Can the atmosphere really warm? Atmospheric gas retention.

[donald]

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

Yes, I read your post and disagree with you.

I have that plot enlarged and up on my screen where I can measure off pixel distances using a tool. The 1980 peak is clearly shown as being 0.03W/m^2 higher than the 1990 peak.

The PMOD plot even states increasing cycle amplitudes;
"Cycle amplitudes: 0.915 ± 0.019; 0.921 ± 0.020; 1.055 ± 0.017 Wm-2"

Look again at the white bars on the plot;
ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/DataPlots/comp06_d41_62_1302.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and look again at the graph;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_500.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
which shows decreasing peaks at;
1366.47 (1980), 1366.44 (1990) and finally 1366.39Wm-2 (2000)

In what way have I misinterpreted this? Seems pretty straightforward, or is there some 'special' way of understanding a graph only climate researchers can understand?

 

[klapauzius]

In what way have I misinterpreted this? Seems pretty straightforward, or is there some 'special' way of understanding a graph only climate researchers can understand?

No, there is no special way, but you need to take a few things into consideration when comparing those two:

1) The PMOD plot is on a different time scale than the skeptical science plot (SSP for short). In essence PMOD has a much higher time resolution than SSP. That means that details in SSP are much less well resolved than in PMOD

2) Given the noise in PMOD (you note that the original curve is NOT smooth, but has quite some variation over the running mean, which is shown in black). Given that variation, I would find a statement like "the 1990 peak is higher than the 1980" questionable.
Note that 1980 and 1990 in PMOD are well within in the standard deviation of each other.

3) Given the coarse scale of SSP (which covers 130 years in one plot) compared to PMOD (which just covers 34 years) precise measurements of the peaks in SSP for a single year are not possible, particularly from a bitmap of the plot.

4) Given the uncertainty of your measurement from a low resolution bitmap, you cannot claim a difference between 1980 and 1990 in that plot. Given that the gross variation over a cycle is ~ .92 Wm^-2, and the variance of the raw time series is almost as high, a difference of 0.03 Wm^-2 is meaningless.

5) PMOD does not show a 11 year moving average (MA), while SSP does and it is absolutely believable that the 11 year MA is lower for 1990 than for 1980.

So no, it is not straightforward to measure pixel values in bitmaps, when you want to analyze a time series.
If you want to see for yourself if e.g. the moving average of the PMOD curve drops from the 1980 to 1990, go get the timeseries for solar output and compute it yourself. I trust the the skeptical science folks, or whoever originally created the SSP, have done that.

The data is available here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/solar-radiation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

or here
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/#summary_table" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


This link lets you interactively plot the historical irradiance:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You can download the data as well.
If you plot from 1980 to 2013, this plot shows a value of 1361.798 for 1980 and 1361.7209 for 1990.
To me that is about the same, given the overall range of ~ 1 W/m^-2.

In conclusion, your assertion that skeptical science has it all wrong, can thus be dismissed.
In the process, you have demonstrated, that you have still a lot to learn about science.

 

[donald]

I still disagree with most of your points, because the 'skeptical science' plot is clearly alluding to being A PEAK ENVELOPE.

It is understood that the data underneath a peak envelope is variable and will have some sort of statistical characteristic, but the thing you need to learn about science is that if you process data you have to say how you've processed it. It is not at all reasonable to give the impression of a dipping set of peaks in a peak envelope when the data you reference does not support that.

You claim this is DUE to the resolution of the time sampling. OK, so if I replot that with MY time sampling, chosen to show that the peaks increase then you'd not have a problem with that?

You claim that it is all below the statistical uncertainty. That is true, but by the same token you cannot reject that there is a fair probability that solar activity is going up rather than going down because either outcome would sit within the statistical distribution. Again I could replot those plots to show solar activity rising, and manipulate it to keep it within the statistical uncertainty. The point here is that the plots show a line not tending towards the centre of that distribution, because we can see peaks dipping when there is no such structure in the data set.

The point of the 'skeptical science' plot is that it overcomes, or should be overcoming, the limitations of describing a statistical distribution by providing a peak envelope instead. But it is clear that it is a manipulation of the peak envelope and has been generated with algorithms unknown.

