Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Little Fish

IPCC leaked report, enhanced solar forcing

51 posts in this topic

alarmists and their blogs write off the sun as a significant climate driver by only pointing to TSI (total solar irradiation)

"strong evidence for solar forcing beyond TSI now acknowledged by IPCC"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/#more-75705

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:( im already on edge..needless to say im getting some good red wine on the 21st and spending time with my son ( just in case)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Man-made global warming: even the IPCC admits the jig is up"

commentary

http://blogs.telegra...-the-jig-is-up/

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;

cosmic_temp.jpg

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

CosmicRays.png

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

Edited by Br Cornelius
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only have two words for the likes of Alec Rawls

STUPID (for getting his science wrong)

SCUMBAG (for signing up to be a reviewer and then leaking the text)

Here's a simple clue as to how not to repeat their mistake - make certain that reality (empirical evidence) matches the theoretical prediction. FAIL.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The climate denial clown car careens onward."http://climatecrocks...e-up-with-pits/

Edited by MysticStrummer
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hows that other game changer of a paper by Watts coming. i would have thought he has had plenty of time to correct his mistakes :tu:

So many game changer but the game never seems to actually change. Maybe its because the "skeptics" keep repeating the same easily discredited rubbish.

Has a lot to do with the fact that almost all of the deniers are scientifically illiterate and will never actually read the papers which they are misrepresenting.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the actual conclusion they draw from reviewing all of the available evidence for a Cloud GCR relationship;

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.

Its just more cherry picking of out of context quotes by Rawls.

Anyone actually reading the report would find it impossible to share his belief that this is some sort of game changer.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, another one of those things for blokes who rather stick to their prejudices or economic interest than to the facts....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CosmicRays.png

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

There are a lot of different emissions from the sun, meaning there are many different forms of solar activity. Sunspots are another way of getting a general idea of what is going on. Since 1950, the average daily sunspot count has been through a number of ups and downs:

1953: Low; 4.4

1957: High; 189.9

1964: Low; 10.2

1968: High; 105.9

1976: Low; 12.6

1979: High; 155.3

1986: Low; 13.4

1989: High; 157.8

1996: Low; 8.6

2000: High; 119.5

2008: Low; 2.9

Note that the runup is always faster than the decline. Solar activity is not a sine curve, therefore, not "cyclical," even though it does recur.

Also note that the low sunspot years match up nicely with the local minima on the temperature graph. That is the solar influence on temps. Also note that each successive temperature low is higher than the last one: that's global warming. The graph shows both.

Sunspot activity has been declining since the high of 1957, but also note that the amplitude is increasing (The lows are lower.) If solar activity is the driving influence behind global temps, we should be recording record low temps during the low years: Instead, 2008 is one of the hottest on record and 1953 marked a local maximum in global temps. The all-time hottest year was 1998, which occurred during the runup to the solar high in 2000.

Interesting to note that the lowest global mean temperatures of the twentieth century (-0.559 below the Hadcrut 3 index) coincided with the high point of the sunspot cycle in 1908 (daily average of 62.0). Obviously, there is more to this warming thing than the solar cycle.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to note that the lowest global mean temperatures of the twentieth century (-0.559 below the Hadcrut 3 index) coincided with the high point of the sunspot cycle in 1908 (daily average of 62.0). Obviously, there is more to this warming thing than the solar cycle.

Doug

That can be because the Earth is a big system to heat up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"IPCC AR5 draft shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods and is now consistent with scientific lit" - professor Roger Pielke Jr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Gleick that little Heartland wheeze came to nothing - so yes I still thank him.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gleick's fake document came to nothing because it was a fake document, he made it up from one of his fantasies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speaks-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor/

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

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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;

cosmic_temp.jpg

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

CosmicRays.png

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
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.
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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.