Global Cooling

[Simon of the Playa]

nice...

keep up the good fight dr. although im afraid its pearls for swine as the case may be.

[can't sit still]

Dr. I realize that you are putting a lot more effort into this thread than I am. Nevertheless, I have to question the baselines for both forcing and Irradiance.

""The difference in solar radiative forcing between Maunder Minimum levels and current solar activity is estimated between 0.17 W/m2 (Wang 2005) to 0.23 W/m2 (Krivova 2007)"

Wang 2005: "The increase in cycle-averaged TSI since the Maunder minimum is estimated to be ~1 W/m2" (instead of 0.17 W/m2?)

Krivova 2007: "[The model predicts] an increase in the solar total irradiance since the Maunder minimum of 1.3^+0.2_-0.4 W/m2" (instead of 0.23 W/m2?) "

I don't trust the accuracy of the proxies. The above numbers are an order of magnitude in dis-agreement. The cited numbers are locked in between 1365.5 and 1366. How can one consider the numbers to be locked in?
There is still a huge question of extra-terrestrial effects;
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/i ... ICS176.pdf
I say that we keep debating.

[dr.placebo]

I think that the problem you're having is that "TSI" and "forcing" have different definitions. TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) is an intensity measure at the top of the atmosphere, while "solar radiative forcing" accounts for geometry and clouds. You're not the only one with questions about the difference, I had to look it up myself to be sure. I found the following in http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-we- ... e-Age.html:

It's the difference between Total Solar Irradiance and solar forcing. If the change in TSI is 1 Wm-2, to calculate the climate forcing from this change, divide by 4 (to account for the difference between the surface area of a circle versus the surface area of a sphere). Then remove another 30% which is reflected by clouds.

You might not trust the accuracy of the proxies, but I don't trust a solar hypothesis that is so contrary to the observed temperatures (see my previous post). There is a correlation, but it is fairly weak, and there is a strong negative correlation since 1980.

[can't sit still]

You're correct Dr. I shouldn't have joined them like they were one-end-the-same. I would like to see supporting data for the 30% reduction caused by clouds. Especially in the infrared. I found an interesting paper on models.
" However, the
physical mechanism used in observation of sunshine
hours can result in large measurement errors, in the
range of Æ20% (BADC, 2004)."
http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/LADSS/papers/eval_3sr_uk.pdf
The paper talks a lot about various "mechanisms" for measuring.

[RingO'Fire]

National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
National Research Council

Press Release
ACTION NEEDED TO MANAGE CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS; U.S. RESPONSE SHOULD BE DURABLE, BUT FLEXIBLE

The new report reaffirms that the preponderance of scientific evidence points to human activities -- especially the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere -- as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades. This trend cannot be explained by natural factors such as internal climate variability or changes in incoming energy from the sun. The report adds that the impacts of climate change on human and natural systems can generally be expected to intensify with warming.

The National Academies report in brief: http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-as ... -brief.pdf

The National Academies report in full (report links are about halfway down page): http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12781

[can't sit still]

Looks like Kyoto is completely dead;
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110606/ap_ ... lvZmVtaXM-

[dr.placebo]

For the moment, assume that AGW is accurate, and that we are basically fucked if business-as-usual continues. I know that this is not universally accepted, but I want to make a point about international cooperation on greenhouse gases (GHG), not limited to the Kyoto agreements.

In the short term, let's say within the terms of most heads of state, adopting GHG reduction is a risky move. It will cost more in the short term, even if one believes (as I do) that the net benefits kick in within a decade. So there has to be enough political benefit to accept the cost. In representative democracies this means that a plurality of people must think that it is beneficial to adopt such measures.

So a first mover takes a risk, since laggards get to enjoy lower production costs for a while. This is despite the fact that the long term benefits are huge relative to continuing (or accelerating) GHG emissions [see the initial assumption].

This is a variant on the Prisoner's Dilemma, where cooperation is not realized despite the fact that it arrives at a better solution than betrayal.

