Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Quoting Neapolitan:
Oh, but, see, you're missing two key points:

1) If you begin on a relatively warm year and end on a relatively cool year, the trendline is flat, or even negative. Therefore, the planet is clearly cooling;

2) The climate in Stykkishólmur, Iceland, is clearly representative of the climate for the planet as a whole.

I love it when denialists use data they believe bolsters their side when it actually does the opposite. For instance, Bastardi (yes, him again) on Twitter a short while ago wrote:

"By the way, anyone look at this... the actual data as to how little humans contribute to the co2 total http://firsthandweather.com/wp-content/uploads/20 11/12/greenhouse.png DOE report"

...which linked to this chart:



The part that Little Joey failed to notice is that for the decade of the 1990s, natural sources of CO2 were being naturally absorbed, but only about half of human-made CO2 was, leading to an average annual build-up of 11.7 billion metric tons. That is, obviously, close to 120 billion metric tons for the decade (and it's gone way up since then). In DenialWorld, 120 billion metric tons of CO2 may seem like only a "little", but it's a whole heck of a lot where warming is concerned.

I guess "Little Joey" has "Nobel" company.


Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears.

Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation. Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS:

“Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.'

Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS:

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’"

Giaever was one of President Obama's key scientific supporters in 2008. Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorse Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming.

Quoting Neapolitan:
Here's a short, randomly-selected list of some of this week's climate change articles/editorials (note: don't look for these on the Fox News website, because you won't find them there). In no particular order:

--By the year 2100, conservative estimates are that dealing just with sea level rise and its effects will cost around $2 trillion a year (in 2012 dollars). (And that's assuming no catastrophic events such as ice-sheet collapse or massive methane release.)

--a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21636- has-global-warming-brought-an-early-summer-to-the- us.html%22%22"














onclick="if(!checkUrl(this.href)) return false;" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Has global warming brought an early summer to the US?

--West Antarctic ice shelves are coming apart at the seams

--Satellites Show Sea Level Rise is Here to Stay

--Canadian scientists are being muzzled by a government beholden to fossil fuel interests. (Sound familiar?)

--How to Fight Food Insecurity, Even in a Changing Climate

--Hot, crowded, and running out of fuel: Earth of 2050 a scary place

--How Global Warming Sharply Increases The Likelihood Of 'Outlandish' Heat Waves

--Climate change is already harshing the weather

--Special Report: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)

BOSTON (CBS) – 83 degrees. That was the temperature in Boston just over a week ago. Beaches were packed and the forsythia and fruit trees were starting to burst.

Only problem was the calendar said mid-March and all this was happening several weeks too soon.

Check: Current Conditions | Weather Map Center | Interactive Radar

But after the mild, snowless winter we had it didn’t seem all that strange that spring and summer would come early.

In New England however, it seems Mother Nature doesn’t ever let us get too comfortable or relaxed. Just think back to 1997. It was a relatively easy winter by our standards. Just over 20 inches of snow had fallen for the season and temperatures were starting to top 60 degrees in late March.

In fact on March 30, 1997, the high was 63 degrees and we actually had a thunderstorm the prior evening.

What followed was one of nature’s cruelest attempts at an April Fool’s Day joke. Boston received 25.4 inches of snow on March 31 and April 1 in 1997, our biggest snowfall of the year just when everyone was thinking spring.

Don’t worry, this weekend will NOT be a repeat of 1997, but snow is in the forecast for the final day of March and the first day of April once again.

A small but potent storm system will emerge out of the Great Lakes this evening and arrive in southern New England early Saturday morning.

It will start as snow for most areas just before dawn.


Link

Quoting iceagecoming:


I guess "Little Joey" has "Nobel" company.


Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears.

Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation. Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS:

“Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.'

Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS:

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’"

Giaever was one of President Obama's key scientific supporters in 2008. Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorse Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming.

Well, at least Bastardi is a weather guy, not a washed up crackpot physicist who has neither worked in nor published in his field for decades. I have to give him that, even if he is wrong almost every time he opens his mouth...

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
The laws of physics apply everywhere except, warmist climatologists would have you believe, in climate "science." Turns out the laws of physics apply there too.

Link

Speaking of crocks of you-know-what. LOL

Wait for it, wait for it, "regional"


The first key to wisdom is assiduous and frequent questioning ... For by doubting we come to inquiry, and by inquiry we arrive at truth.
— Peter Abelard
Sic et Non (c. 1120). In Frederick Denison Maurice, Mediaeval Philosophy, Or, A Treatise of Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy (1870), 138

Quoting iceagecoming:
Wait for it, wait for it, "regional"


The first key to wisdom is assiduous and frequent questioning ... For by doubting we come to inquiry, and by inquiry we arrive at truth.
— Peter Abelard
Sic et Non (c. 1120). In Frederick Denison Maurice, Mediaeval Philosophy, Or, A Treatise of Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy (1870), 138

Doubting after the inquiry has been done adequately isn't wisdom. It's avoiding the truth.

So is it your considered opinion then that we continue with our self-destructive, possibly suicidal, behavior?

Personally, I think I can make a fair case that the entire US (and a fair chunk of civilization) should be Baker Acted for its own protection and that of others.

I think the current administration is onto something,
can't say I'm surprised, might even venture a "expected"

Aug 30, 2010 6:10pm
Sebelius: Time for ‘Reeducation’ on Obama Health Care Law


Link



Rounded up into torture camps: the 'undesirables' China doesn't want you to see

By Andrew Malone
UPDATED: 04:18 EST, 18 August 2008





The bleak concrete walls topped with razor wire and the sentries in towers at the gates are a chilling reminder of a different era.

On the nearby roads, heavily armed guards patrol relentlessly, checking both drivers and pedestrians, constantly alert.

Meanwhile, less than 30 miles away, the world's attention is focused on the world-famous 'Bird's Nest' Olympic stadium and the other venues where a global audience of two billion is watching the Games and enjoying the spectacle of the 'new' China.

The Beijing regime has deployed an army of 500,000 smiling volunteers to help foreigners find their way around the teeming capital city.

Blades of grass have been individually combed. Signs have been erected in English.

Spitting has been banned and taxi drivers have been told to wear ties.

But there's none of that here in the suburb of Daxing, where the only 'venues' are the five camps into which thousands of China's 'undesirables' have been swept from the streets of Beijing and locked up.

Here, down bumpy, unlit roads, is where old habits die hard for China's brutal totalitarian communist regime.

These camps are being used to imprison - without trial or legal representation - people that the regime wants the world to believe do not exist amid the miracle of modern China.

From street children, hawkers, the homeless and prostitutes, to the mentally ill, black migrants, drug dealers and gays caught in public bathhouses, the camps on the outskirts of the city started filling up with Beijing's 'undesirables' last year as part of the Chinese regime's determination to present what it sees as an acceptable face to the world.

