50 replies to this topic

[Little Fish]

water vapour data contradicts IPCC report.

"My review mainly concerns the role of water vapor, a key component of global climate models. A special concern is that a new paper on a major global water vapor study (NVAP-M) needs to be cited in the final draft of AR5.

This study shows no up or down trend in global water vapor, a finding of major significance that differs with studies cited in AR5. Climate modelers assume that water vapor, the principle greenhouse gas, will increase with carbon dioxide, but the NVAP-M study shows this has not occurred. Carbon dioxide has continued to increase, but global water vapor has not. Today (December 14, 2012) I asked a prominent climate scientist if I should release my review early in view of the release of the entire second draft report."
http://wattsupwithth...al-water-vapor/

another case of selecting models over data to promote an agenda.

Edited by Little Fish, 16 December 2012 - 01:49 PM.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 14 December 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

I wonder if Delingpole has actually read the report this time?

I would like to read the report but the link is somewhat dead.

However this makes an interesting contribution to why the claim made is somewhat overstated;

http://skepticalscie...-not-solar.html


This shows the lack of trend in the cosmic  ray count over the last 60yrs  even better.

Guess what, that period when they do seem to track has always been acknowledged as been influenced by rising solar activity - now there's a surprise.


If the central premise were correct then they would track each other almost exactly over the last 35years.

Br Cornelius

you missed the point of what the ipcc is saying.
if not Galactic Cosmic Rays, then what is the solar amplifier?
all you have done again is gone to "skeptical" "science" to repeat their "rebuttal", and if you are going to show a temperature chart you need to at least remove the ENSO, PDO and AMO signals on such a short timescale, in addition you should invert the GCR ray chart because in that particular theory GCR are inversely correlated with temperature, you should also normalise the datasets. otherwise you are going to get a deceptive graph, its no surprise however that the dogmatic theology SKS website does it that way.

I've been telling you for years that c14 and beryllium proxies show an extremely high correlation between temperature and solar activity through the historical record, a correlation that cannot be ignored, around 80-90%!
the ipcc and those that promote man made warming do NOT account for this in their forcing model. they only specify solar effects as TSI which is known to vary little, around 0.1%. solar ultra violet, known to ionize, can vary up to 10% even when TSI remains constant, so that could be another proxy for solar activity, but you bash GCR theory and then you say it all goes away - no it doesn't, and now the ippc agree that it doesn't.

you have stated your position as 'what warming you can't account for, you attribute to co2', and yet you ignore the amplifying feedback from changes in solar activity which the IPCC now recognise.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish - the first graph has the GCR inverted and shows no correlation over the last 50yrs.
The second graph has the GCR none inverted and shows how the GCR has no trend whereas the temperture has a clear trend.

There is no strong relationship between the last 50yrs warming and solar activity or GCR - its that simple.
The claim made by Rawls is that the IPCC cannot account for the solar forcing without invoking the GCR relationship. The chapter goes into some detail to look at why the many proposed relationships between solar (at all wavelengths and its influence of GCR) can not account for current warming. Rawl claims that the IPCC acknowledges that the sun is the main driver - it flatly concludes that all postulated relationships proposed for a dominent solar forcing in peer review papers show a very weak correlation.

I have drawn these conclusions from actually reading Chapter 7 of the IPCC report.
He is clutching at straws as are you.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 17 December 2012 - 01:09 PM.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 17 December 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

all you have done again is gone to "skeptical" "science" to repeat their "rebuttal",

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

All you seem to be able to do is copy and paste stuff from other sites, particularly the sites least-informed on climatology.  Why not post your own anaylises and show us what YOU know about it?
Doug

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 17 December 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

There is no strong relationship between the last 50yrs warming and solar activity or GCR - its that simple.

you missed the point again - the ipcc has admitted there is evidence for a solar amplification, in other words- Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) on its own does not account for pre-industrial temperature, which means TSI is not the only solar contribution to recent temperatures - the ipcc's forcing chart is wrong since it only uses TSI as the solar contribution to climate. As you have said before, what you don't know, you attribute to co2. well there is something here (solar amplification) that you don't know which causes warming, and you have falsely attributed it to co2, and since you don't know what it is, you cannot measure it, so therefore you don't know the warming contribution from co2.

Quote

The claim made by Rawls is that the IPCC cannot account for the solar forcing without invoking the GCR relationship.

no, Rawls did not say that, nor did the ipcc say that.

ipcc says this - "Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR OR cosmogenic isotope archives** and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link."

the evidence for a solar amplification is there, GCR-solar magnetic effects is just one hypothesis.

**beryllium and c14 proxies

so, if not GCR, then what is the solar amplification?

Edited by Little Fish, 18 December 2012 - 12:25 AM.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 17 December 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

The chapter goes into some detail to look at why the many proposed relationships between solar (at all wavelengths and its influence of GCR) can not account for current warming.

show me the ipcc statement that rules out ultraviolet.

[Br Cornelius]

Read the conclusion from the report I already posted - it rules out any significant correlations to any solar forcings beyond basic TSI.
The statement about solar amplification refers to the papers which propose the amplification, the chapter reviews those papers and finds no significant amplification. That particular sentence will not be in the final draft since it lends itself to misinterpretation of the conclusions of the IPCC.

