Can the atmosphere really warm? Atmospheric gas retention.

[donald]

It is an 'appeal to authority' argument simply because I have asked several times now for someone to show why the four traces I have put in, showing upward trends and coming from university/research sources, are wrong when the one trace showing a downward trend of solar activity is right.

No-one has even attempted to address that. Why?

Rather than answer that question, you have decided to focus on the significance of the originator of the information rather than the information. That is appeal to authority, when the person saying the thing becomes more important in the argument than the thing itself.

 

[Stoaty]

I have given you the reference to scientific consensus, which is the best measure we have unless we are experts in the field. Have you read the summary for policy makers? Have you read the chapter "Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing"? You seem to be saying that if someone here (no experts here) can't give you a definitive answer to one specific question then man made global warming probably isn't happening. Do you accept the reports of any of the scientific organizations (IPCC, National Academy of Science, etc.)? Have you investigated the link between climate change deniers and those who denied smoking causes cancer?

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1402702521&sr=1-1&keywords=merchants+of+doubt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Have you read about the disinformation campaign financed by ExxonMobile?

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Have you ever heard of risk management?

 

[klapauzius]

If you are unable to persuade a Chartered Engineer who was a Research Fellow in computational electromagnetics and who already thinks all fossil fuel burning should be stopped immediately in favour of nuclear and renewables, then how the heck are you going to persuade people who already have entrenched views disbelieving AGW?

It's not for those who are not convinced there is a problem to persuade themselves there is a problem. It is for those who say there is a problem to persuade others to behave differently, and why. So far, all the conversations in this thread have generally been along the lines of 'educate yourself, stop doubting others'. Nope. Wrong way around. You have not persuaded me, and I assure you I am persuadable on this topic and have been seeking answers, which have been excruciatingly difficult to extract. I am still none the wiser why the traces of solar activity I put up are being regarded here as 'wrong'.

If you are all that, you should have NO problem to educate yourself. There is enough information out there.

To put it, again, in a nutshell, human CO2 production ramps way up over the past 200 years, global temperatures rise, there is a mechanism that explains how CO2 in the atmosphere leads to warming, the observed temperature trend is OUTSIDE random fluctuations and other factors outside CO2 do not sufficiently explain the temperature increase.

Now, if you have doubts about all that, you have to do what all the climate scientists do (which have come to a consensus, which is summarized above), study, publish, gain a reputation, go to conferences, etc.

Don't expect to be informed in full about a complex topic if you have no background. You don't expect to get a simple explanation of general relativity on this forum and at the same time express doubts that the Einstein tensor for the vacuum field equations is zero.

As for the uneducated public: They will likely learn it the hard way, as all the reasoning in the world cannot convince them. If some charismatic person (politician, guru, spiritual leader, PR genius) can convince them that AGW is a problem and needs to be addressed, it will NOT be through reason, but through some completely irrational appeal to their gut feeling, which likely has nothing to do with reality.

Of course, as an engineer and educated person, you should be above that.

 

[Stoaty]

If you are unable to persuade a Chartered Engineer who was a Research Fellow in computational electromagnetics and who already thinks all fossil fuel burning should be stopped immediately in favour of nuclear and renewables, then how the heck are you going to persuade people who already have entrenched views disbelieving AGW?

We aren't going to persuade people who have entrenched views disbelieving AGW, and it appears to me that you are one of those people, all protestations on your part aside. However, people will eventually be persuaded as the earth continues to heat up, my guess is that by 2025 most people will be persuaded by their own experience. I hope it isn't too late, as any warming will be largely irreversible on any time scale important to humans.

 

[donald]

For the Nth time - the particular issue for which I have just received a barrage of criticism for asking the question - is that the solar activity appears to have increased. I was told to go away and educate myself. I had, and I did again, and the material out there that I found shows the solar activity has been going up.

For the Nth time - I have no problem with the hypothesis that CO2 contributes to climate change, however it can only ever be a 'contribution' because we are in an interglacial so it will always change. The question is the degree of change, and therefore it is entirely reasonable that I am interested to ask after each effect.

If people with less interest and knowledge in these subjects experience the same thing when they ask such questions, then I am not at all surprised that they come out the other side of the discussion thinking the people that they have heard or have been talking with are trying to hide something. You just can't persuade someone by telling them they are stupid for asking the question. That is not an effective persuasion technique. It is a patronising, condescending and idiotic way to go about a discussion.

If this is representative of a discussion on the subject where it is insisted the other person must educate themselves before they are permitted to ask a question without being patronised, then the problem in getting through to people who don't accept 'AGW' is a proven hypothesis is down to the people putting forward the argument, not the recipients of it.