It is all eerily reminiscent of the build-up to the 1936 Games in Berlin, when the government cleared similar 'undesirables' from the streets.

Under Hitler's regime many of the Nazi concentration camps bore the slogan Arbeit macht frei (Work makes you free) at their gates.

In China, the camps bear the slogan 'Re-education Through Labour'. (It's a peculiar irony that Beijing has been so determined to use the English language to welcome the world, that street signs even bear the chilling words.)

The camps themselves are festooned with banners in Mandarin Chinese stating that 'you must be punished according to the laws of the Olympics', and reveal the extraordinary lengths to which the Chinese are prepared to go to in order to convince the world of the country's success.

Working up to 16 hours a day and held in cramped, unsanitary cells with only one toilet bucket for dozens of inmates, the existence of the jailed 'undesirables' is something China has done its best to hide.

The policy of 'people clearances' began last year and those taken in were moved to the camps on the outskirts of Beijing, which were built in the 1960s for the purposes of 'cleansing' the minds of dissidents opposed to the state.

By using torture, brainwashing techniques and the use of heavy labour, Chairman Mao was determined to convince opponents of the error of their ways.

The camps have been used in more recent times to hold dissidents, lawyers and followers of religions banned by the government.

But sweeps of the city ahead of the influx of foreign visitors have meant these dissidents have been joined by a new list of victims, who have until now been allowed to work freely in the capital.

Those who complain or refuse to eat in protest at their detention are force-fed - with guards holding their mouths open and tipping food down their victims' gullets, making them choke and vomit. There are more than 1,000 of these camps located around this country of more than 1.3 billion people.

In 2005, the authorities opened one Re-education Through Labour Camp to United Nations investigators investigating claims that inmates were being killed and their organs 'harvested' and sold to wealthy Chinese desperate for transplants.

Nothing untoward was found. The camp had even been painted ahead of the UN visit.

Dissidents claimed later that victims are transferred from camp to camp whenever any brutality is discovered by outside bodies.
After 30 years of reform, China has developed greatly. People enjoy more freedom. People are living a good life. Everyone is happy. That's a fact.,' he said.

'Of course, there are exceptions. But they need to take the legal process and procedures to resolve any issues.'

Much the same could have been said in Germany in 1936 - and it would have had just as hollow a ring to it.

As Susan Bachrach, a historian and expert on the Berlin Games, says: 'Hosting the Olympics presented the Nazi leadership with an extraordinary opportunity to project the illusion of a peaceful, tolerant Germany under the guise of the Games' spirit of international co-operation.

'That effort was largely successful, and the regime scored a major propaganda victory.'
Beijing must hope that its propaganda effort will be every bit as effective.

The Chinese believe that at the end of the Games, the world will be left with happy memories of a spectacular event.

But for those who were deemed 'undesirable' and dumped into prison camps without trial, the memories of the 2008 Olympics will be very different indeed.




Link






Chinese Woman Sentenced To Re-Education Over Tweet
James Cullimore
Written by
James Cullimore
view bio follow

Blessed with a curmudgeonliness beyond his tender years, James Cullimore can still be heard yelping like a young boy at the prospect of a game...
18 November, 2010
china twitter

A Chinese woman has been sentenced to a year in a labour camp after re-tweeting a joke on Twitter.

Human rights activist Cheng Jiangping was arrested on 27 October and has since been convicted of "disturbing social order" and sentenced to one year of "re-education through labour", Amnesty International reported on Wednesday.

Her fiance, Hua Chunhui, originally posted a message mocking the demonstrators who smashed Japanese products in protest over an incident with Japan concerning the ownership of the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku islands.

Cheng later retweeted the message, adding the phrase: “Angry youth, charge!"

Amnesty International said that Cheng may be the first Chinese citizen to be a prisoner of conscience on the basis of a single tweet.

“Sentencing someone to a year in a labour camp, without trial, for simply repeating another person's clearly satirical observation on Twitter demonstrates the level of China's repression of online expression," said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International’s Director for the Asia-Pacific.

The BBC reports that Cheng has been sent to the Shibali River women's labour camp in Zhengzhou city, Henan Province to see out her sentence.

Twitter is banned in China, but many users still find work-arounds to avoid government internet controls to access the micro-blogging platform.

Read more: Link

Clockwork Orange
1984
THX1138
Logan's Run
etc..... Government's run amok.

Quoting Birthmark:
So is it your considered opinion then that we continue with our self-destructive, possibly suicidal, behavior?

Personally, I think I can make a fair case that the entire US (and a fair chunk of civilization) should be Baker Acted for its own protection and that of others.

The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

by
Ayn Rand,
Peter Schwartz (Other),
Peter Schwartz (Introduction)





Overview

In the tumultuous late 60s and early 70s, a social movement known as the "New Left" emerged as a major cultural influence, especially on the youth of America. It was a movement that embraced "flower-power" and psychedelic "consciousness-expansion," that lionized Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro and launched the Black Panthers and the Theater of the Absurd. In Return Of The Primitive (originally published in 1971 as The New Left), Ayn Rand, bestselling novelist and originator of the theory of Objectivism, identified the intellectual roots of this movement. She urged people to repudiate its mindless nihilism and to uphold, instead, a philosophy of reason, individualism, capitalism, and technological progress. Editor Peter Schwartz, in this new, expanded version of The New Left, has reorganized Rand's essays and added some of his own in order to underscore the continuing relevance of her analysis of that period. He examines such current ideologies as feminism, environmentalism and multiculturalism and argues that the same primitive, tribalist, "anti-industrial" mentality which animated the New Left a generation ago is shaping society today.

In a lot of cases it won't be "re"-education. It will be their first exposure to education.

It is interesting to contemplate how we in a free society deal with mass deception. Such deceptions were a practical impossibilities when the First Amendment was adopted. Now lies and deceptions can be finely crafted and transmitted around the world at the speed of light. And they do.

Perhaps even more importantly, lies matter nowadays unlike at the time the Constitution was adopted. Back then lies were rather unimportant --there was only so much damage we humans could do. These days, however, we easily can destroy whole cities, whole regions, and perhaps whole nations at the push of a button.

It is entirely possible that the Climate Change brought about by anthropogenic global warming will completely destroy civilization on any medium to large scale --possibly at any scale. Yet denialists continue to lie, deceive, and misdirect.

Such behavior warrants a response of some kind by any government that wants itself and/or its citizens to survive the coming decades. What that response will be is likely to be dictated by the current and immediate perceived stakes. The long term stakes probably will be less influential in decision making.

Those who claim that they are worried about actions such as those in your post are making those actions ever more likely through their denial of reality. When the first famine hits the US the things that you list above are likely to be among the tamer suggestions about what to do with people so perverse that they'd rather see society crumble and the citizens that they've been lying to starve in the streets rather than admit that they, the denialists, are wrong.