In what way was the data manipulated to achieve the apparent dropping of the peaks? The thing you need to learn about science is that if there are inconsistencies in data then they need to be looked at, not ignored if it does not fit your experimental bias.

The thing you need to learn about experimental bias is that once a scientists has decided the outcome is certain, everything they see then becomes biased towards proving that outcome. You do not simply have experimental bias, you have absolutely stated it as a matter of fact. It is inconceivable to you that this data could show the inverse of what you believe and therefore you dismiss the inconsistency.

The 'skeptical science' plot is clearly directed to encourage the viewer to believe the maxima of the time trace are dropping, and that is not an accurate summary of the data set. It is a scientific principle that the user of that data states how it was manipulated, and in this case they have not.

In regards your repeated assertion that I am trying to deny or dismiss anything, I have done no such thing. I have brought data that I was told to look at into entirely reasonable question, and as it does not match your experimental biases then you have rejected and dismissed my questions. The denial and dismissal is on your behalf, not mine.

 

[RegGuheert]

I think we are straining at a gnat here. If the Earth has been heated to equilibrium by the Sun and the oceans act as a huge thermal capacitance, then the temperature of the Earth will rise if the Sun is above its average value and will fall if the Sun is below its average value. In other words, the oceans integrate the power from the sun. There is NO requirement for the activity level of the Sun to be increasing for the temperature of the Earth to increase. It only needs to be above its recent historical average.

As you've seen before, if you sum in the effect of the PDO, you can accurately predict global average temperatures using the integral of the solar activity, referenced to its average value:

A longer-term view shows this approach fits temperatures for *centuries*:

All that said, there is also possibly a proportional aspect to the solar heating of the Earth related to the heating of land.

 

[Alric]

And this is all published in a peer-reviewed journal where?

 

[klapauzius]

I still disagree with most of your points, because the 'skeptical science' plot is clearly alluding to being A PEAK ENVELOPE.
...
You claim this is DUE to the resolution of the time sampling. OK, so if I replot that with MY time sampling, chosen to show that the peaks increase then you'd not have a problem with that?

Donald, I downloaded the data from here:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I assume this is the same data set everyone is using. Its a CSV file, so easy to work with.
Skeptical science plotted a 11-year moving average, because 11 years is the cycle time of the sun's activity.

I did the same with the historical year-by-year data and found it shows exactly the trend that the skeptical science plot shows. They very clearly state on their plot that they took an 11 year average, so contrary to your assertion, they did not use an unknown algorithm.

It is laid out plain and clear on the plot for everyone, including you, to see.
The data they used is public, so you can check for yourself, in fact everyone can do that.

You do know how to apply a moving average, right? You are an engineer after all, so that should not be a problem for you.

So go ahead, take a 4th look at the curve, download the historical solar irradiation data, use excel, or Matlab or any other of your favorite programs to compute and plot the 11 year moving average and plot it from 1880 to 2010.

You will find it faithfully reproduces the skeptical science plot.

 

[donald]

OK, now you're confusing me even more.

The data set I downloaded from http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; shows a lowest irradiance of 1359.87 Wm-2 and a highest of 1362.14.

While the dataset on 'skepticalscience.com' shows a data set between 1365.25 and 1366.5 Wm-2.

4th look.... this is different data?

 

[klapauzius]

OK, now you're confusing me even more.

The data set I downloaded from http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; shows a lowest irradiance of 1359.87 Wm-2 and a highest of 1362.14.

While the dataset on 'skepticalscience.com' shows a data set between 1365.25 and 1366.5 Wm-2.

4th look.... this is different data?

http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you click on the "about" button next to download you will find a description of the dataset:

This historical TSI reconstruction is based on Wang, Lean, and Sheeley ( "Modeling the Sun's Magnetic Field and Irradiance Since 1713", ApJ 625:522-538, 2005 May 20), which was used for solar forcings in the 2007 IPCC estimates.

These data are updated through 2007 by Judith Lean (NRL) and then modified by:

offsetting to the SORCE/TIM TSI absolute values using years 2003-2007 of overlap;
replacing years 2003-2007 and extending to more recent times using annual averages of SORCE/TIM data.


