; why do the poles warm more than the equator; and why does winter warm more than summer?

http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm

http://www.youtube.c.../34/_Sf_UIQYc20

6: If it's clouds, why is there no observable link between clouds and cosmic rays (the favourite hypothesis)?

Calogovic et al. (2010); Kulmala et al. (2010) among others.

http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm

Here's a good summary of why it's clearly us, and not some mythical 'natural cycle' (a term I've always found amusing as even 'natural cycles' should have an identifiable cause and forcing value):

http://www.skeptical...al-warming.html

For general interest:

http://www.aip.org/h...ate/summary.htm

http://www.skeptical...al-warming.html - loads of good links on research current as of late 2009. Of course the recent remarkable high temperatures and low Arctic sea ice (area and volume) are not shown there.

sss

The mann Hockey stick has been successfully discredited (there were missing data points and also data points from tree ring proxy data that basically showed no medieval warm period or little ice-age). You can google search and get a ton of info on this (there's even a book written called the 'hockey-stick illusion .... or something like that. The IPCC don't even reference it anymore).

I would suggest (from my review of a lot of data) that it is all to do with clouds, they are the key and principal mechanism of warming and cooling by either increased solar irradiation getting to the Earth's surface, or, a decrease (low level versus high level clouds). The IPCC computer models all work from assumed POSITIVE feedbacks of increased CO2 on cloud effects.

Alternatively and this is where it gets controversial, you would only need a 1-2% change in low level cloud cover to have accounted for all of the 20th century warming. From the data I have read, I have come to the conclusion that natural oceanic cycles such as the PDO (and quite possibly solar effects) have impacted on the cloud effect and contributed the major component of global warming.

Here's a link to some of the info:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

The links and references to the above are all in my previous posts.

I see that you have posted some information which I will look through and comment later. With direct reference to your cosmic ray query?

There has been recent research (posted by others on this forum) showing that decreased solar activity does impact on Northern Hemisphere winters by impacting upon the jet stream (causing kinks and eddies in the flow), though I am not familiar with all of this data. There are also a host of papers that do show a link impacts upon pressure patterns (there is a big review on this in Peter Taylor's book).

We also know that solar minimum occurred in all of the recent cool periods (wolf / Maunder / Dalton etc linked to the little ice age as well as maxima associated with warm periods e.g. Roman warm period / medieval and of course the 20th century which has seen a sustained period of solar activity ........ which has now dropped off.

Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Solanki. TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD.

There is a better graph linking sunspots and past minima / maxima that I cannot find at the minute.

Anyway, you are of course entitled to whatever stance you wish to take, I am only highlighting that the case for human greenhouse gas emissions being the principal cause of the recent global warming is not proven and that other natural mechanisms / cycles can explain what has been observed.

Y.S

Well, since my post re:implication of 'denialism' has been edited out (for sure with reference to complaints) I am afraid that is the last you all will hear from me.

Hi V.P,

Please reconsider, your inputs have been extremely important and relevant to the debates on here.

Still going through the leaky integrator posts

Y.S

[Devonian]

The mann Hockey stick has been successfully discredited (there were missing data points and also data points from tree ring proxy data that basically showed no medieval warm period or little ice-age). You can google search and get a ton of info on this (there's even a book written called the 'hockey-stick illusion .... or something like that. The IPCC don't even reference it anymore).

Saying so makes it so?

I would suggest (from my review of a lot of data) that it is all to do with clouds, they are the key and principal mechanism of warming and cooling by either increased solar irradiation getting to the Earth's surface, or, a decrease (low level versus high level clouds). The IPCC computer models all work from assumed POSITIVE feedbacks of increased CO2 on cloud effects.

Alternatively and this is where it gets controversial, you would only need a 1-2% change in low level cloud cover to have accounted for all of the 20th century warming. From the data I have read, I have come to the conclusion that natural oceanic cycles such as the PDO (and quite possibly solar effects) have impacted on the cloud effect and contributed the major component of global warming.

Here's a link to some of the info:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

...

You really MUST read this.

Well, since my post re:implication of 'denialism' has been edited out (for sure with reference to complaints) I am afraid that is the last you all will hear from me.

That would, imo, be unnecessary.