So, if you don't want the things you've posted (and probably worse) then your best bet is to knock off the BS.

A Question for Dr. Rood and the blog,

Are you aware if anyone has calculated the ratio of the quantity of heat emitted into the atmosphere when a substance is burned versus the amount of heat added into the atmosphere due to the carbon dioxide over the life of the CO2?

I believe the first calculation is rather straightforward. If we burn a quantity of fossil fuel we can calculate the energy released as well as the mass of the CO2 produced from the reaction.

The second part seems much trickier. What happens to the CO2? Some portion remains in the atmosphere for a very long time. This portion will trap some amount of energy that otherwise would have escaped to space. What decay rate is assumed? How much total energy does the CO2 add to the atmosphere over defined time periods?

This quantity would only be the direct forcing due to the CO2. A second or multiple ratios could be developed for the direct forcing plus the estimated (modeled) feedbacks from various sources and estimates.

Depending on the results of these calculations, this could be a new way to explain the effects of burning fossil fuels to people who are not very scientific.

I would like to be able to tell someone that if they burn a gallon of gasoline they have very rapidly released some quantity of energy in BTU’s or Calories and that over 5 years or 25 years the Earth will retain some multiple of that quantity due to the CO2 released.

Could be a project for a class…….

Quoting iceagecoming:



The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

by
Ayn Rand,
Peter Schwartz (Other),
Peter Schwartz (Introduction)





Overview

In the tumultuous late 60s and early 70s, a social movement known as the "New Left" emerged as a major cultural influence, especially on the youth of America. It was a movement that embraced "flower-power" and psychedelic "consciousness-expansion," that lionized Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro and launched the Black Panthers and the Theater of the Absurd. In Return Of The Primitive (originally published in 1971 as The New Left), Ayn Rand, bestselling novelist and originator of the theory of Objectivism, identified the intellectual roots of this movement. She urged people to repudiate its mindless nihilism and to uphold, instead, a philosophy of reason, individualism, capitalism, and technological progress. Editor Peter Schwartz, in this new, expanded version of The New Left, has reorganized Rand's essays and added some of his own in order to underscore the continuing relevance of her analysis of that period. He examines such current ideologies as feminism, environmentalism and multiculturalism and argues that the same primitive, tribalist, "anti-industrial" mentality which animated the New Left a generation ago is shaping society today.

Objectivists, in my experience, are the whiniest people on Earth. Just an observation. I suppose the whininess is a tacit admission that their "philosophy" is pretty much silly and nothing more than "I want stuff! And I want it now!"

Quoting Birthmark:
So is it your considered opinion then that we continue with our self-destructive, possibly suicidal, behavior?

Personally, I think I can make a fair case that the entire US (and a fair chunk of civilization) should be Baker Acted for its own protection and that of others.

Sorry to bend your sensibility, but when confronted with statements such as above, we come to solutions as per the link below.


Link

I am not in the habit of judging, but prefer to use sarcasm to "showcase" the tireless efforts of many to quell dissent, primarily when in my opinion they
are seriously flawed. Have a nice free day.


Enthusiastic partisans of the idea of progress are in danger of failing to recognize... the immense riches accumulated by the human race. By underrating the achievements of the past, they devalue all those which still remain to be accomplished.
Claude Levi-Strauss

Quoting iceagecoming:
Quoting Birthmark:


Sorry to bend your sensibility, but when confronted with statements such as above, we come to solutions as per the link below.

You make their case for them. ;^)

Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study

Evidence was found in a rare mineral that records global temperatures
Warming was far-reaching and NOT limited to Europe
Throws doubt on orthodoxies around 'global warming'

By Ted Thornhill

PUBLISHED: 07:21 EST, 26 March 2012 | UPDATED: 07:52 EST, 30 March 2012



Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study which shows that during medieval times areas as far apart as Europe and Antarctica both warmed up.

It then cooled down naturally and there was even a 'mini ice age'.

A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.

In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica

However, Professor Lu has shown that this the Medieval Warm Period had a much broader reach – and the evidence lies with a rare mineral called ikaite, which forms in cold waters.

‘Ikaite is an icy version of limestone,’ said Lu. ‘The crystals are only stable under cold conditions and actually melt at room temperature.’

It turns out the water that holds the crystal structure together - called the hydration water - traps information about temperatures present when the crystals formed.

This finding by Lu's research team establishes, for the first time, ikaite as a reliable way to study past climate conditions.

The mineral proved that Antarctica did warm up.

Lu says that his research has no direct bearing on the current climate, and points out that his research is restricted to one area in Antarctica, and is not in itself proof that the whole Earth warmed up.

The scientists studied ikaite crystals from sediment cores drilled off the coast of Antarctica. The sediment layers were deposited over 2,000 years.

The scientists were particularly interested in crystals found in layers deposited during the ‘Little Ice Age,’ approximately 300 to 500 years ago, and during the Medieval Warm Period before it.

Both climate events have been documented in Northern Europe, but studies have been inconclusive as to whether the conditions in Northern Europe extended to Antarctica.

Lu’s team found that in fact, they did.

They were able to deduce this by studying the amount of heavy oxygen isotopes found in the crystals.

During cool periods there are lots, during warm periods there aren’t.

‘We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,’ Lu says. ‘More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes.’

The research was recently published online in the journal Earth And Planetary Science Letters and will appear in print on April 1

Link


Nothing to exciting here, I have posted evidence of fossil, plankton, mollusk, and pollen data which supports the above story, won't matter to those with
their science "blinders on".



Eemian and Early Weichselian temperature and precipitation variability in northern Germany

Norbert Kühla, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author,
Thomas Litta,
Christian Schölzelb,
Andreas Henseb

a Institute for Palaeontology, University of Bonn, Nussallee 8, 53115 Bonn, Germany
b Meteorological Institute, University of Bonn, Auf dem Hügel 20, 53121 Bonn, Germany

Received 13 November 2006. Revised 15 September 2007. Accepted 3 October 2007. Available online 26 November 2007.




Abstract

Dramatic changes in European vegetation occurred during the transition from the Eemian interglacial to Weichselian glacial climates, correlative with major changes in global ice core and marine records. Quantitative knowledge of climate change is important for understanding of the climate system and for climate modelling, for which reconstructions of this transitional period are of special interest. However, it has been difficult to quantify the climatic changes involved in the Eemian to Early Weichselian transition from terrestrial archives due to the lack of modern vegetation analogues. To circumvent this problem, we applied a suitable multivariate probabilistic approach to pollen and plant macrofossil assemblages to reconstruct temperature and precipitation for this transition in central Europe. Our reconstructions span the interval from the beginning of the Eemian (Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5e) to the Odderade interstadial (MIS 5a). They indicate a relatively stable Eemian, with increasing precipitation reducing the continentality of the climate with time. During the transition from the Eemian to the Herning stadial, mean July and January temperatures decreased by ∼4 °C and by as much as ∼20 °C, respectively. Temperatures remained high enough to support forests during the stadials, and we infer that the reconstructed decrease of precipitation below 500 mm per year caused the extirpation of forests during these periods. Thus, we conclude that precipitation, although difficult to reconstruct, is of vital importance for explaining vegetation change during the Eemian and Eemian/Early Weichselian transition.