Reference

Kopp, G. and Lean, J. L., "A New, Lower Value of Total Solar Irradiance: Evidence and Climate Significance," Geophys. Res. Letters Frontier article, Vol. 38, L01706, doi:10.1029/2010GL045777, 2011.
Kopp, G., Lawrence, G., and Rottman, G., "The Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM): Science Results," Solar Physics, 230, 1, Aug. 2005, pp. 129-140.

They subtracted a constant offset.
Apparently historical values have been overestimated, as the title of the cited work "A New, Lower Value of Total Solar Irradiance: Evidence and Climate Significance," suggests.

I noted that skeptical science took their data from Krivova et al. (2007), AA 467, 335-346. So it seems they are actually different sources!


If you leave out the scales, the curves look the same, so does it matter?

If you want to make a statement of solar irradiance in relation to global temperature, linear scaling/shifting of the curve along the y-axis are meaningless.

Given that these curves are from different authors, even better, so you have the same thing from independent sources.

 

[klapauzius]

OK, now you're confusing me even more.

The data set I downloaded from http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; shows a lowest irradiance of 1359.87 Wm-2 and a highest of 1362.14.

While the dataset on 'skepticalscience.com' shows a data set between 1365.25 and 1366.5 Wm-2.

4th look.... this is different data?

Just noted, that Kriova et al. also make their data available online:

http://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data/tsi_1700.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I can take their original posted data, compute a 11-year moving average and get the same curve as in skeptical science. Which looks very much like the one I get from http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

So, both curves agree, skeptical science didnt cheat, or tweak or manipulate the data in obscure ways.

Now you have two independent sources (assuming that these dont trace back to the same root-data set), giving you the same answer.

 

[AndyH]

Anyone need a quick $10,000?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0xwkrMQYlI[/youtube]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/23/3451810/physicist-offers-climate-denier-reward/

 

[donald]

You can't 'prove' a negative using 'the scientific method'.

Dr. Christopher Keating, a physicist who has taught at the University of South Dakota and the U.S. Naval Academy, says in his blog post that the rules are easy: there is no entry fee, participants must be over 18, and the scientific method must be employed.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method, in which a null hypothesis is disproved. You can't create a null hypothesis for a negative.

So, if there is no man made warming (which, incidentally, is not a position I would agree with, though I think it is reasonable to enquire about the degree of contribution as there are clearly several contributions) then what observation is this person expecting that could possibly disprove that nothing?

I could claim invisible miniature flying elephants cause car accidents. What would someone be expected to do to disprove that?

 

[klapauzius]

You can't 'prove' a negative using 'the scientific method'.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method, in which a null hypothesis is disproved. You can't create a null hypothesis for a negative.

So, if there is no man made warming (which, incidentally, is not a position I would agree with, though I think it is reasonable to enquire about the degree of contribution as there are clearly several contributions) then what observation is this person expecting that could possibly disprove that nothing?

I could claim invisible miniature flying elephants cause car accidents. What would someone be expected to do to disprove that?

Donald, you are back! Did you check out the solar irradiation curves? Or was that already too much work for you?

Again you demonstrate your lack of understanding, presumably in the hope to be educated.

If you want to prove that the warming is NOT man-made, proving a positive for ANY other cause would be sufficient.

If DUI and texting explain the overwhelming majority of car accidents, the hypothesis of invisible elephants becomes irrelevant.

That is how science works.
Ironically you and Reg have been trying to do this all along ? Are you accusing yourself now of misunderstanding the scientific method? While you are wrong on most other things, you might be onto something here...

 

[donald]

I am probing the matters discussed, yes.

If you want to prove that the warming is NOT man-made, proving a positive for ANY other cause would be sufficient.

You're kidding me? That's easily proved - there are times before man walked the planet when it got warmer, and I'm pretty sure you'd agree with that.

If all that is required is to come up with one example of global warming that is not man made, I think there is already a very big consensus that we have gone into and out of various ice ages.

...This is clearly going to be insufficient to dissuade the natural climate change deniers!

