307 replies to this topic

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 20 August 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

the paper that you linked in post#111 does.

I wouldn't trust its conclusions in isolation of other supporting studies. Fortunately other studies conclude much the same thing using other methods.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

with regards to any that believe "solar activity has no correlation with temperature over the last 100 years" or that "solar activity has declined over the last century", and anyone that disputes we are in a solar grand maxima.

graph from NOAA



Be10 as a proxy for cosmic rays modulated by solar activity

Be10 and temperature show a high correlation:



cosmic ray correlation with low cloud cover almost perfect correlation



and if you are wondering what effect clouds might have on temperature because you live in a desert or maybe in the arctic, just go outside on a sunny day and stand under one.

anyone that suggests there is no competing hypothesis to co2 as the main climate driver needs to look at the above graphs.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 20 August 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

No they <temperatures> have not declined <over the last 10 years>  - they have remained stably high.

Br Cornelius

http://c3headlines.t...6fc1fed9970c-pi

in post 68 I said, "its amazing just how many specialists you have to deride as liars and incompetents to justify your position"

I'm going to add to that and say its is amazing how much data and science you have to ignore to support your position.

what is the litmus test to test the co2 hypothesis? will warmists continue forever to collect anecdotes instead of data, and opinions instead of science.

Edited by Little Fish, 21 August 2012 - 01:33 PM.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 20 August 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

with regards to any that believe "solar activity has no correlation with temperature over the last 100 years" or that "solar activity has declined over the last century", and anyone that disputes we are in a solar grand maxima.

I don't doubt that we are in a solar grand maximum, even if the sunspot record doesn't show it.  But if you are going to use that to "explain" global warming, then you need to postulate a mechanism by which that can happen.  That's one of the underlying assumptions of correlation/cause-and-effect:  existence.  if their is a true cause-and-effect relationship, then there has to be a verifiable process by which the cause can effect the outcome.  If there is no such mechanism, then correlation is all you have and you have demonstrated nothing but your own gullibility.

You also have the problem of explaining the residuals.  Why doesn't your model predict temperatures perfectly?  If it did, those two lines on the graph would be exact traces of each other.  But they're not:  something else is affecting the results.

Quote

Be10 as a proxy for cosmic rays modulated by solar activity

Be10 and temperature show a high correlation:



cosmic ray correlation with low cloud cover almost perfect correlation



and if you are wondering what effect clouds might have on temperature because you live in a desert or maybe in the arctic, just go outside on a sunny day and stand under one.

anyone that suggests there is no competing hypothesis to co2 as the main climate driver needs to look at the above graphs.

I admit I am not right up to date on this, but as I recall, there are several studies refuting this argument.  You must pardon me while I catch up.  In the meantime, a couple of references to support your contentions would be appreciated.
Doug

[questionmark]

Doug1o29, on 21 August 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

I don't doubt that we are in a solar grand maximum, even if the sunspot record doesn't show it.  But if you are going to use that to "explain" global warming, then you need to postulate a mechanism by which that can happen.  That's one of the underlying assumptions of correlation/cause-and-effect:  existence.  if their is a true cause-and-effect relationship, then there has to be a verifiable process by which the cause can effect the outcome.  If there is no such mechanism, then correlation is all you have and you have demonstrated nothing but your own gullibility.

You also have the problem of explaining the residuals.  Why doesn't your model predict temperatures perfectly?  If it did, those two lines on the graph would be exact traces of each other.  But they're not:  something else is affecting the results.

I admit I am not right up to date on this, but as I recall, there are several studies refuting this argument.  You must pardon me while I catch up.  In the meantime, a couple of references to support your contentions would be appreciated.
Doug

I guess he is basing his assumption on Viereck (2001), at least according to some image recognition software I use some of the graphs come from there. It has to be said that Viereck has been thoroughly taken apart because he was using some very questionable data.

[Doug1o29]

questionmark, on 21 August 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

I guess he

I visualize Little Fish as a high school girl.  When I checked the profile, gender wasn't listed.  Oh, well.

I have been reading Michael Mann's "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars."  In it he lays out the evidence for warming and its causes.  It's a pretty solid presentation, but it does have a couple drawbacks:  It's written for a lay audience.  As such, it lacks most of the references one would need to verify what it says - the same criticism that I have been applying to Little Fish.

For anybody who wants an education in climate science:  If you want "proof" of human causes of global warming, take Chapter 3 and sentence by sentence look up references using Google Scholar.  Type the sentence into the text box and you'll get a list of references on the subject.  Choose four or five papers from the list, download them and read them.  Do that with every sentence.  Then extend your search into other chapters.  When you're done, you'll know more about climate science than most climate scientists.

Of course, by the time you finish, the world will be three degrees hotter ....
Doug

Mann, Michael E.  2012.  The hockey stick and the climate wars:  dispatches from the front lines.  Columbia University Press, New York.  ISBN 978-0-231-15254-9 (cloth:  alk. paper) - ISBN 978-0-231-52638-8 (ebook).

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish is very catholic in his choice of explanations for Climate change - it changes from day to day. Some days it doesn't even exist.

