What Do We Think About Climate Change

You can always tell when I don't have time when I take shots like that eh?



He does seem like a earnest lad but I do prefer to simply get the science from the source.

 

and back to the beginning we go

fire up the tractor and lets drag that dead horse back out of the barn

thing to remember from the go is science works by arranging data into a hypothesis finding consensus within the hypothesis and developing a theory which can be tested by virtue of its predictions
the theory of rapid global climate change has successfully done that over an extended period of time
the deniers have no such coherently developed data nor any consensus
not only do they disagree with us but also one another as well

my fave is the consensus part

yes G you can find information contradicting or in opposition to the general data stream
but
those bits of reputable data are far outweighed by other bits of also reputable data
this is always the case with any scientific study
happens all the bloody time

the theory isnt perfect
its not bad
and its made some excellently accurate predictions
but its not perfect

science deals with this lack of perfection by being practiced not preached
we study science
and we learn

one thing that is invaluable to the scientific process is the understanding of the reason for consensus

if the vast majority of the time
the vast majority of data
says the same thing
we go with it
and the vast majority of the time hit the nail on the head

those few pieces of anomalous data that just dont fit the overall theory
tend to get a lot of attention actually
although in smaller data sets these highs and lows as they are referred to tend to get eliminated
in the larger studies they can become real bones of contention
for instance
the existence of Berkland strands in nebulous material is all the rave when it comes to arguing for a more predominant force than gravity in the development of the universe's structure
( electromagnetic energy is the only obvious driving force behind these type of structures )
in climate studies there is the same instance
were the consensus says one thing
with a few anomalous tidbits sprinkled throughout

so I was kinda waiting for you to go dig something up from some of the reputable sources that just happen to have those rare bits of anomalous data
its perfectly good data in most cases
and its not in line with varying segments of the theory
and as good science always admits
we are bound to learn more as we go
I personally believe those tidbits will play a key role in learning more
but the fundamentals are sound
the basic theory isnt in any kind of trouble with the simple admission that anomalous data exists
it just means science dont know everything and its still working on the details
we know co2 is a greenhouse gas + ~27% increase
we know CH4 is a serious green house gas + ~60% increase ( I think could be wrong on that one )
we can measure accurately back about 600,000 years and see the cycle and see that we have deviated from it
and we know that human activity is absolutely pounding out these gasses
we know that there is a forcing between co2 CH4 and water vapor
we can see an obvious trend upward in global temperatures
corresponding to a trend downward global ice cover

now
lets just look at something I dont know **** about cause Ive been dying to get this rolling ever since Jim distracted me with a target on his forehead

the sun cycle
looks like there is a direct correlation in the long term graph with the temp the co2 and the sun cycle
its not overlaid on the graph but I sure wish it was

my point being
that this graph seems to show a slight deviation from that correlation
if thats true
we are sooooooo screwed



look at the groovy blue splotch at the top right just about were co2 skyrockets from
its nowhere else to be found on the graph

everywhere else on that graph temp peaks out for a very short time
at present temp has held at peak for far longer than normal
in the market Ild say that temp was thinking of doing something it shouldn't
like maybe go joining its little brother co2 way up there well outside of trend

if it was a stock market chart Ild say check the technical analysis and look for a pattern before just going with the oscillation

but
what I dont know about the hole process and what you guys can go sink your teeth into is
whats the sun cycle doing ( and for Pete's sakes dont bring in crap from the heartland rag )
whats the historical data say on whether it should be declining or should it be rising

now G brought up the sun way back in oblivion and I curtly said
no **** Sherlock ya think
cause obviously the sun is going to be the main driving force in the system
and at the time he was throwing up more of a smoke screen to hide Mr Apple on Head from a sure shot
so now that we have reasonably shown that all the other parameters are accounted for and accurately expressed in the graph
are we staring at evidence of a deviation in the sun / temp co2 correlation