The IPCC report is littered with content that shows the various contributions of warming, some are man made some are of natural origin. I don't see that there is any argument that there are potential man made causes and there are potential natural causes. The question is the degree of effect.

 

[AndyH]

I am probing the matters discussed, yes.

If you want to prove that the warming is NOT man-made, proving a positive for ANY other cause would be sufficient.

You're kidding me? That's easily proved - there are times before man walked the planet when it got warmer, and I'm pretty sure you'd agree with that.

While you're correct that there have been hotter times on the planet, it's not happened the way we're doing it, and it's not happened in the ~200,000 year history of humans on the planet. That's sorta the point about this AGW thing...

If all that is required is to come up with one example of global warming that is not man made, I think there is already a very big consensus that we have gone into and out of various ice ages.

...This is clearly going to be insufficient to dissuade the natural climate change deniers!

There are no 'natural climate change deniers'. All that's required for this challenge is an example of how the changes on this planet since about 1850 are NOT caused by anything man's done. As has already been pointed out, just find another cause. Since two others have added $10K to the pot, there should be ample incentive for you to get with Reg and maybe even Saint Willard to show us how it's done.

The IPCC report is littered with content that shows the various contributions of warming, some are man made some are of natural origin. I don't see that there is any argument that there are potential man made causes and there are potential natural causes. The question is the degree of effect.

No, sorry. Yes, there are many pieces in this puzzle, but only the denial industry is suggesting that science doesn't understand which of the pieces belong to us. I gave you a sub-5 minute youtube video from a real climate scientist telling you EXACTLY this earlier in the thread, but it apparently didn't make an impression...

 

[klapauzius]

I am probing the matters discussed, yes.

If you want to prove that the warming is NOT man-made, proving a positive for ANY other cause would be sufficient.

You're kidding me? That's easily proved - there are times before man walked the planet when it got warmer, and I'm pretty sure you'd agree with that.
If all that is required is to come up with one example of global warming that is not man made, I think there is already a very big consensus that we have gone into and out of various ice ages.

Huh? What have past periods to do with the current warming?
That fact that it was warmer in the past does not explain why its warming today?
We are talking about the past 200 years, not 200,000.

We are also not talking about one example of global warming that not is man made, but about one alternative explanation for the current warming, that does not involve human activity.

Sorry, I thought you would be able to understand that right out of the box, but I am happy to provide extra explanations if needed.

 

[WetEV]

...This is clearly going to be insufficient to dissuade the natural climate change deniers!

What "natural climate change deniers" are you talking about? Just because nature can cause a forest fire doesn't mean burning down your house is a good idea.

Natural climate change has caused mass extinctions in the geologic past. Causing one ourselves doesn't look like a good idea to me.

 

[donald]

So I ask again, then, what observation would satisfy this 'disproof' then?

All I have to do to prove there are other mechanisms that are not man made is to take you outside on a cloudy day in summer, and wait 'til the clouds part. It gets hotter. Clouds affect the temperature of the planet. More clouds, less temperature, less clouds more temperature.

If an observation that there are other mechanisms that affect surface temperature is an insufficient 'proof' then what is this person after? I was just told above "If you want to prove that the warming is NOT man-made, proving a positive for ANY other cause would be sufficient." well, clouds do that. It is an impossible challenge because any suggestion will be reinterpreted and rebuffed, such is the total level of belief that it is 'as certain as gravity'.

 

[donald]

What "natural climate change deniers" are you talking about?

Those who seem to side-step the fact that we are in an inter-glacial of an ice age, and climate is always chaotic in such circumstances. Those who advocate for the theory of AGW never seem to explore by how much the climate would be varying anyway, the assumption is that it would stay constant, which is ridiculous in an interglacial.

Once I see a line of global temperature that should be observed, and the reasons and arguments for why that line is what it is (without reference to any inferred AGW), so as to compare the current trends with, then that might be one step towards it. But the inference I've always seen (maybe I've missed something) that peaks and troughs in the global temperature are anomalous. I don't know that's true, because I haven't seen anyone generate a line for global temperature without human input (excepting taking the temperature and subtracting the presumption of AGW, which obviously cannot be used as a disproof of AGW because it is a result which assumes AGW).