Try reading the chapter - it is clear in what it says.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 18 December 2012 - 07:39 AM.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 18 December 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

Read the conclusion from the report I already posted - it rules out any significant correlations to any solar forcings beyond basic TSI.

you didn't post any reference to the ipcc report, you just posted a link to "skeptical" "science", nothing there about ultraviolet anyway.

Quote

The statement about solar amplification refers to the papers which propose the amplification, the chapter reviews those papers and finds no significant amplification.

it is not just a "proposal", it is based on empirical observations. empirical data trumps theory according to the scientific method.

Quote

That particular sentence will not be in the final draft since it lends itself to misinterpretation of the conclusions of the IPCC.

this is a bizarre statement. removing empirical evidence to support a conclusion is the political method, at least you admit it.

IPCC logical fallacy error in order to support their political agenda:
"The Chapter 8 authors (a different group than the Chapter 7 authors) are explicit here that their claim about natural forcing being small compared to anthropogenic forcing is based on an analysis in which the only solar forcing that is taken into account is TSI. This can be verified from the radiative forcing table on page 8-39 where the only solar variable included in the IPCC’s computer models is seen to be “solar irradiance.”

This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing."
http://wattsupwithth...-solar-forcing/

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish let me repreat the quote from the IPCC report since you obviously missed it;

"

Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free
troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too
weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle
in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee
et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major
contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change."

I took that quote directly from the Chapter 7 published online, and only used the skeptical science graph to illustrate the magnitude of the fallasy of your claims.

If you had read the chapter you would have recognised it.

The IPCC team acknowledge that some papers have proposed a solar amplification - but can find neither a credible mechanism or a strong statistical correlation to support its existance. They have examined the Empirical evidence of the proposals on mass and found their claims to be statistically weak/insignificant or contradictory.

They have not ignored any proposed solar amplification - they simply can't find a credible candidate. They conclude that the strong divergence between any solar cycle and the current warming trend is strong evidence for no significant solar forcing.

What you have done is read their acknowledgement of the possibility of a solar amplifier - but then failed to read on to the conclusion where they conclude that no mechanism exists.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 18 December 2012 - 12:57 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Look at this paper and particularly the graphs on 225 to see the complete absence of an upward trend in UV emissions since 1980.

http://lasp.colorado...Variability.pdf

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 19 December 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

Look at this paper and particularly the graphs on 225 to see the complete absence of an upward trend in UV emissions since 1980.

http://lasp.colorado...Variability.pdf

Br Cornelius

it's a 10 year old paper. SORCE satellite showed previous measurements were underestimated 10 fold.
http://www.nipccrepo...2nov2011a3.html

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 20 December 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:

it's a 10 year old paper. SORCE satellite showed previous measurements were underestimated 10 fold.
http://www.nipccrepo...2nov2011a3.html

Trend Little Fish Trend - where is it.

Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

More analysis of why UV variability has insignificant effects on global mean temperature;

http://individual.ut...ekwan/ozone.pdf

No overall trend.

The current measurments from NASA SORCE are open to debate as NASA believe that there is some undiscovered systematic instrument error - they are seeking opinions on what it might be.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 20 December 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

More analysis of why UV variability has insignificant effects on global mean temperature;

http://individual.ut...ekwan/ozone.pdf

No overall trend.

SORCE was only launched 10 years ago which means only 10 years of measurements, and you say there is no trend. there has been no global warming for 16 years.

Quote

The current measurments from NASA SORCE are open to debate

the measurements are open to debate, but the theory isn't, wtf?

Quote

NASA believe that there is some undiscovered systematic instrument error - they are seeking opinions on what it might be.

again, wtf?
how does an organisation "believe"?
so when the data does not match the theory, the data must be wrong? what happened to the scientific method?

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 20 December 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

SORCE was only launched 10 years ago which means only 10 years of measurements, and you say there is no trend. there has been no global warming for 16 years.

the measurements are open to debate, but the theory isn't, wtf?

again, wtf?
how does an organisation "believe"?
so when the data does not match the theory, the data must be wrong? what happened to the scientific method?

They have reason to believe that there is an error because it is so out of whack with every other measurement ever made - seems a reasonable position to take to me.

Meanwhile all data series for UV dating back over 35 years show absolutely no trend.
UV has been closely studied for a long time at this stage since it is such a crucial part of understanding the ozone hole, if there was a trend in the data it would be well documented at this stage.

The critical thing to realise with UV is that it is highly variable on all time scales and moves in cycles but those cycles average out to a mean zero trend. The second crucial thing to be aware of is that almost all UV is filtered out before reaching the troposphere, which is good otherwise we would be dead. The upper stratosphere and beyond varies in temperature over long and short periods by 10's of degrees but the tropopause varies very little in response - it is extremely stable and buffers us from the variability of heating of the upper atmosphere caused by variability in UV light and Visible light.

Your straw grasping has no basis in empirical data.You have no basis on which to blame UV just as Watts has no basis to blame the sun. There is no trend in UV on which to base a theory of UV forcing. No one is hiding some great UV warming which explains all Global warming

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 20 December 2012 - 03:57 PM.