Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[gslack]

I think PMZ/abraham needs to get sleep.. Dudes been on here nonstop for at least 24 hours... Frankly his posting shows it.. Dude just posted multiple times and did nothing but either re-state what has already been covered (if on topic at all) or talk in a circle...

Dudes going to have a breakdown soon...

 

[PMZ]

I think PMZ/abraham needs to get sleep.. Dudes been on here nonstop for at least 24 hours... Frankly his posting shows it.. Dude just posted multiple times and did nothing but either re-state what has already been covered (if on topic at all) or talk in a circle...

Dudes going to have a breakdown soon...

You're nowhere near that lucky. I know the recruiter told you that trolling is easy. Anybody can do it. Even you.

We'll see.

 

[flacaltenn]

Solar forcing 1850–2050 used in a NASA GISS climate model. Recent variation pattern used after 2000.

Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's the dumpster I found it in.

Let's see your dumpster, the one showing more TSI

I've posted the SORCE/TIM graph for you at LEAST 3 times and you've ignored it or at least learned nothing from it.. Would be better if you invested a minute to look up both SORCE and TIM and learn it's origin and validity..

Wiki?? NASA GISS Climate Model??? Don't make me laugh.. It HAS to be underestimated input to the model --- otherwise it wouldn't give the results that NASA GISS wants..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No.

If you have a question, research it. I guarantee the answer's out there. Your ignorance is exclusively your problem.

Tell you what, I'll research it if you tell me how many data points we would need to get an accurate "globally averaged temperature".

I would think that anyone qualified to question the IPCC would know the answer to that without my help.

You don't know how many data points you need for a "globally averaged temperature"?

Maybe you can find in in Wikipedia? I'll wait.

 

[PMZ]

Solar variation and climate

Both long-term and short-term variations in solar activity are hypothesized to affect global climate, but it has proven extremely challenging to directly quantify the link between solar variation and the earth's climate.[54] The topic continues to be a subject of active study.

As discussed above, there are three suggested mechanisms by which solar variations may have an effect on climate:

1) Solar irradiance changes directly affecting the climate ("Radiative forcing"). This is generally considered to be a minor effect, as the amplitudes of the variations in solar irradiance are much too small to have significant effect absent some amplification process.[11]

2) Variations in the ultraviolet component. The UV component varies by more than the total, so if UV were for some (as yet unknown) reason having a disproportionate effect, this might explain a larger solar signal in climate.

3) Effects mediated by changes in cosmic rays (which are affected by the solar wind) such as changes in cloud cover.

Early research attempted to find a correlation between weather and sunspot activity, mostly without notable success.[5][14] Later research has concentrated more on correlating solar activity with global temperature.

Crucial to the understanding of possible solar impact on terrestrial climate is accurate measurement of solar forcing. Unfortunately accurate measurement of incident solar radiation is only available since the satellite era, and even that is open to dispute: different groups find different values, due to different methods of cross-calibrating measurements taken by instruments with different spectral sensitivity.[1] Scafetta and Willson found significant variations of solar luminosity between 1980 and 2000.[55] But Lockwood and Frohlich[56] find that solar forcing has declined since 1987.

Effect on global warming
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) concluded that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the amplification effect due to greenhouse gases but acknowledges in the same report that there is a low level of scientific understanding with respect to solar variation.[57][58]

Estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes have decreased since the TAR. However, empirical results of detectable tropospheric changes have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change. The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays.[2]

In 2002, Lean et al.[59] stated that while "There is ... growing empirical evidence for the Sun's role in climate change on multiple time scales including the 11-year cycle", "changes in terrestrial proxies of solar activity (such as the 14C and 10Be cosmogenic isotopes and the aa geomagnetic index) can occur in the absence of long-term (i.e., secular) solar irradiance changes ... because the stochastic response increases with the cycle amplitude, not because there is an actual secular irradiance change." They conclude that because of this, "long-term climate change may appear to track the amplitude of the solar activity cycles," but that "Solar radiative forcing of climate is reduced by a factor of 5 when the background component is omitted from historical reconstructions of total solar irradiance ...This suggests that general circulation model (GCM) simulations of twentieth century warming may overestimate the role of solar irradiance variability." More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in September 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, with little likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time.[11][60] Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007, find that there "is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century," but that "over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."[61]