[Solar Cycles]

Y.S., why you feel the need to be so rude to Dev when he is challenging (rightly) what you're posting is a mystery. reminds me why it's rarely worth posting here any more.

Some questions, and some data:

1: what is the trendline between 2000 and present on the UAH dataset? What direction is it? You can use woodfortrees to calculate it:

http://woodfortrees....0/every:1/trend

2: The trendline in (1) is not significant of course, as it is insufficiently long a time period. Is the trend for 15,20 or the commonly-accepted 30 years also positive, and does it differ significantly from any other timeseries (GISS, HADCRUT3 etc)?

3: Climate sensitivity: You deride the Mann 'Hockey stick'. The best datasets show that the MWP and LIA are muted on a global scale, not least because they are not temporally synchronous, unlike modern warming. if the MWP was as pronounced as you seem to wish (say, as warm as present), what is the significance for global climate sensitivity?

4: (related to (3)) Why should you, and all of the rest of us, really hope that hockey sticks are the right shape for global temperature over the last 1000 years?

5: If it's all to do with the Sun, why does the troposphere warm when the stratosphere cools; why is warming observed day and night; why do the poles warm more than the equator; and why does winter warm more than summer?

http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm

http://www.youtube.c.../34/_Sf_UIQYc20

6: If it's clouds, why is there no observable link between clouds and cosmic rays (the favourite hypothesis)?

Calogovic et al. (2010); Kulmala et al. (2010) among others.

http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm

Here's a good summary of why it's clearly us, and not some mythical 'natural cycle' (a term I've always found amusing as even 'natural cycles' should have an identifiable cause and forcing value):

http://www.skeptical...al-warming.html

For general interest:

http://www.aip.org/h...ate/summary.htm

http://www.skeptical...al-warming.html - loads of good links on research current as of late 2009. Of course the recent remarkable high temperatures and low Arctic sea ice (area and volume) are not shown there.

sss

If you care to search the forum I posted an article regarding the MWP. I can't believe your seriously trying to suggest it as any credibility in the world of HONEST scientific research! As for the rest of your post, I suggest you read a little more than the AGW handbook. There is enough literature out there, if you care to take the blinkers off now and again!

[sunny starry skies]

Y.S.

The hockey stick has not been discredited (maybe only in your mind), and has been successfully reproduced many times over. Actually, the only value in the 'hockey stick' is to place some limitations on our climate sensitivity - the physics of the atmosphere does the actual 'AGW' bit.

http://www.realclima...ck-controversy/

http://www.realclima...ick-were-wrong/

It's well-known that the Sun is the dominant driver over the millennium prior to the Industrial period - find a respectable climate scientist who thinks it isn't! It's just that since industrial times and especially in the last 50 years, GHGs have become dominant. I'm also happy to agree that it may have some particular impact on regional (North Atlantic) climate - a very recent paper whose link I can't find supports this.

BTW, Roy Spencer has been debunked more times than a chocolate teapot, so why use him as a data source?

http://tamino.wordpr...spencers-folly/

http://www.realclima...e-easy-lessons/

http://www.skeptical...c-consensus.htm

among many others. His GRL paper is old hat, and the 2010 papers show him to be wrong.

Clouds - apart from having no identifiable link with climate, the projected feedback by the IPCC of clouds is negative, not positive as you state:

http://www.realclima...007_radforc.jpg

Your graph nicely shows that solar activity and climate have gone their separate ways since 1950 or so, and that divergence is proven by the spatial pattern of warming.

The problem here is that there is no rational position to suggest that solar, clouds or a "cycle" dominates recent climate change, far less then how such factors would explain why the physics of the CO2 molecule fails to work under such an hypothesis. And even more how such a process can work, inhibit the radiative properties of CO2 (despite the fact that we observe these properties operating in the real world), and yet produce a spatial pattern of warming that is inconsistent with any process except for greenhouse gases!!

sss

Edit: Deepsnow Not heard of that argument before - I've heard the old canard about CO2 lagging temperature in the distant past - see this link:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

The fallacy is to suggest that because one process drove climate in the past (orbital forcing), another one cannot drive climate now (humans emitting vast amounts of CO2). Much like saying that because ancient forest fires were caused by lightning, no modern forest fire was caused by people...

Edited May 27, 2010 by sunny starry skies