Sorry, but you've been taken in by "The Daily Fail."

From Professor Lu: “It is unfortunate that my research, “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula,” recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.

Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.”

Quoting Birthmark:

Here is what I said: "First, you chose one data station in Iceland."

That is a correct statement. Iceland Met has many data stations, yet you picked only one.

I went on to say, "Second, within the data years have been cherry picked for comparison with no explanation given as to why those dates were picked --other than "cycles" of some undefined sort."

That is also a correct statement.

I don't think you have any cause for complaint about my response

No sir they are not correct statements. First of all I cherry picked nothing, I posted what is on their climate page in their own words. Second they picked the station and also said it represents their country as a whole.

If you think they are wrong or want to know about cycles, write them an e-mail and tell them why. I suspect you do not want an answer and would rather continue whining.

No one has e-mailed me back from NOAA

Quoting Birthmark:

It should also be noted that a good deal of the warming in the earlier warming was due to solar activity.

Any evidence to back up that statement?

Quoting Birthmark:
So is it your considered opinion then that we continue with our self-destructive, possibly suicidal, behavior?

Personally, I think I can make a fair case that the entire US (and a fair chunk of civilization) should be Baker Acted for its own protection and that of others.

Since you are an accomplice in this self destructive possibly suicidal behavior, I say we start with you.

Quoting Neapolitan:
Here's a short, randomly-selected list of some of this week's climate change articles/editorials (note: don't look for these on the Fox News website, because you won't find them there). In no particular order:

--By the year 2100, conservative estimates are that dealing just with sea level rise and its effects will cost around $2 trillion a year (in 2012 dollars). (And that's assuming no catastrophic events such as ice-sheet collapse or massive methane release.)

--Has global warming brought an early summer to the US?

--West Antarctic ice shelves are coming apart at the seams

--Satellites Show Sea Level Rise is Here to Stay

--Canadian scientists are being muzzled by a government beholden to fossil fuel interests. (Sound familiar?)

--How to Fight Food Insecurity, Even in a Changing Climate

--Hot, crowded, and running out of fuel: Earth of 2050 a scary place

--How Global Warming Sharply Increases The Likelihood Of 'Outlandish' Heat Waves

--Climate change is already harshing the weather

--Special Report: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)

Thanks for the op/ed page

Sorry I should not bother you since you are probably still mourning your god Keith Olbermann getting axed yet again and again and again.

Maybe he can hook up with goofy Glenn Beck on the internet.

Have a good day everyone.

Quoting nymore:


Any evidence to back up that statement?

But of course!


Source

Quoting nymore:


Since you are an accomplice in this self destructive possibly suicidal behavior, I say we start with you.

Always willing to volunteer someone else for your sake, eh? Reminds me of Carlin's "Things You Never Hear in the Movies" bit: "Do anything you want to the woman, just don't hurt me!" LOL

Quoting Birthmark:

But of course!


Source

I hope you're aware that flat blue line in that graph over the last thirty years, the PMOD dataset, is in serious disagreements with some of the other datasets that measure TSI over the last 30 years, right?

Quoting Snowlover123:


I hope you're aware that flat blue line in that graph over the last thirty years, the PMOD dataset, is in serious disagreements with some of the other datasets that measure TSI over the last 30 years, right?

You mean like this one from NASA?



No, you can't mean that one. I looked at several others that all showed the same thing. Solar irradiance has been flat (perhaps down slightly) for the last thirty years.

So feel free to acquaint me with these datasets which are showing "serious disagreements."

Quoting Birthmark:
Sorry, but you've been taken in by "The Daily Fail."

From Professor Lu: “It is unfortunate that my research, “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula,” recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.

Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.”

Oh, c'mon, don't do that; let them have their fun. ;-)

It's funny that every time a credible scientist is joyfully misinterpreted by the denialist set, that scientist has to come out and set the record straight by correctly interpreting what he or she said. The only thing is, the same fervor with which those denialists embraced their misinterpretation is used to denigrate the scientist after the clarification.

Silly, silly denialists...

Quoting Neapolitan:
Oh, c'mon, don't do that; let them have their fun. ;-)

It's funny that every time a credible scientist is joyfully misinterpreted by the denialist set, that scientist has to come out and set the record straight by correctly interpreting what he or she said. The only thing is, the same fervor with which those denialists embraced their misinterpretation is used to denigrate the scientist after the clarification.

Silly, silly denialists...

What's worse, imo, is that denialists go back to the same source, time after time, no matter how many times that source has been demonstrated to be wrong.

I think there is a lot of money to be had in selling real estate to denialists. "Really, it's not swampland this time."

Quoting Birthmark:

You mean like this one from NASA?



No, you can't mean that one. I looked at several others that all showed the same thing. Solar irradiance has been flat (perhaps down slightly) for the last thirty years.

So feel free to acquaint me with these datasets which are showing "serious disagreements."

Yes, that's the PMOD dataset that I'm talking about that shows a flat line over the last 30 years.

The ACRIM Gap is where the ACRIM I satellite switched to the ACRIM II satellite, and there was a period in time where the ACRIM satellites were not measuring TSI. The ERBE/ERBS and NIMBUS7/ERB measurements were used to bridge the ACRIM Gap between the period where ACRIM I stopped measuring to the beginning of where ACRIM II started measuring. These timeframe begins in the middle of 1989 and ends in the middle of 1991.

PMOD uses ERBE/ERBS satellite data to bridge the Gap between the ACRIM I and II satellites.

The problem with this is that the ERBE/ERBS TSI measurements show a negative slope during the ACRIM Gap.

This is in direct disagreement with the GSSN and the higher quality ERB/NIMBUS7 measurements, indicating that the quality of the ERBE/ERBS data is at best, questionable.

This is significant, because the ERBE/ERBS bridge across the two satellites is the reason for why PMOD has a flat slope in TSI.

Another dataset, called ACRIM, uses NIMBUS 7/ERB data to bridge the ACRIM Gap, which has a positive slope in TSI.

This results in a statistically significant increase in TSI from SC 21 to SC 22, making it a potentially significant climate driver over the last 30 years.

Mordvinov and Willson 2003 found that TSI had increased by 0.05% between the minimas of SC 21 and 22, making it a potential climate driver. They also found that this increase in TSI is statistically significant.

Quoting the Willson 2003 paper:

The
0.05%/decade minimum-to-minimum trend
appears to be significant. If so it has profound implications
for both solar physics and climatology.