A paper by Benestad and Schmidt[62] concludes that "the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980." This paper disagrees with the conclusions of a Scafetta and West study,[63] who claim that solar variability has a significant effect on climate forcing. Based on correlations between specific climate and solar forcing reconstructions, they argue that a "realistic climate scenario is the one described by a large preindustrial secular variability (e.g., the paleoclimate temperature reconstruction by Moberg et al.)[64] with the total solar irradiance experiencing low secular variability (as the one shown by Wang et al.).[65] Under this scenario, according to Scafetta and West, the Sun might have contributed 50% of the observed global warming since 1900.[10] Stott et al. estimate that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity during the last 30 years account for between 16% and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999.[66]

That graph -- whatever dumpster you found it in --- is WOEFULLY wrong. The vertical axis is in tenth of a watt/m2. And BOTH the SORCE/TIM graph and several other MAINSTREAM graphs contradict those values.. AND your graph purposely HIDES the major uptick of solar forcing between 1750 and 1850... Clear indication of someone hiding the data to make points..

The number for solar contribution since 1750 is CERTAINLY AT LEAST 30% of the surface forcing. I'd accept that -- but I believe it's higher..
IPCC could NEVER have that statement appear in it's pages.. Because they'd lose the interest of the politicians and policy wonks that give them credibility..

I'm surprised with all of your expertise and resources the IPCC didn't include you. What could they have been thinking?

 

[PMZ]

Tell you what, I'll research it if you tell me how many data points we would need to get an accurate "globally averaged temperature".

I would think that anyone qualified to question the IPCC would know the answer to that without my help.

You don't know how many data points you need for a "globally averaged temperature"?

Maybe you can find in in Wikipedia? I'll wait.

I did look in Wikipedia for data, theory, science, or even ideas contrary to AGW. Didn't find a thing. Nothing. Apparently science hasn't caught up with Rush yet.

When do you think that Wikipedia will start publishing your work?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I would think that anyone qualified to question the IPCC would know the answer to that without my help.

You don't know how many data points you need for a "globally averaged temperature"?

Maybe you can find in in Wikipedia? I'll wait.

I did look in Wikipedia for data, theory, science, or even ideas contrary to AGW. Didn't find a thing. Nothing. Apparently science hasn't caught up with Rush yet.

When do you think that Wikipedia will start publishing your work?

So what do you think, 10 data points enough?
How about 100? 1000? Maybe Rachel Maddow can help you?

 

[PMZ]

Solar forcing 1850–2050 used in a NASA GISS climate model. Recent variation pattern used after 2000.

Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's the dumpster I found it in.

Let's see your dumpster, the one showing more TSI

Abe, here is some interesting information on someone who seems to think a lot like Flacaltenn.

Tim Ball - RationalWiki

 

[gslack]

ROFL, PMZ, didn't even realize the wikki insult... WOW...

 

[PMZ]

You don't know how many data points you need for a "globally averaged temperature"?

Maybe you can find in in Wikipedia? I'll wait.

I did look in Wikipedia for data, theory, science, or even ideas contrary to AGW. Didn't find a thing. Nothing. Apparently science hasn't caught up with Rush yet.

When do you think that Wikipedia will start publishing your work?

So what do you think, 10 data points enough?
How about 100? 1000? Maybe Rachel Maddow can help you?

I think that you're struggling to say that you have nothing. No expertise, no data, no resources, no science, no theories, Z. E. R. O.