If we are to escape this dilemma, we have to accept outcomes that have a short term cost. This is often labelled as "sacrifice" rather than "investment", but it has a reward structure similar to raising children. In other words, one has to think beyond the small self to some greater good.

Now some honestly do not think that AGW is accurate. Others don't give a fuck, and are strictly about short-term optimization (I'll call these greedy fuckers (GFs) for short). And still others remain unconvinced.

For those who have made their minds up that there is no AGW, fine. I'm not exactly giving up, but I'm not optimistic that I can move you. The same holds for the GFs, since they are unlikely to be moved by appeals to their better natures (they have none).

For the truly undecided, though, I would simply ask that you seriously consider the possibility that the GFs are stealing from you, and that they are stealing from our future. Stop looking for reasons to believe or disbelieve, and seriously consider the risks.

I do not think that we have to dismantle our civilization to avoid a global warming disaster. I do think that we cannot assume that cheap energy can continue. I am, at heart, a conservative when it comes to economics and energy. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

[can't sit still]

"However a leading scientist who worked for Australia’s Department for Climate Change for many years, says experts got their predictions wrong and the whole idea that ­carbon dioxide is the main cause of any global warming is in fact a lie."
"“Back in the Eighties, when the carbon theory started, scientists guessed that the extra water would increase the blanket of moist air around the planet, which would ­really heat things up as moist air is also a greenhouse gas.â€

[dr.placebo]

The notion that nearly all climate scientists are incompetent or lying is looking pretty desperate, not to mention slanderous. The available evidence in favor of AGW keeps increasing, not decreasing. This is not guessing, it is not propaganda, it is not delusion, it is science.

[youtube][/youtube]

Now, there has been a media flap in the past few days about the sun going into a quiet phase. That may well be true, and there are several reasons to expect lower solar activity for the next cycle, possibly longer. However, anti-AGW folks should not take this as being a sign of the next ice age. Compared to the expected AGW warming the solar activity will be minor. For more details, see http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/ ... m-climate/.

[can't sit still]

The notion that nearly all climate scientists are incompetent or lying is looking pretty desperate, not to mention slanderous. The available evidence in favor of AGW keeps increasing, not decreasing. This is not guessing, it is not propaganda, it is not delusion, it is science
Now, there has been a media flap in the past few days about the sun going into a quiet phase. That may well be true, and there are several reasons to expect lower solar activity for the next cycle, possibly longer. However, anti-AGW folks should not take this as being a sign of the next ice age. Compared to the expected AGW warming the solar activity will be minor. For more details, see http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/ ... m-climate/.

"This is not guessing, it is not propaganda, it is not delusion, it is science." Nope, it's stupidity and hubris. The dumb asses make the assumption that there is always a linear connection between sunspots and weather. Even the Ice-Age people don't understand;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ivity.html
We are in climate change driven by the sun. It's that simple. I have NO problem being slanderous with the incompetent pieces of shit. They'll say whatever is necessary to get the next grant.
The vid you posted is a piece of shit too. They even drug in the pine-bark-beetle. EVERY weather event that occurs has the AGW people scrambling to adjust their data to fit the facts. Most of their correlations have been hindsight.

East Anglia is so hopeless that they're never right. Did they predict summer snow in Scotland? Something that anomalous should be easy to predict. Did the MET predict it? Nope. Nobody had / has a clue. They look at ALL the wrong things.... usually in a rear-view mirror.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weath ... rives.html
The Brits are worse at weather predicting than they are at cooking.

The sun is kicking out CMEs without the benefit of heavy sunspots. It's a new game. That's why there are dozens of tornadoes far removed from the gulf and the normal tornado areas. AGW assumes that earth has no corrective mechanisms. Wrong.
Nobody in AGW has any credibility. They've all switched over to climate change as a way to cover their incompetent asses. We certainly have climate change.

[can't sit still]

The "Ice agers" are really banging the drum; http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... w-ice-age/
Apparently, the National Solar Observatory is reporting very low solar activity; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/a ... r-a-while/
Eventually, researchers are going to figure out that Terran and Solar weather are going to get more violent WITHOUT sunspots. Climate change will be upon us regardless of the level of sunspots.
AGW is a joke and a dead issue. Climate change is very real. It's ALL driven by the sun. I'd like to see the "warmers" explain all the volcanic activity.
Even with the low sunspot activity, there are huge solar storms.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/708/550/ ... e_Sun.html
This is far from normal. Get used to violent weather and volcanic activity.