The Willson and Morvdinov 2003 study has gotten 160 citations so far, meaning that the scientific community believes this paper to be legitimate and worth citing.

Willson and Scafetta 2009 found that Lean and Frolich made inappropriate adjustments to the PMOD dataset, which caused the slope of the TSI to be flat, in conjunction with the selecton of ERBE/ERBS data to bridge the ACRIM Gap. They also found that the anthropogenic component of recent climate change has been significantly overestimated, and the natural solar component has been significantly understated.

This study has gotten 40 citations.

Scafetta and West 2008 found that nearly up to 70% of the recent warming can be attributed to the sun, if you use the ACRIM dataset.

This study has gotten 45 citations.

Scafetta 2009 finds that 66% of the variance in the late 20th Century can be explained by the sun alone, using the ACRIM and other TSI datasets other than PMOD.

Quoting Scafetta 2009...

The solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change is analyzed by using an empirical bi-scale climate model characterized by both fast and slow characteristic time responses to solar forcing: and or . Since 1980 the solar contribution to climate change is uncertain because of the severe uncertainty of the total solar irradiance satellite composites. The sun may have caused from a slight cooling, if PMOD TSI composite is used, to a significant warming (up to 65% of the total observed warming) if ACRIM, or other TSI composites are used. The model is calibrated only on the empirical 11-year solar cycle signature on the instrumental global surface temperature since 1980. The model reconstructs the major temperature patterns covering 400 years of solar induced temperature changes, as shown in recent paleoclimate global temperature records.



The first curve uses the ACRIM and other datasets. The second curve uses the PMOD dataset.

Another TSI dataset, the IRMB dataset, found that TSI increased between the minimas of SC 21 and 22 by up to 0.5 w/m^2, with a median increase of 0.15 w/m^2.

This study has gotten 57 citations.

These values such as 0.05%, 0.15 w/m^2 and 0.5 w/m^2 may not sound like much, but tbe sensitivity of the Climate to solar variability determines how much of a climatic impact these variables have on the Climate system.

Clader et. al 2004 found that the climate is sensitive to solar variability, so these seemingly tiny values can have large implications for climate change.

The two versions of this paper, the original and the updated version in total have 68 citations.

So before we can come up with an imaginary consensus on Climate Change, let's actually find what TSI was doing over the last 30 years, first.

Quoting Snowlover123:


Scafetta 2009 finds that 66% of the variance in the late 20th Century can be explained by the sun alone, using the ACRIM and other TSI datasets other than PMOD

Here is the link to Scafetta 2009:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.4319

March 30, 2012, 4:48 pm
Current TV Dismisses Keith Olbermann
By BRIAN STELTER
Keith Olbermann during the Jan. 5 episode of "Countdown" on Current TV.Current TVKeith Olbermann during the Jan. 5 episode of “Countdown” on Current TV.

10:06 p.m. | Updated For nearly a year now, Al Gore and Joel Hyatt have been building their liberal cable news channel, Current TV, with the mercurial television anchorman Keith Olbermann at its center.

This week, the center collapsed.

Current said on Friday afternoon that it had fired Mr. Olbermann — one of the nation’s most prominent progressive speakers — just a year into his five-year, $50 million contract. It was the culmination of months of murky disputes between Mr. Olbermann and the channel that he was supposed to save from the throes of ratings oblivion.

Yet as inevitable as it might have seemed to some in the television business who know the long history of antipathy between Mr. Olbermann and his employers, it was nonetheless shocking to his fans, to his detractors and to staff members at Current when the announcement was made.

Forty-five minutes afterward, in a stream of Twitter messages, Mr. Olbermann threatened to take legal action against the channel and said its claims about him were untrue. In part because of the prospect of litigation, executives at Current declined to comment on the firing on Friday. But they immediately named as his replacement Eliot Spitzer, the former governor of New York, who took over Mr. Olbermann’s 8 p.m. time slot on Friday night.

By replacing Mr. Olbermann, Mr. Spitzer is getting a second shot at an 8 p.m. talk show; in 2010, two years after he resigned the governorship after he admitted having patronized a prostitution ring, he led a short-lived show on CNN. It was canceled in mid-2011.

In a letter posted on Current’s Web site, Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt wrote, “We are confident that our viewers will be able to count on Governor Spitzer to deliver critical information on a daily basis.”

With those words — “on a daily basis” — the founders of Current hinted at one of the reasons for Mr. Olbermann’s termination.

Quoting Snowlover123:


Here is the link to Scafetta 2009:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.4319

Scafetta is wrong consistently. The differences between the ACRIM and PMOD are utterly insufficient to explain the current warming. NOTE: There are three different links contained in my first sentence.

Thinking about it only briefly proves he's wrong beyond all doubt. The stratosphere is cooling -which eliminates the possibility of the Sun being the source of the warming. Such cooling is a fingerprint of greenhouse gas.

Quoting iceagecoming:
March 30, 2012, 4:48 pm
Current TV Dismisses Keith Olbermann

What has that to do with the topic of Professor Rood's post, AGW, or Climate Change?

Quoting nymore:


Thanks for the op/ed page

Sorry I should not bother you since you are probably still mourning your god Keith Olbermann getting axed yet again and again and again.

Maybe he can hook up with goofy Glenn Beck on the internet.

You stole my thunder, it won't matter anyway, it's a right wing conspiracy funded by big oil and evil capitalist's, right warmista's!

And for NEO; I sent this to you last week, slipped your mind?

Interestingly Antarctica sea ice extent is currently slightly above average, as it has been for some time.

Levels of Arctic sea ice are not just dependent on temperature levels, but local weather conditions play a huge part too.

The much publicised 2007 minimum Arctic ice level was in large part due to the prevailing wind, which blew more ice into the Atlantic - as opposed to anything directly linked to global temperatures, as widely reported in the media at the time.

In fact The Met Office issued a press release to that end, saying the loss of sea ice that year had been wrongly attributed to global warming.



And of course:


By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: April 15, 2009

Evidence from fossil coral reefs in Mexico underlines the potential for a sudden jump in sea levels because of global warming, scientists report in a new study.
Dot Earth

Andrew C. Revkin blogs about climate and sustainability. Among Climate Scientists, a Dispute Over ‘Tipping Points’ (March 29, 2009)

The study, being published Thursday in the journal Nature, suggests that a sudden rise of 6.5 feet to 10 feet occurred within a span of 50 to 100 years about 121,000 years ago, at the end of the last warm interval between ice ages.

“The potential for sustained rapid ice loss and catastrophic sea-level rise in the near future is confirmed by our discovery of sea-level instability” in that period, the authors write.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/science/earth/1 6coral.html


So either the Ancient Aliens were cooking the ice packs 121,000 yrs back or we have a natural cause unrelated to modern mans miniscule inputs in the past 150 years. Which is it gonna be? I can't wait to hear this one, however, I expect.
(Cricket's (sound of))






"Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
"'Tis some visitor," I muttered, "tapping at my chamber door
Only this, and nothing more." EAP

P.S> Sorry NY, I was too lazy to track down that NEO post.