Tough position to be in.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I did look in Wikipedia for data, theory, science, or even ideas contrary to AGW. Didn't find a thing. Nothing. Apparently science hasn't caught up with Rush yet.

When do you think that Wikipedia will start publishing your work?

So what do you think, 10 data points enough?
How about 100? 1000? Maybe Rachel Maddow can help you?

I think that you're struggling to say that you have nothing. No expertise, no data, no resources, no science, no theories, Z. E. R. O.

Tough position to be in.

But enough about you.
Let me know when you figure out how many data points we need to get an accurate "world average". LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ROFL, PMZ, didn't even realize the wikki insult... WOW...

And then he looked!

He's not very bright.

 

[gslack]

ROFL, PMZ, didn't even realize the wikki insult... WOW...

And then he looked!

He's not very bright.

Nope.. See why I poke him? ROFL, it's so easy...

 

[Abraham3]

Solar forcing 1850–2050 used in a NASA GISS climate model. Recent variation pattern used after 2000.

Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's the dumpster I found it in.

Let's see your dumpster, the one showing more TSI

I've posted the SORCE/TIM graph for you at LEAST 3 times and you've ignored it or at least learned nothing from it.. Would be better if you invested a minute to look up both SORCE and TIM and learn it's origin and validity..

Wiki?? NASA GISS Climate Model??? Don't make me laugh.. It HAS to be underestimated input to the model --- otherwise it wouldn't give the results that NASA GISS wants..

Then it should be really easy to post it again.

Standby, looking at the reconstruction at http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html

I downloaded the data set and did an 11 year average centered on 1750 and on the last 11 years of the set (2002-2012). I get a difference of 0.6087W/m*2. Certainly greater than the IPCC shows in the graphic I posted. Why don't we look into the IPCC's sources?

 

[Abraham3]

2.7 Natural Forcings - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

The estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995) have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally suggested by the range of brightness in Sun-like stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2005). However, empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et al., 2003; White et al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005). The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002).

Well, lots of sources, not a lot of certainty. Explains the large error range on the TSI bar in their forcings graph.


Here's a good link to Hoyt and Schatten: http://www.leif.org/EOS/93JA01944.pdf

and here is their summary:

5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
There is plausible evidence for long-term changes in solar irradiance. Over the last two decades, diagnostic measurements of the equivalent width of lines, the limb darkening of the Sun, and line bisectors all indicate secular changes in solar convection, the photospheric temperature gradient, and solar irradiance are possible. Additional evidence for long-term irradiance changes come from such proxy measures as sunspot structure, sunspot decay rates, the length of solar cycles, the normalized solar cycle decay rate, the equatorial solar rotation rate, and the time rate of change of the solar diameter. The variations in these indices can plausibly be explained as arising from a common source, namely secular changes in solar convective energy transport or convective velocities. We recognize that such changes fall outside the domain of usual theories of stellar structure, but then all the observed solar variations do so too. Without any consideration of the arguments put forth in this paper, it seems more plausible for all these solar proxies to play some role in the varying solar irradiance than it would be for all these variations to exist with an invariant solar brightness. For all the proxy models considered the solar output varies by less than about -+0.2% in the last century. The solar convection zone stores approximately 10 45 ergs. A perturbation in radiative flux of 0.2% lasting for one century amounts to 1 part in 40,000 of the total thermal energy stored in the convection zone. For comparison, the thermal energy storage in the Earth's atmosphere has varied by --• 1 part in 500 over the last century. Energetically, there seems little reason to rule out these irradiance variations. The longer the timescale of the variations, the deeper the likely source for the perturbation will be. Relatively short variations from sunspots and faculae, lasting days, are the result of perturbations in the top few thousand kilometers below the photosphere. The root source of the longer variations may arise from deep within the convection zone, perhaps at its base or just below its base, because of the observed solar rotation changes. Endal et al. [ 1985] and Nesmes-Ribes and Manganey [1992] explore possible mechanisms for irradiance variations on the timescale of decades to centuries. Candidate mechanisms include (1) a perturbations in which stochastic variations in the energy transport arise from the finite number of convective cells involved, and (2)/3 perturbations in which changes in pressure, perhaps arising from changes in the strength of the magnetic field, alter the rate of energy transport. Plausible arguments can be made in behalf of both mechanisms.