Personally I picture him as a pale skinned greasy haired conspiracy nut.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 21 August 2012 - 10:55 PM.

[Little Fish]

A new paper just published in the Journal of Climate finds that global

cloudiness has decreased over the past 39 years from between 0.9 to 2.8% by continent as shown in the figure below:


The period of the study is from 1971 to 2009. The authors say that:

“Global average trends of cloud cover suggest a small decline in total cloud cover, on the order of 0.4% per decade.”

Taken together, global cloud cover decreased and average of 1.56% over this 39 year period. WUWT readers may recall that Dr. Roy Spencer points out the issue of a slight change in cloud cover in his 2010 book intro of The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists. He writes:

“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”

http://wattsupwithth...med/#more-69639

so what has caused cloudiness to fall since 1971?

there is near perfect correlation of decrease in cloudiness with decrease in cosmic rays.


what would decrease cosmic rays to cause a drop in cloudiness (causing a rise in temperature) since 1971?

solar wind and magnetic effects are thought to cause fluctuations in cosmic rays in the atmosphere. this is something which is not modeled in GCMs. to attribute what we don't know to carbon dioxide is a failure of logic. climate inertia, ultraviolet, cosmic ray effects, cloud variability appear to be very important but are ignored by GCMs and carbon dogma.

[Br Cornelius]

This whole line of reasoning is far from devastating to climate science. The correlation between cosmic rays and temperature is weak over the last 35yrs (the period most attributable to AGW)



http://arxiv.org/PS_...0911.4396v1.pdf

For a more detailed analysis of the whole nucleating bag of wind try this;

http://www.realclima...ly-interesting/



http://blogs.telegra...global-warming/

The scientists at CERN are drawing no firm conclusions from their work and don't even feel confident in predicting an overall effect on clouds attributable to cosmic rays;

Quote

"The fraction of these freshly nucleated particles that grow to sufficient sizes to seed cloud droplets… remain open questions experimentally."

Quote

"This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed."

http://press.web.cer...ing_29JUL11.pdf

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 22 August 2012 - 05:53 PM.

[MID]

I forgot:

"Climate Change" isn't (although it defies logic, and the truth) happening as the result of natural solar processes.


It's caused by HAARP !



Why didn't I hink of that earlier?
I'm calling Jesse Ventura!  
We'll get to the bottom of this...and put it on TV!

Edited by MID, 23 August 2012 - 12:21 AM.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 22 August 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

http://blogs.telegra...global-warming/

your graph assumes zero thermal inertia of the oceans. last week in defence of co2 you were talking about the climate lag between forcing and temperature. the first half of the century 1900-1950 saw an decrease in cosmic rays, 1950-2000 saw cosmic rays remain low.

the earth is 71% ocean, so ~71% of the suns energy that reaches the earth/sea is going to end up in the oceans, it is not going to appear immediately on the "global temperature" graph. the earth is a big place, the ocean temperatures have only been measured properly since 2006 with he ARGO system.

if cloud cover changes, the amount of energy entering the oceans from the sun will change, this ocean heat will manifest into the "global temperature" when? 40-70 years in the future according to your favourite website, so showing the last 30 years temperature against cosmic rays doesn't show anything, there isn't enough data, you need to shift the cosmic ray data into the future by a number of decades to account for the climate lag. how will the 1900-1950 ocean heat manifest? the ENSO is a good match for current "global temperature", are we seeing the 1900-1950 cosmic ray decrease accentuate 1950-2000 ENSO as that early century ocean heat increase emerges into the atmosphere?

ENSO mapped onto "global temperature"


this hypothesis predicts a flattening of temperature between 2000-2050, the last 10-15 years have not seen "global temperature" rise, so although small timeframe, it fits with the hypothesis and seems to be a problem for the co2 hypothesis since co2 has increased over that timeframe.

clouds affect forcing by 40 W/m2 so a small change in cloud cover is enough to account for the global warming over the last century. as has been said many times, the Global Climate Models (GCMs) assume no cloud variabilty, therefore the GCMs will assume cloud variabilty warming is due to co2, and by your own reasoning - 'what we haven't explained, we assume is co2'

Quote

The scientists at CERN are drawing no firm conclusions from their work

their work will continue for at least another 10 years, so why do you call people "deniers" all the time when you don't have all the data.

Edited by Little Fish, 23 August 2012 - 10:21 AM.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 22 August 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

A new paper just published in the Journal of Climate finds that global

So what paper is this?  Who's the author?  What's its title?

It would help a whole lot if you'd post a reference.
Doug

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 23 August 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

So what paper is this?  Who's the author?  What's its title?

It would help a whole lot if you'd post a reference.

for f* sake, it's in the link in the post#128 which you quoted.
how many times are you going to play that game!

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 23 August 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

for f* sake, it's in the link in the post#128 which you quoted.
how many times are you going to play that game!

You still don't get it.  You put the reference in your own article so your reader doesn't have to hunt all over hell to find it.  That's just good manners.
Doug

[MonkeyLove]

The best source for this issue is the NAS:

http://nas-sites.org.../panel-reports/