Quoting Birthmark:

Scafetta is wrong consistently. The differences between the ACRIM and PMOD are utterly insufficient to explain the current warming. NOTE: There are three different links contained in my first sentence.

Thinking about it only briefly proves he's wrong beyond all doubt. The stratosphere is cooling -which eliminates the possibility of the Sun being the source of the warming. Such cooling is a fingerprint of greenhouse gas.

I was figuring that you would use mostly blog posts to try and refute peer reviewed papers. It's happened many times before.

Your first paper is interesting because it's an actual peer reviewed paper.

All I can say is that your paper indicates that there is no consensus on what TSI has done over the last 30 years.

Your third link, the Scafetta widget problems link is utter trash. I can explain why it is if you would like.

The problem is ACRIM can explain most of the warming over the last 30 years, wheras PMOD can not, as seen by my papers I have posted, which is why this discrepency needs to be resolved.

By the way, just because the stratosphere is cooling, doesn't mean GHGs are causing the warming, since there are many factors that can influence the stratospheric temperatures, such as ozone depletion.

In fact, a new paper recently shows that Ozone depletion caused by Galactic Cosmic Rays can be responsible for up to 75% of temperature changes over the past 80 years can be explained by Ozone depletion caused by GCRs, making it a prime candidate for the stratospheric cooling we have seen.

Quoting paper:

The strong sensitivity of the Earth's radiation balance to variations in the lower stratospheric ozone—reported previously—is analysed here by the use of non-linear statistical methods. Our non-linear model of the land air temperature (T)—driven by the measured Arosa total ozone (TOZ)—explains 75% of total variability of Earth's T variations during the period 1926–2011. We have analysed also the factors which could influence the TOZ variability and found that the strongest impact belongs to the multi-decadal variations of galactic cosmic rays. Constructing a statistical model of the ozone variability, we have been able to predict the tendency in the land air T evolution till the end of the current decade. Results show that Earth is facing a weak cooling of the surface T by 0.05–0.25 K (depending on the ozone model) until the end of the current solar cycle. A new mechanism for O3 influence on climate is proposed.

Quoting Birthmark:

Buffett is now Obama's puppet-master? What, has Soros got the day off...again?

What has that got to do with Climate Change??
Or dare I ask?
TWO way street, Bub.

Quoting iceagecoming:


What has that got to do with Climate Change??
Or dare I ask?
TWO way street, Bub.

Um, I was responding to someone else's post. ;)

Quoting Snowlover123:


I was figuring that you would use mostly blog posts to try and refute peer reviewed papers. It's happened many times before.

But it didn't happen this time. (50% is NOT "mostly").

Quoting Snowlover123:
Your first paper is interesting because it's an actual peer reviewed paper.

All I can say is that your paper indicates that there is no consensus on what TSI has done over the last 30 years.

Nor does their need to be one since the differences are inadequate to the task you have set them.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Your third link, the Scafetta widget problems link is utter trash. I can explain why it is if you would like.

I would like nothing better. You need not do it immediately since it is getting late here.

Quoting Snowlover123:
The problem is ACRIM can explain most of the warming over the last 30 years, wheras PMOD can not, as seen by my papers I have posted, which is why this discrepency needs to be resolved.

PMOD doesn't have to and ACRIM cannot since it would warm the stratosphere...which isn't happening.

Quoting Snowlover123:
By the way, just because the stratosphere is cooling, doesn't mean GHGs are causing the warming, since there are many factors that can influence the stratospheric temperatures, such as ozone depletion.

In fact, a new paper recently shows that Ozone depletion caused by Galactic Cosmic Rays can be responsible for up to 75% of temperature changes over the past 80 years can be explained by Ozone depletion caused by GCRs, making it a prime candidate for the stratospheric cooling we have seen.

A prime candidate? Who says? LOL

Um, if that were the case then that means that CO2 isn't a GHG...which means that there is a lot of work that has to be redone not just in climatology but in physics. You see, the problem is GHG's do just fine explaining the temperatures of other planets --planets without O3. So we'd be left having
to explain why CO2 is a GHG on Mars, for example, but not on Earth. I'm afraid your prime candidate is a DOA.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Quoting paper:

The strong sensitivity of the Earth's radiation balance to variations in the lower stratospheric ozone%u2014reported previously%u2014is analysed here by the use of non-linear statistical methods. Our non-linear model of the land air temperature (T)%u2014driven by the measured Arosa total ozone (TOZ)%u2014explains 75% of total variability of Earth's T variations during the period 1926%u20132011. We have analysed also the factors which could influence the TOZ variability and found that the strongest impact belongs to the multi-decadal variations of galactic cosmic rays. Constructing a statistical model of the ozone variability, we have been able to predict the tendency in the land air T evolution till the end of the current decade. Results show that Earth is facing a weak cooling of the surface T by 0.05%u20130.25 K (depending on the ozone model) until the end of the current solar cycle. A new mechanism for O3 influence on climate is proposed.

I daresay they do need a new mechanism. They also need to find an increase in GCR. LOL

EDIT: Let me add in closing for the night, that parsimony is a fairly important concept in science. You are proposing two mechanisms to explain the warming of the troposphere and the cooling of the stratosphere; I am proposing one. I know which way Occam would bet. I suspect that you do, too. ;)

Quoting iceagecoming:



The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

by
Ayn Rand,
Peter Schwartz (Other),
Peter Schwartz (Introduction)





Overview

In the tumultuous late 60s and early 70s, a social movement known as the "New Left" emerged as a major cultural influence, especially on the youth of America. It was a movement that embraced "flower-power" and psychedelic "consciousness-expansion," that lionized Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro and launched the Black Panthers and the Theater of the Absurd. In Return Of The Primitive (originally published in 1971 as The New Left), Ayn Rand, bestselling novelist and originator of the theory of Objectivism, identified the intellectual roots of this movement. She urged people to repudiate its mindless nihilism and to uphold, instead, a philosophy of reason, individualism, capitalism, and technological progress. Editor Peter Schwartz, in this new, expanded version of The New Left, has reorganized Rand's essays and added some of his own in order to underscore the continuing relevance of her analysis of that period. He examines such current ideologies as feminism, environmentalism and multiculturalism and argues that the same primitive, tribalist, "anti-industrial" mentality which animated the New Left a generation ago is shaping society today.

You really need to research Ayn Rand and her theories if you want to make points about her. Also, research her personal life and views on religion: the latter two things don't matter in terms of her philosophy but considering the criticisms of Al Gore and right wing religious bias against global warming, she seems the worng person to point to as a reference.

