What Do We Think About Climate Change

The Sun, toujours the Sun...

All evidence indicates that climate regime shifts correspond to the interaction of decreasing geomagnetic storms (Kp > 7) with increasing sunspot area.

http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-1&page=articlesu8.html

http://www.scostep.ucar.edu/archives/scostep11_lectures/Allen.pdf

http://www-app3.gfz-potsdam.de/kp_index/description.html

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/731/731index.htm

http://www.leif.org/research/IHV - a new long-term geomagnetic index.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1998/98GL00499.shtml

From this last:
"During the past ∼120 years, Earth's surface temperature is correlated with both decadal averages and solar cycle minimum values of the geomagnetic aa index. The correlation with aa minimum values suggests the existence of a long‐term (low‐frequency) component of solar irradiance that underlies the 11‐year cyclic component. Extrapolating the aa‐temperature correlations to Maunder Minimum geomagnetic conditions implies that solar forcing can account for ∼50% or more of the estimated ∼0.7–1.5°C increase in global surface temperature since the second half of the 17th century. Our analysis is admittedly crude and ignores known contributors to climate change such as warming by anthropogenic greenhouse‐gases or cooling by volcanic aerosols. Nevertheless, the general similarity in the time‐variation of Earth's surface temperature and the low‐frequency or secular component of the aa index over the last ∼120 years supports other studies that indicate a more significant role for solar variability in climate change on decadal and century time‐scales than has previously been supposed. The most recent aa data for the current solar minimum suggest that the long‐term component of solar forcing will level off or decline during the coming solar cycle."


Attached figure compares the regime shifts with the first differences smoother (red) line from the analysis on the monthly HadCRUT anomaly data involving a Hodrick-Prescott filter, which shows the first differences of trend component smoothed (red line) as well as the result of a sinusoidal model (gray).

The regime shifts occur whenever the first difference curve is > +/-0.0025 (indicated by the dotted lines on the lower graph above). There are two exceptions: 1) a regime shift was identified in 1926 when the first difference curve has low oscillations not reaching the 0.0025 level; 2) no regime shift was identified in 1963 when the first difference line slightly crossed the -0.0025 level. The 1964 temperature drop corresponded to an unusual drop in the rate of Kp > 7.

 

from post 7511
or roughly 1100 posts ago
thus proving that while the deniers are busy presenting the same old song and dance over and over in some sad attempt to fool the readers some of us are on the ball enough to realize that these arguments are old hat and simply do not stand up to closer examination

Nice try G but once again
the truth will out mate
the truth will out

 

Basura, basura, basura.
Boston dice mas basura.

 

Just to clarify to Alan my statement about warmists models needing anthropogenic CO2 to explain warming after 1970 and not before.

Attached graph is from the NASA Earth Observatory site: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/category/global-warming-causes/

"Reconstructions of global temperature that include greenhouse gas increases and other human influences (red line, based on many models) closely match measured temperatures (dashed line). Those that only include natural influences (blue line, based on many models) show a slight cooling, which has not occurred. The ability of models to generate reasonable histories of global temperature is verified by their response to four 20th-century volcanic eruptions: each eruption caused brief cooling that appeared in observed as well as modeled records. (Graph adapted from Hegerl and Zwiers et al., 2007.)"

On top of their models not being accurate enough as they still do not include a lot of variables and they have proved to be unable to predict the present stagnation of the last 12 years (quite contradictory if they are good enough to model such short term phenomena as the volcanic eruptions, which effect lasts for a few years), as we have seen thoroughly in this thread, the question remains to know how the warmists here explain why the naturally driven warming trend from +/- 1910 to +/- 1940 is equal or even steeper when compared with the allegued anthropogenically driven one from +/-1970 to +/- 2000. Why the 1970-2000 warming is what the warmists call a "Rapid Climate Shift" and the 1910-1940 is not? The answer is that it is simple alarmist propaganda from the Church of the Warmnotology, of course.