The inference is clearly that the temperature should remain constant, by the 1980 temperature line being drawn across the graph. That is clearly not what the planet would have done if there was no AGW.

 

[klapauzius]

So I ask again, then, what observation would satisfy this 'disproof' then?

All I have to do to prove there are other mechanisms that are not man made is to take you outside on a cloudy day in summer, and wait 'til the clouds part. It gets hotter. Clouds affect the temperature of the planet. More clouds, less temperature, less clouds more temperature.

If an observation that there are other mechanisms that affect surface temperature is an insufficient 'proof' then what is this person after? I was just told above "If you want to prove that the warming is NOT man-made, proving a positive for ANY other cause would be sufficient." well, clouds do that. It is an impossible challenge because any suggestion will be reinterpreted and rebuffed, such is the total level of belief that it is 'as certain as gravity'.

No, you got it wrong again, but I assume you know that.

All you have to do is show another mechanism, i.e not man-made, that explains the current global climate of the past 200 years, specifically is causal to it.

If "clouds" were your hypothesis, then surely you can show that the average cloud cover of the planet has decreased over the past 200 years and this was/is the sole cause of the observed temperature trend. Furthermore you'd have to prove that the cloud cover is causal to the temperature trend, not a consequence of it.

Clouds of course are a particularly stupid example, because they are heavily affected by the climate itself and can hardly be interpreted as being an independent parameter.

Keep trying...

 

[RegGuheert]

All you have to do is show another mechanism, i.e not man-made, that explains the current global climate of the past 200 years, specifically is causal to it.

Here's one I've posted before:

Here's a newer version of a similar theory that I linked to earlier in this thread:

If "clouds" were your hypothesis, then surely you can show that the average cloud cover of the planet has decreased over the past 200 years and this was/is the sole cause of the observed temperature trend. Furthermore you'd have to prove that the cloud cover is causal to the temperature trend, not a consequence of it.

Well, how about showing you, again, that the GHE *DROPPED* during the warming at the end of the 20th century, from this paper?

Just to be clear, a reduction in the diurnal temperature range means the OVERALL GHE is going UP and an increase in the diurnal temperature range means the OVERALL GHE is going down. So, as should be clear to everyone, the OVERALL GHE was going DOWN during the warming at the end of the 20th century. So, clearly, the warming was NOT caused by an increase in greenhouse gases. Instead, it was caused by a decrease in cloudiness, which dominate the GHE on Earth.

But that was just over land. What about the Earth's oceans? Yeah, they saw the same drop in cloudiness during the same period:

And, yes, a couple of percent change in cloudiness is a big deal in terms of the Earth's albido. Perhaps that recent increase in cloudiness is the cause of the nearly 2 degree Celsius drop in U.S. temperatures since the beginning of 2012 as recorded by the U.S. Climate Reference Network:

Clouds of course are a particularly stupid example, because they are heavily affected by the climate itself and can hardly be interpreted as being an independent parameter.

The assumption that clouds are entirely dependent on climate is directly contradicted by the body of evidence in the scientific literature that exists. But you know all this because I have pointed it out before. But you choose to ignore the facts since they do not agree with your belief system:

The effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation HAVE been observed, both in the laboratory and through in-situ observations 1 and 2.

And, finally, we know that cosmic rays reaching the Earth are strongly inversely correlated with the temperature of Earth:

The "M", "D" and "G" stand for the Maunder, Dalton and Gleissberg minimums. I find it interesting that the Earth is coldest when the cosmic ray influx is highest.

Continue to ignore all the above, if you like. But as I have pointed out previously, the sun is getting quiet and the cosmic rays have increased to levels never before seen in the instrument record:

The point is that the instrument record of the past 50 years apparently has recorded historically low levels of cosmic rays, at the same time that the instrument record records relatively high global temperatures.

As the sun gets extremely quiet in solar cycle 25, expect the Earth to continue to cool, but at a more rapid pace. (Yes, ALL of the global databases show a cooling trend since 2002.)