In terms of tribalism, your above quote is perhaps relevant, although femimism is far from a united block (I think a fundamental tenet of feminism is that there are as many flavors of feminism as there are feminists), evnironmentalism is similarly fractured and only unites on given issues. Multiculturalism seems an odd choice for a tribalist shaping of society but I guess that is being used in the 'stop the melting pot' sense.

Mostly, though, in terms of tribalism, the right wing of America, starting with Newt Gingrich and his ilk, is in my ivew the most severe examples of division and divisivness. What used to be a Grand Ole Party has become the 'anti-science'(tribe of the ignorant), 'ani-freedom'(tribe of the fascists),hate filled party of hypocrisy(tribe of the rich who don't want to earn money ie compete fairly). While they may have used to stand for principles, today they stand for power, empowerment of hate filled 'tribes' in order to gain power as the representative of those tribes and pretty much hypocrisy and hate. They seek to blame someone to gain respect they don't deserve in comparison.

Quoting iceagecoming:


You stole my thunder, it won't matter anyway, it's a right wing conspiracy funded by big oil and evil capitalist's, right warmista's!

And for NEO; I sent this to you last week, slipped your mind?

Interestingly Antarctica sea ice extent is currently slightly above average, as it has been for some time.

Levels of Arctic sea ice are not just dependent on temperature levels, but local weather conditions play a huge part too.

The much publicised 2007 minimum Arctic ice level was in large part due to the prevailing wind, which blew more ice into the Atlantic - as opposed to anything directly linked to global temperatures, as widely reported in the media at the time.

In fact The Met Office issued a press release to that end, saying the loss of sea ice that year had been wrongly attributed to global warming.



And of course:


By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: April 15, 2009

Evidence from fossil coral reefs in Mexico underlines the potential for a sudden jump in sea levels because of global warming, scientists report in a new study.
Dot Earth

Andrew C. Revkin blogs about climate and sustainability. Among Climate Scientists, a Dispute Over ‘Tipping Points’ (March 29, 2009)

The study, being published Thursday in the journal Nature, suggests that a sudden rise of 6.5 feet to 10 feet occurred within a span of 50 to 100 years about 121,000 years ago, at the end of the last warm interval between ice ages.

“The potential for sustained rapid ice loss and catastrophic sea-level rise in the near future is confirmed by our discovery of sea-level instability” in that period, the authors write.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/science/earth/1 6coral.html


So either the Ancient Aliens were cooking the ice packs 121,000 yrs back or we have a natural cause unrelated to modern mans miniscule inputs in the past 150 years. Which is it gonna be? I can't wait to hear this one, however, I expect.
(Cricket's (sound of))






"Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
"'Tis some visitor," I muttered, "tapping at my chamber door
Only this, and nothing more." EAP

P.S> Sorry NY, I was too lazy to track down that NEO post.

Maybe you've found the key! Arctic Sea ice continues to get lower and lower in extent, area, and volume with each passing year, but not because it's melting; it's simply because of winds distributing it around the globe! That's it! It's kinda like when a kid who doesn't want to eat his peas merely scatters them about the plate to make it appear as though there's less of them! And that explains why we're now seeing icebergs everywhere, even in tropical locations, like that large one found in the Bahamas just a week ago!

Oh, wait...

So far as the rest of your lengthy bit, I need you to please clarify something for me: are you attempting to use evidence of past rapid sea level rise to dismiss the possibility that it could happen again?

Quoting Neapolitan:
Maybe you've found the key! Arctic Sea ice continues to get lower and lower in extent, area, and volume with each passing year, but not because it's melting; it's simply because of winds distributing it around the globe! That's it! It's kinda like when a kid who doesn't want to eat his peas merely scatters them about the plate to make it appear as though there's less of them! And that explains why we're now seeing icebergs everywhere, even in tropical locations, like that large one found in the Bahamas just a week ago!

Oh, wait...

So far as the rest of your lengthy bit, I need you to please clarify something for me: are you attempting to use evidence of past rapid sea level rise to dismiss the possibility that it could happen again?

Nope, my contention has been and always will be, use the long term empirical data to predict future climate events.







The warming and cooling are gonna happen, and unless you have the energy source and capability to manipulate the thermostat and other cosmic (comets, asteroids, long duration cycles)or volcanic influences (Pinatubo)it is very unlikely anything is going to stop that process, which is not AGW.

The "programming" is deeply embedded in someone.

Quoting iceagecoming:
The warming and cooling are gonna happen, and unless you have the energy source and capability to manipulate the thermostat and other cosmic (comets, asteroids, long duration cycles)or volcanic influences (Pinatubo)it is very unlikely anything is going to stop that process, which is not AGW.

I guess that's one way to ignore reality, facts, observations, and sound conclusions. Enjoy!

Paging Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts. Paging Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts. Please pick up the white courtesy phone; Mother Nature would like to ask you a question.

Quoting Snowlover123:

Yes, that's the PMOD dataset that I'm talking about that shows a flat line over the last 30 years.

The ACRIM Gap is where the ACRIM I satellite switched to the ACRIM II satellite, and there was a period in time where the ACRIM satellites were not measuring TSI. These timeframe begins in the middle of 1989 and ends in the middle of 1991.

Willson and Scafetta 2009 found that Lean and Frolich made inappropriate adjustments to the PMOD dataset, which caused the slope of the TSI to be flat, in conjunction with the selecton of ERBE/ERBS data to bridge the ACRIM Gap. They also found that the anthropogenic component of recent climate change has been significantly overestimated, and the natural solar component has been significantly understated.

This study has gotten 40 citations.

Scafetta and West 2008 found that nearly up to 70% of the recent warming can be attributed to the sun, if you use the ACRIM dataset.

This study has gotten 45 citations.

The Willson and Morvdinov 2003 study has gotten 160 citations so far, meaning that the scientific community believes this paper to be legitimate and worth citing.

So before we can come up with an imaginary consensus on Climate Change, let's actually find what TSI was doing over the last 30 years, first.

As you can see in the image below, the major difference between the two composites is the handling of data between 1989 and 1991. There is a gap and to fill the gap, both composites use the HF data but in different ways. Independent tests indicate the PMOD composite is the more accurate TSI reconstruction.


PMOD TSI composite (top) versus the ACRIM TSI composite (bottom). Coloured lines give the daily values with the black solid lines giving the 81 day mean

There are no scientists who question the sun's influence on climate, they know that the sun has a strong influence but in the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend while the global temperature has continued to rise. The sun and climate have been going in opposite directions as you can see in the image below.



The papers by Scafetta & West (2008) and Scafetta & Willson (2009), have been debunked by Benestad & Schmidt (2009) and Krivova et al. (2009).

Other studies on solar influence on climate:

Huber and Knutti 2011: ”Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950."

Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."

Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows 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."

Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2σ confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."

Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."

Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."

Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."

Foukal 2006: "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."