I have presented data from academic sources showing solar activity has increased. Not one of you has yet discussed that, and that was all I wanted to discuss. Instead you have happily descended into semantics and inferring I have an entrenched 'disbelief' of AGW. I cannot 'disbelieve' AGW, it is ridiculous.

You have all patronised me for the last few pages. Please just answer the question, or why bother posting because all it is doing is demonstrating you can't, or won't, answer the question. Why have a go at me because you don't know the answer? I'm not expecting you to necessarily know, but you might offer some thoughts of your own, but if your only thoughts are that the question itself is illegitimate then that doesn't help. The question is why is there data out there where some show solar variation going up and some shows solar variation going down, and how do we determine what it actually is doing such as 'which are the more representative proxies' or 'are there direct measurements possible'?

 

[donald]

Educate yourself man!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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 Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates).

I have looked at Krivova, http://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/papers/aa6725-06.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , and it includes data sets that run through to 2007. Why does this website cherry pick data between different data runs when the data existed in one sequence?

The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite directions.

How ironic for that website to say this!

So the graphic above shows that in 1990 the solar irradiance was lower than 1980, yet the data it claims to pull from appears to show that the 1990 maximum was higher than the 1980 maximum.

ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/DataPlots/comp06_d41_62_1302.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why am I being asked to educate myself with a website that does not appear to be able to handle data reliably (even if it is from a website that describes a date of January the 0th 1980!)?

 

[Stoaty]

I have presented data from academic sources showing solar activity has increased. Not one of you has yet discussed that, and that was all I wanted to discuss.

I already referred you to the IPCC consensus report which goes into the nitty gritty detail about this topic:

If you want the nitty gritty details (and no, I do NOT understand a lot of the details in this part) see pages 688-690 of this PDF:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As you may gather from the PDF, there isn't a "simple" answer to a complex question.

 

[klapauzius]

So the graphic above shows that in 1990 the solar irradiance was lower than 1980, yet the data it claims to pull from appears to show that the 1990 maximum was higher than the 1980 maximum.

ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/DataPlots/comp06_d41_62_1302.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why am I being asked to educate myself with a website that does not appear to be able to handle data reliably (even if it is from a website that describes a date of January the 0th 1980!)?

You complain about being patronized, but you seem to ask for it...If you are indeed a chartered Engineer and have done actual science, WHY are you asking questions that better befit an overconfident elementary school kid????

When comparing the two graphs, did you notice that one (i.e. from skeptical science) shows a moving average over 11 years to eliminate the solar cycle effects?

The scale on this graph is also 10 years per tick, while the other one you show is 1 year AND covers just the period from 78 to 2012, while the other looks at 1880 to 2010.

If you look carefully at the skeptical science graph, you will find that the unfiltered peaks for 1980 and 1990 are almost the same, consistent with the other graph you reference.

So out of ignorance, or negligence maybe, you construct a controversy, where none exists.

If you take this graph ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/DataPlots/comp06_d41_62_1302.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and apply a 11 year moving average to it, it will look like the other one.

If you have other problems with understanding why sun activity is currently NOT the main driver of the climate on a century scale, drink a cup of coffee, clear your head, and examine the presented data carefully, as any good scientist would do.

 

[donald]

If you look carefully at the skeptical science graph, you will find that the unfiltered peaks for 1980 and 1990 are almost the same, consistent with the other graph you reference.

I did look carefully at the unfiltered peaks. That is what I am referring to. The 1980 is clearly illustrated to be higher than the 1990 peak, which is not the case for the data being drawn on.

You complain about being patronized, but you seem to ask for it...

In what way have I asked for it? I was asked for an example where I thought CO2 and temperature were mismatched and I gave it, only to be told that this was because of solar variance. Why I seem to ask for patronisation I would like you to explain, or for you to simply not bother making a provocative comment about.

 

[donald]

I already referred you to the IPCC consensus report which goes into the nitty gritty detail about this topic:

I'm looking into that. As it says, the mechanisms for solar irradiance are 'very uncertain', yet at the same time they seem to be able to rule it out as a major contribution to warming.

 

[klapauzius]

I did look carefully at the unfiltered peaks. That is what I am referring to. The 1980 is clearly illustrated to be higher than the 1990 peak, which is not the case for the data being drawn on.

Look again, because the difference is irrelevant in BOTH plots. It has NO bearing on the validity of the long term trend.
Why do you feel compelled to question irrelevant details?


The moving average, that reflects the long term trend, is lower and you will find that to be the case for the other graph as well (if you cared to compute a moving average).

 

[WetEV]

No-one has even attempted to address that. Why?

I pointed you to an IPCC discussion on the issue. What more do you want? I might have done some searches for papers discussing this, after that discussion, as there have been several... and not confirming the effect BTW. But then you would jump to some other talking point? It might be nice to go in depth on one aspect.