Not surprising, though. But what I am totally amazed about is to read NASA's stating of: "The first piece of evidence that the warming over the past few decades isn’t part of a natural cycle is how fast the change is happening." ? But my God! That is simply NOT TRUE by their own data and models, if we compare the two before mentioned periods! Do they have a bipolar malady?


And talking about solar matters, let me highlight this from the same NASA EO page:

Finally, scientists know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that it is released into the air when coal and other fossil fuels burn. Paleoclimate data show that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are higher than they have been in the past 800,000 years. There is no plausible explanation for why such high levels of carbon dioxide would not cause the planet to warm.

I have many criticisms to do to this, but let's focus in just one detail. Realize their careful wording "would not cause": They DO NOT dare to affirm anthropogenic CO2 is driving temperatures. They just implicitly say they do not have yet (or believe in) a better explanation.

Luckily, even if posting biased and incongruent information to my understanding, they are not as idiotic as Boston and his mariachi.

Cheers.

 

On the trustability of models

Surely Alan can check by himself the acuracy or not of this peer reviewed paper in press at Atmospheric Science Letters:

Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series
Ross McKitrick (Corresponding Author) Department of Economics, University of Guelph
Stephen McIntyre, Toronto, Ontario
Chad Herman, Manalapan, NJ

Final Revised version
August 3, 2010

Zone: tropics from 20 degrees N to 20 degrees S


From there:

"Over the interval 1979 to 2009, model-projected temperature trends are two to four times larger than observed trends in both the lower and mid-troposphere and the differences are statistically significant at the 99% level."


(bolded is mine)

 

spanish isn't my best language (although I suppose my English isn't all that great either ) but I think it says something about throwing a lot of trash, the last two lines are a complete mystery

although there is this little bird telling me its not good

cheers
B

ps
Hoyt your a numskull but I'd still get the first round any day

ahaw nlkan ke'ewa anwe bozho ciptubIn gikto mnukwe'n anak dendawabdan nije' ashwe' psiyen

which means in my own language
"greetings friend, maybe at least we can shake hands and sit down, talk, drink and then maybe figure out whats wrong with you"

 

The greatest strength is gentleness.

 

May Taronhiawagon, whom we call God, the Holder of the Heavens, the Master of Life, declare His will to you in a dream. May He visit you as The Holy Ghost, to dwell in your heart, to teach you of the Salvation offered through His Son, to protect you from Evil and to
instruct you in the path of Righteousness, where I am still a student, not a graduate.

AGW or Rapid Whatyoumaycallit is still a load of c*** though.

 

in today's news

might be that "no one can say this happened because of global warming" but the odds are that if its "the" hottest 6 months on record and a big chunk of ice falls off somewhere that the two just might be connected

 

The Mertz glacier calved an iceberg the size of Luxembourg in February. This has been going on since before humankind knew how to, well, anything. It proves nothing. AGW blaa blaa blaa.

 

The poles arent warming. They are always 90 degrees.

 

your taking after Guillermo with this line of reasoning that has already been discusses thousands of posts ago



globally there is little question that the total mass of ice is dropping like a rock

 

The glaciers have to calve. There is so much weight of new ice pushing down from the point of origin the old ice is pushed into the sea to make room for the new. Eventually that ice will make its long descent to its point of recycling, where it will melt and eventually evaporate to become rain or snow or hail yet again, possibly falling onto the very same glacier from whence it last rested.

 

actually thats is not why they calve or at least no why they calve these days
the ice that is melting is lubricating the ground under the glassier
which in turn moves faster downhill to the sea where pieces break off

your logic may have worked in some long ago climate scenario but in the rapidly warming one we have now it simply does not represent reality

the formation of new ice is no longer keeping up with the speed at which the old ice is moving towards the sea

this is most evident in the arctic ice record but is also the norm globally

 

Even if that is true, what does it proove? Ice is melting therefore it is the bad oil industry fault?

What an old bag of stinking manure!

By the way I am still waiting for a lead to find a way to make money from oil or coal industry lobbist.