Usoskin 2005: "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

Solanki 2004: "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".

Haigh 2003: "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."

Stott 2003: "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."

Lean 1999: "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."

Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."


The study by Solanki (2004), has gotten 187 citations so far, meaning that the scientific community believes this paper to be legitimate and worth citing. ;)

Quoting Birthmark:

But it didn't happen this time. (50% is NOT "mostly

Yeah, I realized this was not the case actually when I just finished submitting my prior post. What's a real pain in the you know where is that I can't edit my posts and then submit the newly editted post.

Quoting Birthmark:
Nor does their need to be one since the differences are inadequate to the task you have set them.

The differences are inadequate? One can explain most of the warming being due to the sun while the other can not at all means that it's inadequate?

Quoting Birthmark:

I would like nothing better. You need not do it immediately since it is getting late here.

Here are some quoted sections of the article on Skeptical Science in italics, and my response to them.


A 2-sigma envelope would cover about 95% of the observations, and if the observations lay outside that larger region it would be substantial cause for concern. Thus it would be a more appropriate choice for Scafetta's green envelope.


Why not include a 6 sigma range, so we can claim that the IPCC was correct even with a negative trend in temperatures over the next few decades?

Second, while the IPCC envelope (Scafetta's green) is based on annual data, in his widget Scafetta plots monthly data, which has greater variability and thus is much more likely to fall outside of the envelope.

If the IPCC were correct with their overall mean temperature predictions, then the monthly temperature variability would be higher and lower than the IPCC range, but making it still consistent with the IPCC predictions.

We don't observe that.

Third, Scafetta has used HadCRUT3 data, which has a known cool bias and which will shortly be replaced by HadCRUT4.

Yeah, throw out the temperature data because it doesn't fit the predetermined conclusions of rapid warming in the near future due to mankind.


Fourth, although the widget itself only shows post-2000 data, Scafetta has used a 1900-2000 baseline. Here is Dr. Scafetta's reply to that:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/scafet tas-solar-lunar-cycle-forecast-vs-global-temperatu re/#comment-890590

The base line for the temperature record and the average IPCC simulation is exactly the same. The period used for the baseline is 1900-2000 because the model simulation starts in 1900 and it is supposed to reconstruct the temperature during the 20th century. Thus it needs to be optimized against the temperature by using as common baseline the period 1900-2000.

No baseline errors are in the graph.
By using as baseline the period 1960-1990, the GCM simulation will need to be shifted down by just 0.022 C. This is not a big deal. In any case, it is more appropriate to use the 1900-2000 baseline as I did.

That was a pretty weak attempt at a rebuttal from Skeptical Science.

PMOD doesn't have to and ACRIM cannot since it would warm the stratosphere...which isn't happening.

Quoting Birthmark:

PMOD doesn't have to and ACRIM cannot since it would warm the stratosphere...which isn't happening.

Again, you're assuming that the climate system is a non-chaotic system, which it is not :-). The Climate system is extremely chaotic with feedbacks, forcings, and non-radiative forcings all having a significant influence on the Climate system.

There are many many things that change the temperature on the Earth. It does not have to just be one thing that changes the Climate on Earth.

Professor Qing-Bing Lu has come to a similar conclusion to that of Dr. Kilifarska's paper.

He claims that the recent stratospheric cooling is caused by GCRs, but is also accelerated by anthropogenic CFCs in the atmosphere. He believes that we are going to go into a cooling trend in the next 50 years, because of what CFCs and GCRs are projected to do over this timeframe.

What is REALLY interesting, is that he finds that there is a really nice correlation with the Antarctic polar ozone hole and GCRs. Thus indicating that stratospheric ozone depletion might actually be mostly natural with part anthropogenic.

Quoting Birthmark:

Um, if that were the case then that means that CO2 isn't a GHG...which means that there is a lot of work that has to be redone not just in climatology but in physics. You see, the problem is GHG's do just fine explaining the temperatures of other planets --planets without O3. So we'd be left having
to explain why CO2 is a GHG on Mars, for example, but not on Earth. I'm afraid your prime candidate is a DOA.

This means CO2 is no longer a GHG? Where do I say that? Just because it may not be the driver of stratospheric cooling and lower trophospheric warming, doesn't mean that it has no effect.

Quoting Birthmark:

Let me add in closing for the night, that parsimony is a fairly important concept in science. You are proposing two mechanisms to explain the warming of the troposphere and the cooling of the stratosphere; I am proposing one.

And what are you insinuating that this signifies? The climate system is not a simple one. It's not going to take one explaination to fit the remaining pieces of the puzzle together.

Quoting Xandra:

As you can see in the image below, the major difference between the two composites is the handling of data between 1989 and 1991. There is a gap and to fill the gap, both composites use the HF data but in different ways.

Right, which is what I had explained in my previous post. The different satellites on the different datasets to bridge the ACRIM Gap is what is causing this discrepency between the TSI composites.

Quoting Xandra:
There are no scientists who question the sun's influence on climate, they know that the sun has a strong influence but in the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend while the global temperature has continued to rise. The sun and climate have been going in opposite directions as you can see in the image below.

Really?

How did you come to that rock solid conclusion, when we are not certain what TSI even DID during this timeframe, with the composites being in a substantial disagreement over the last 30 years?

Quoting Xandra:

The papers by Scafetta & West (2008) and Scafetta & Willson (2009), have been debunked by Benestad & Schmidt (2009) and Krivova et al. (2009).

Benestad and Schmidt 2009? Would you like me to explain why this study does not hold up to scrutiny?

BTW the rest of your studies (which you veratim copied from Skeptical Science) simply use the PMOD dataset to come to that conclusion, which is not 100% certain that it is right. If they were using the ACRIM dataset, they would have come to a different conclusion.

Being that we don't know what the sun has been doing over the last 30 years, we should probably take all of these studies with a grain of salt.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Being that we don't know what the sun has been doing over the last 30 years, we should probably take all of these studies with a grain of salt.

Obviously, we--or, at least, scientists who do this stuff for a living--do "know what the sun has been doing over the last 30 years". So that's a false statement, which, logically-speaking, invalidates your entire premise.

Nice work.

Scientists are certainly free to look for possible causes of the current observed warming, and, in fact, they should, for that's how science works. Who knows: perhaps the bulk of AGWT is wrong, and the thousands of scientists who've been looking at it for decades have somehow missed a huge, glaring piece of the puzzle to which skeptics alone are privy. Or maybe it's something that nobody has considered, and it's just laying around waiting for someone to find and shout "Eureka!". If and when that ever happens, I'll be pushing for a front row seat to watch as the new theory is tested and tested and tested some more to see whether it stands up as the current theory does.

But I won't hold my breath; that current theory fits like the proverbial glove, so it would take something incredibly extraordinary--and at this point entirely and unforeseeably fantastical--to dethrone it.