And frankly, it doesn't matter. Solar variation might affect climate in an indirect way. So? Solar variation does not explain climate change on very long time periods, and can not explain large climate changes on short time periods.

I've followed global warming in the scientific press since about 1974 so this is familiar topics for me, however I'm not a real expert.

But let us lay out a case for caring about climate change:

1) Doubling CO2 will warm the climate by about 3C +- 1C
a) Paleoclimate: Many comparisons of past climate and CO2 levels. One, just for fun, was climate change even faster than what humans are doing:

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/12/7836.full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

b) Physics based climate models


2) Fossil fuel is abundant, enough coal, near coal, black shales, oil shales, natural gas, tar sands and oil to double CO2 at least 3 times, probably 4 times and perhaps close to 5 times.
a) This is looking at resource estimates, not reserves. The difference is that resource estimates are trying to work out how much is there. A reserve is (err.. should be) fully located, explored, and recoverable at market price using current technology.
b) Looking at reserves, there is about enough to double CO2 about 2 times.


3) Climate change will have winners and losers.
a) "tiny sized" climate change, 0.3 C, might be caused by all sorts of things, net effect is near zero. Normal background 'noise'.
b) "small sized" climate change, 1C, hard to say if net is gain or loss, however net effect is fairly small
c) "medium sized" climate change, 3 C, significant negative, net effect depends on how fast as well
d) "large sized" climate change, 10 C, disaster. Many areas of the tropics are too hot to be livable.
e) "super sized jumbo sized" climate change, 15 C, catastrophic.

At best case, we burn through only the reserves, climate change is 'only' 4 C, a significantly degraded world. Middle case, we double CO2 three times, climate change at 9 C only slightly larger than wiped out the dinosaurs, however, starting in a hotter world. Worst case, super sized jumbo climate change... "Say goodnight, Gracie"

Note as well that there are significant time delays in the system. From deciding to reduce reduce carbon emissions the half emission point is at least decades. From release of carbon to full climate change is multiple centuries.

 

[AndyH]

Since we're feeding the troll, here's another cannon ball to wrap bacon around.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7so8GRCWA1k[/youtube]

 

[Stoaty]

Donald, the bottom line is that our approaches are different:

--you take one graph or one paper and want to know why we shouldn't believe that rather than the scientific consensus (IPCC report), and if we can't explain the ins and outs to you on a subject that is complex and doesn't have a simple answer then climate change is in serious doubt.

--the rest of us look at the whole picture (sea level rise, increasing temperatures decade by decade, what is known about radiative forcing, ocean acidification, increasing droughts and the work of thousands of scientists over many, many years), read at least the summary of the IPCC report, look at the link between tobacco industry deniers and climate change deniers, see who has more to gain financially by lying (fossil fuel industry or climate scientists), check to see who was wrong in the past (Roy Spencer, big time error) and who was right (James Hansen). Then we take a risk management approach:

If someone disproves global warming and wins a nobel prize in the process, we will be out some money, but will have cleaner air in the process.

If the climate scientists are correct and we don't do anything, humanity is going to be in a heap of trouble within the lifetime of someone born today.

Since the risk is huge and the insurance policy is relatively small, we urge the U.S. (and the rest of the world) to take out an insurance policy. If a re-evaluation in 5-10 years showed the risk is less, we could always opt for a lower level of insurance. If it turns out the risk is as great or greater, we will up our level of insurance and be happy to pay the higher premiums.

It is clear to me that you are either:

--a climate change denier (which is usually due to politics - see for example "The Republican War on Science")

--someone who overrates his ability to make judgments about the science. This is an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect:

"Unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others"

Note: "unskilled" applies to a specific skill, so it may be that even an extremely intelligent person trained in one area may be unskilled in another area outside their area of expertise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

--someone who just likes to argue

--trolling

At any rate, I think you have been fed quite enough in this thread, but since you seem to be impervious to looking at the big picture on global warming, I will be bowing out.

 

[RegGuheert]

Donald,

You may be interested to follow the JoNova blog this coming week as her husband, Dr. David Evans, is releasing the details of the development of a new model of how the Sun influences the Earth's climate and tests it relative to CO2-based models.

Here are links to the first two posts in the series:

- BIG NEWS Part I: Historic development - New Solar climate model coming

- BIG NEWS Part II: For the first time - a mysterious notch filter found in the climate

Here is an excerpt from the first part:

We explore some climate datasets and find something interesting, which provides a clue to building up a solar model. We think we have deduced the nature of the indirect solar force that largely influences temperature here on Earth. We get a physical model with physical interpretations (that is, not just curve fitting), working models, and decent fit to observed data.