The postulated irradiance variations are only a few/tenths of a percent over periods of several decades and therefore will be difficult to detect. Present measurement plans do not appear to provide sufficient redundancy and overlap to detect low-level secular irradiance variations. The correlation of the solar indices and modeled solar irradiance with the Earth's temperature are significant at better than the 99% confidence level. However, if the amplitude of the solar irradiance variations is only -0.14% from 1880 to 1940 and if the Earth's climate responded with a 0.5 øK warming, then the climate would be much more sensitive to solar forcing than is commonly assumed. The direct effect of a 0.14% increase in solar irradiance could only account for a -0.23 øK increase if the sensitivity to solar influences is 1.67 øK per 1% increase in solar output (based upon the last decade of satellite observations). The amplitude of the solar variations remains highly uncertain with most estimates ranging from 0.14% to 0.38% over the past century. With the higher-amplitude estimates there are less problems connecting the solar variations to climatic changes. On decadal timescales the climate sensitivity can be expected to be larger due to several positive feedbacks. Potential positive feedbacks include a decrease in the ice and snow cover, an increase in plant absorptivity as it becomes greener in a warmer world, an increase in absorption by water surfaces as wind velocities decrease (based upon changes in the length of the day), and changes in plant orientation and albedo as wind velocities change. The last three potential feedback loops are not included in present day climate models. The postulated solar irradiance variations may explain part of the Earth's interannual temperature variations although their effects would be most evident in long-term trends in temperature on hemispheric and global spatial scales.

For Lean et al 1995, I've found their dataset but not their actual study. The data may be found at: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/lean1995/irradiance_data.txt

 

[Abraham3]

Looking at their reasoning for adjusting irradiance downward: Here is Wang et al 1995:

Wang, Lean, & Sheeley, Secular Evolution of Sun's Magnetic Field

And here is Wang's irradiance record:

A significant decrease in variation over Lean.

 

[Abraham3]

Here is Hall and Lockwood, 20004, the other citation for having downsized solar variation since 1750.

Hall & Lockwood, Chromospheric Activity of Solar Analog Stars

Let me have a look and see what's there.

ABSTRACT

We present an analysis of more than 3700 observations of the Ca II H and K lines in 57 Sun-like stars and over 3000 analogous observations of the Sun. Ten of the 57 stars under consideration are observed in flat states, but these stars do not always exhibit overall Ca II H and K core brightness below that of solar minimum. Solar activity minimum lies near the lowest level observed for stars with cyclic or irregular variability, but many flat stars have HK activity levels comparable to or exceeding that of solar minimum. While flat activity stars may be in periods of extended activity minima analogous to the solar Maunder minimum, a significant reduction in magnetic activity during such periods is not implied (although it is also not rejected) by the data.

1. INTRODUCTION

In the past quarter century, major efforts have been made to understand the Sun's role in climate change, spurred in large part by Eddy (1976), who coined the term "Maunder minimum" to describe the period between 1645 and 1715 during which solar activity was greatly reduced and which coincides neatly with one of the severe episodes of the so-called Little Ice Age. Space-based measurements of the total solar irradiance (TSI) began in 1978 with the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment aboard Nimbus 7 (Hoyt et al. 1992), which allowed workers to attempt reconstructions of long-term solar irradiance by connecting the TSI data with proxies (such as the sunspot number) for which longer time series are available (Lean & Foukal 1988; Foukal & Lean 1990).