[dr.placebo]

It's all well and good to disagree with the experts if you have data.

Blaming AGW theory on conspiracy, hubris, stupidity, and the like brings you no credit.

Extraterrestrial contributions to volcanic activity?

[can't sit still]

"Scientists battling it out over sunspots and carbon emissions, however, prove the great global warming debate of the past 20 years shows how little we really understand about Earth’s climate and the influences upon it. It is pure hubris to pretend otherwise."
"While climate scientists naturally know more about the climate than the rest of us do the truth is that they too know next to nothing."

Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/253 ... z1PaIjGiMl

You can't say that this is without humor. "Britain will lead the world in tackling global cooling, the Prime Minister announced today. Unless we act now, he warned, the planet could soon freeze over."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z1PaJCcjWg

[socks]

CSS you have been asked more than a few time are you paid for spewing your shit.

[geekster]

An interesting set of diagrams out on the net today. First of all is Holocene temperature by proxy using the GISP2 Greenland ice core. The red at the end of the graph is the instrument record since we have had thermometers.



You will notice a series of peaks. The second graph is a record of the 400 years following the maximum of each dip. The ones in cyan are the first five when temperature variations seemed to have been more extreme. The ones in blue are the last five which have been more moderate. The chain of black dots is the average of them all. The red dots are the period since the end of the Little Ice Age.

http://i55.tinypic.com/11twhgx.png

So the warming since the end of the LIA has not been extraordinary for similar events during the Holocene in either magnitude or rate. Nor does the current warming break the overall cooling trend we have been in over the past 3000 years or so as we gradually slide into the next glaciation. Notice the "Holocene Climate Optimum" some 6000 years ago. During that period sea levels were about 2 meters higher than they are now and beer was being invented.

More importantly, based on the average of the past 10 such events, it would appear that this natural cycle of warming and cooling is about to reverse its direction.

[geekster]

Using actual observed data and not computer models or relying on conjecture on top of hypothesis extended by speculation:

Out-going Longwave Radiation and the Greenhouse Effect
Abstract
The upward surface radiation is greater than the out-going longwave
radiation at the top of the atmosphere due to the greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. The strength of the greenhouse effect can be characterized
by the fractional difference between the upward surface and top of
atmosphere out-going longwave radiation fluxes, defined as the
normalized greenhouse factor. Using radiosonde data from 1960 to date
and a line-by-line radiation code, the normalized greenhouse factor was
calculated to have increased by 0.19% over 49 years, which is not
significant. Climate sensitivity at doubled CO2 concentration was
calculated to be 0.26 oC. This is less than 9% of the 3.0 oC estimate by the
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

[geekster]

This guy (Jørgen Peder Steffensen) makes exactly the same point I made probably two years or so ago:



The thermometer was invented and began to be placed into wide service at almost exactly the time of the coldest part of the Little Ice Age. The LIA was probably the coldest period since the Younger Dryas (coldest period in about 10,000 years). Yes, climate has been warming. But it has been warming from a very cold point in climatic history.

It is probably completely natural.

[dr.placebo]

geekster, you get a D on your cites. Where are the original sources? I have better things to do than to try to track them down (tinyurl pix and all).

The radiosonde data should be compared with the satellite data, which has better sampling and a more global reach. Here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-histo ... rming.html

is a recent relevant article (there is an in-depth 2006 study cited at http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/s ... nalreport/).

As for it being probably natural, when 97% of climate scientists say that it is anthropogenic, just how lucky are you feeling?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daFb3J-cwLg

[can't sit still]

The links in my first post from the senate sub-committee on climate change claimed that global warming stopped in 1998. There are new claims to that effect. "Dr David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation said: “It is good news that the authors recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998. " http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/256 ... ets-colder

Just for balance; "Dr Robert Kaufman of Boston University blamed China this week. 'During the Chinese economic expansion there was a huge increase in sulphur emissions,' he said. And this was the cause of global cooling."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z1RNS3BrbI

[dr.placebo]

What is this thing about quoting British tabloid rags? Is there some problem finding credible sources?