Both the CO2 model and the new solar model are viable explanations of the global warming of the last century. Any linear mix (e.g. 60% CO2, 40% solar) also fits the observed temperatures. On the performance of the models over the last century, we cannot tell which is correct. However, over the next decade the models predict dramatically different things: the CO2 model of course predicts warming, while the solar model predicts a sharp fall in temperature very soon.

We don’t have to wait to determine whether it is the CO2 or solar model that is more correct. The answer lies in the changes in the height of the water vapor emissions layer, because the influences of CO2 and the indirect solar force are different. From this we are able to determine the cause of global warming and the maximum extent to which the recent global warming was due to CO2. We also clear up a few theoretical befuddlements about the influence of CO2 that may have caused warmists to overestimate the potency of rising CO2.

The fans of the CO2 dominant models are not going to be happy. It seems the climate is an 80-20 sort of thing, where there is a dominant influence responsible for 80% of climate change and a tail of 20% of other factors. It turns out that the CO2 concentration is not the 80% factor, but in the 20% tail. An indirect solar influence seems to be the main factor.

All the data, model, and computations are in a single Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. It runs on any pc with Excel 2007 or later; it runs at least partly (and maybe fully) on any Mac with Office 2011 or later. This is completely open science—every bit of data and every computation is open for inspection. We will be releasing this towards the end of the series of blog posts.

There is a big paper with all of the above in rigorous detail. It runs to about 170 pages. There is some groundwork to discuss before it is all released. This should produce a more productive discussion.

 

[Stoaty]

You may be interested to follow the JoNova blog this coming week as her husband, Dr. David Evans, is releasing the details of the development of a new model of how the Sun influences the Earth's climate and tests it relative to CO2-based models.

For the rest of us see:

http://www.desmogblog.com/david-evans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"According to his resume, Evans has not published any peer-reviewed research papers on the subject of climate change.
Evans published one paper in 1987, but it was unrelated to climate change."

 

[donald]

--you take one graph or one paper and want to know why we shouldn't believe that rather than the scientific consensus (IPCC report), and if we can't explain the ins and outs to you on a subject that is complex and doesn't have a simple answer then climate change is in serious doubt.

Then you have wholly misunderstood the last 3 pages.

I was told solar variation explained the inconsistency in the cretaceous. OK, fine, so I went and looked up the correlation of solar variation recently and pinned up here traces from a university reference that shows solar cycle length tracks global temperature.

So far, in what way have *I* made any statements or assumptions?

At that point I was told to go away and educate myself, and directed to a plot which was sourced from two different data sets, even though one data set showed the whole period. It also clearly shows peak solar activity in 1980 higher than 1990 whilst the data set it claims to have drawn from shows no such difference.

So far, in what way have *I* made any statements or assumptions?

It was not my suggestion to look at that trace. I was directed to it, so it follows that I might ask questions about it. For it to be implied that I am in some way ignorant of not knowing about this website does beg a further discussion.

I have made no 'scientific' decisions nor judgements here. The only judgement I have made is that I am being bullied for pointing out questionable interpretations and inconsistencies in the data that others have put forward.

It is impossible for me to 'deny' climate change. That is ridiculous for you to even begin to suggest, and I have said that before, yet you continue to imply it. But what I can say is that if some people are dumb enough to deny it then I can fully see why they stick with that point of view if this is the sort of reaction they get when they start asking about the data they're given that 'supposedly' illustrates the counter-position.

 

[klapauzius]

It also clearly shows peak solar activity in 1980 higher than 1990 whilst the data set it claims to have drawn from shows no such difference.

Did you read my last posts on this...? There is no difference between the two.
You are simply wrong on this.

I thought you wanted to be educated on the matter? But how can that happen, if you don't take in the information that is given to you??

Looking at these two graphs and understanding the difference in presentation, why they show the same data, is a good test for you to see if you have learned anything yet.

 

[donald]

"According to his resume, Evans has not published any peer-reviewed research papers on the subject of climate change.
Evans published one paper in 1987, but it was unrelated to climate change."

How many peer-reviewed papers has John Cook published?

 

[klapauzius]

Here is an excerpt from the first part:

... Any linear mix (e.g. 60% CO2, 40% solar) also fits the observed temperatures.

...
It seems the climate is an 80-20 sort of thing, where there is a dominant influence responsible for 80% of climate change and a tail of 20% of other factors. It turns out that the CO2 concentration is not the 80% factor, but in the 20% tail. An indirect solar influence seems to be the main factor.

All the data, model, and computations are in a single Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. It runs on any pc with Excel 2007 or later;

LOL

"My model explains any mix of CO2 and something else, so I just picked an 80% sun 20% rest"

"Other climate scientists need supercomputers, but mine runs on Excel 2007 (no less)!"