Foukal & Lean (1990), among others, have noted that the well-determined 0.1% TSI excursion from solar minimum to maximum (Willson & Hudson 1988; Fröhlich 2000) appears quite insufficient to account for the observed rise in global temperature over the past century. If the Sun is the dominant driver of recent global warming, either the effects of its 0.1% variation must be significantly underestimated by present models, or it must be capable of larger variations than have been directly observed since 1978.

A suggestion that the latter possibility may be the case appears in a widely cited paper by Baliunas & Jastrow (1990; hereafter BJ90). These authors used data series from the Mount Wilson Observatory (MWO) stellar cycles program to examine the Ca II H and K behavior in a set of Sun-like stars, measured using the familiar activity index S. Their paper has two essential results. First, approximately one-third (4 out of 13) of the stars with extended time series displayed flat or nearly flat activity records. This agreed well, in a statistical sense, with the inferred record of solar activity over the past 1000 yr, which suggests the Sun may have spent about one-third of that time in a noncycling state (Eddy 1977), although it was noted thereafter (Saar & Baliunas 1992; Baliunas et al. 1998) that in the full MWO records, only about 15% of stars had flat time series. Second, the stars with flat activity records also showed Ca II H and K activity levels below that of solar minimum. Since the TSI is positively correlated with magnetic activity level, BJ90's result suggests that Sun-like stars (and, by inference, the Sun) may become fainter in Maunder minimum states by considerably more than their cycle excursion variability.

These results were extended quantitatively to the solar context (White et al. 1992; Lean et al. 1992) with the result that if the reduction in overall magnetic activity found by BJ90 is used to reconstruct long-term solar irradiance variations, the TSI may have been as much as 0.24% lower during the Sun's Maunder minimum than at its present cycle mean—a much larger excursion than currently observed by TSI experiments, possibly accounting for half of the observed global warming since 1860 and one-third of the warming since 1970 (Lean et al. 1995).

We have revisited this issue using 10 yr of data collected with the Solar-Stellar Spectrograph (SSS) at Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona. Using a larger sample of well-observed stars, we find that the essential feature of the BJ90 stellar activity ensemble, a distinct difference between the activity level of cycling stars versus that of flat stars that leads to a bimodal activity distribution, is not recovered. The distributions of Ca II H and K core brightness in cycling and flat stars are identical at a very high confidence level. In this paper we present these results and discuss their implications.

****************************************************************************************************

I hate to say it, but it looks like another washout for Dr Bailunas.

 

[Abraham3]

So... FCT, you with me there?

 

[PMZ]

So... FCT, you with me there?

Clearly, you've made your point that IPCC decisions are based on their overwhelming resources and science capabilities, instead of the conspiracy theories that are the only cards held by the deniers.

In that way all of the research that you've demonstrated has a payoff. Deniers aren't slowing down our progress on the lowest total cost solution to the reality of AGW but the more votes that we have in the science camp the less likely is a slowdown in progress caused by the political camp.

 

[flacaltenn]

So... FCT, you with me there?

I'm years ahead of you on this.. I've already read the IPCC excuses for lying about the TSI from 1750... You can always find a study or two to mangle towards your agenda..

Fact remains --- The major ACCEPTED reconstruction/satellite results all get that TSI is responsible for about 30% or more of the warming since 1750.

I find this gem you unearthed particularly entertaining..

Foukal & Lean (1990), among others, have noted that the well-determined 0.1% TSI excursion from solar minimum to maximum (Willson & Hudson 1988; Fröhlich 2000) appears quite insufficient to account for the observed rise in global temperature over the past century. If the Sun is the dominant driver of recent global warming, either the effects of its 0.1% variation must be significantly underestimated by present models, or it must be capable of larger variations than have been directly observed since 1978.

Wonder how that could happen Abe?? You just coughed up a DISTORTED PLOT of TSI that was used to feed the NASA GISS climate model... Wonder why the present models "significantly underestimates the effect of TSI" do ya???
That's funny... GIGO Look it up....



I'll wade thru your "discoveries" and get back to you on the quality of the "excuses"...