It is fair to say that there appears to be a recent slowdown in the warming. However, I have the official data sets for global combined land/ocean temperature anomalies from GISS, HadCRUTv3, and NCIC, all of which show some warming for a period starting in 1998 and ending in 2010. None of them show cooling. The key point that confuses some people is that if you start in 1998, an exceptionally warm year, the three data sets do not show warming that passes the significance test (p-value < 0.05). Oddly enough, if you start in 1999, two of the three data sets show significance at the 0.05 level, and even the HadCRUTv3 significance improves from 0.6884 to 0.1629. This would lead one to suspect that there are too few years in the data sample since 1998 to be confident of a stable trend.

The data sets can be extracted from:

• GISS: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/table ... s+dSST.txt

• HadCRUTv3: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/tempe ... ut3vgl.txt

• NCIC: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomal ... 00mean.dat

There are (at least) two physical effects that would act to slow down global warming in that period. One is that solar activity was unusually low. The other is that anthropogenic sulfur emissions were increased, mostly by Southeast Asia (especially China).

Now, rather than thank the Chinese for mitigating the warming, we should be concerned that the SO2 emissions have a shorter lifespan than the CO2 emissions. So a short term effect is coupled with an aggravation of the long term result, which is warming. And the short term effects will be lessened as Southeast Asia reduces its SO2 emissions.


(data from the COBE mission, but you should get the idea)

[can't sit still]

Time to eat cherries. Everybody seems to be cherry-picking the data. Nothing new;
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=101

[dr.placebo]

Let's see, an assortment of cryptic little items from the NYT, none more recent than 30 years ago.

What makes today different than 30 years ago? 30 years of warming, 30 years of research, 30 years of data. Where there was once a rather large distribution of somewhat educated opinions, now there is very broad agreement (see this link) on a particular theory, AGW.

[Ugly Dougly]

After record snowfalls and record heat, the following is far from surprising:
http://www.ktuu.com/news/ktuu-juneau-me ... 2300.story

[can't sit still]

There are some real dumb-fucks in Juneau. They opened a new area for building. Behind it is a denuded mountain. It is denuded because it is a historic avalanche path. The Brits are told to get ready for winter;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/ ... BW20110613

[Simon of the Playa]

my god, for once CSS's crap is actually better than the spam.

[ygmir]

Hello. Great job. I did not expect this on a Wednesday. This is a great story. Thanks!welcome to the site as follow:
Puma Ferrari Drift Cat II shoes , Puma Ferrari Future Cat shoes, Puma Ferraris Womens Sandals shoes, Puma Festival Series Men Shoes, Puma Future Cat GT Felipe Massa shoes

[youtube][/youtube]

[dr.placebo]

uh, ygmir, either you have been hacked or you have gone bonkers

[can't sit still]

From the Tesla lectures; " The behavior of a gaseous medium to such rapid alternations of potential makes it appear plausible that electrostatic disturbances of the earth, produced by cosmic events, may have great influence upon the meteorological condition^"
"Considerable variations in the temperature and pressure of the atmosphere may in this manner be caused at any point of the surface of the earth. The variations may be gradual or very sudden, according to the nature of the original disturbance, and may produce rain and storms, or locally modify the weather in any way. "
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1894-00-00.htm

This is especially pertinent when you consider that much of the universe is plasma. These cosmic events affect us very strongly.
http://www.rense.com/general68/plasma.htm
Our "model" of the universe is so fucked up, it's no surprise that we don't understand our weather. http://vodpod.com/watch/1434309-univers ... ogle-video

[dr.placebo]

The scientific consensus is not always right, but it is remarkable how frequently those who do not respect it are wrong.

[Ugly Dougly]

uh, ygmir, either you have been hacked or you have gone bonkers

I'll vote for bonkers.