I wanted to get to this about a hundred pages ago but as I said
someone stuck an apple on his forhead and smiled
sooooo
I had to get a few things cleared up before I wanted to address this

cheers
B

although there could certainly be a cyclical nature to calthrates eruptions
but first I wanted to look at the sun

basically we have beaten a dead horse over co2 and forcing to the point were deniers are clearly in denial
so lets move on

 

Boston, the dark blue splotch shown happens before the spike in CO2, demonstrating only that warmth causes an healthy environment for life and increases in CO2, no? One thing that gets me is that these graphs could be constructed to appear flat-line (no change) by accentuating the horizontal and/or playing with the scale, i.e., instead of showing 150 to 350 ppm., graphing 0 to 1,000 ppm.. ANY movement can be exaggerated to fill a graph.
Looking at that graph, one might comment, "****, after a prolonged period of moderate temperatures on Earth, everything is growing well." Or, let's say you are laying next to a swimming pool in the community of Ward Churchill (or do they still call the liberal enclave 'Boulder"? Your arm slides over as you fall asleep on a fine Indian Summer afternoon and touches the aluminum of the lawn-chair - which is no longer 71°, but 71 1/2°. OUCH! How could one sleep fretting over the ramifications? Will they shut down schools for it? Sell the snow plows? Will everyone have to shift north to get out of the stifling heat and I should be buying more Alaskan soil?
(On a personal and more serious note, many suppliers are running out of ammunition. Cabela's, in Lacey, WA, is down to rimfire .22 and nothing else! Get your black gun ammo while you can. It looks like the end times will not come from GW but BO [Barack Obama] and an even bigger idiot, "Unification" Gordon Brown, who can't spend enough of his own country's future and is now accepting aid from the U.S.)

 

Boston- sent ya a pm

 

there is apparently no consensus on the long term variability of the solar cycle at leas that I can find so far

there is a 11 year 22 year 65 and 140 year cycles with variability of ~ .1%
discussed in various articles

but for anything longer term say in the ranges needed to compare to the last 600,000 years there is only this

although Ive only just begun to look at it in depth so all is very tentative at this time

from NCAR

clearly they are not yet at a stage were they can present findings but there able to accurately predict with there model and are moving in the direction of time frames significant enough to become relevant to the question at hand

does the sun cycle follow the pattern of the carbon temp cycle and have we deviated from that relationship

thing I found interesting is that the calibration cycle is close to a divisor of the co2 cycle ( ~120,000 years on average )
may mean nothing but it did raise an eyebrow

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7964880.stm

 

Talk about dead equines, how about the idea that CO2 concentrations drive temperature trends? I think that little filly was stillborn. Still haven't found an example where this happened. Not in the ice cores. Not in the 20th century. Not even in 6 month intervals. If you can continue to beat THAT dead horse, then dead horse beating has got to have an unlimited pass.



Jimbo

 

was trading all morning and just took a looked outside
dam
we have got a blizzard going out there
the girl got in from work and says everything is closed and it took her hours to get 15 minutes
perfect sailing weather
har har har

food and then a search of other solar data

ok so since long term data is going to be hard to come by and even harder to gain a consensus on ( #2503 )
then lets look at the last hundred years of so of the industrial age
as shown in the above graph from Nasa
although I think Ill go look for one that goes back another hundred years just to get a better base line

I want to try and find the peak of the solar 11 year and 65 year cycle and overlay it on the graph and see what it looks like
any body got that in there bag of tricks time to pull it out
cause Im seriously doubting the sun has increased in intensity in a manor consistent with that graph
although I certainly may be wrong on that
( course Im the only one on here that has ever been wrong before and is willing to admit it )
Im thinking of a name

 

and the first thing I notice is a drop in the solar mean at the same time there is a rise in the temp mean

not a good sign kids

but lets keep looking

ok havnt had a chance to really measure anything but it also looks like there is an 11 year cycle of temp influence
anyone else seeing that

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2008/05/common-climate-misconceptions-solar-influences-on-global-temperature/

this was a dam informative article although not pear reviewed



this next graph shows our two parameters overlayed and its also showing that cyclical oscillation I was seeing but I wish it went back farther to show the deviation from the norm better

 

A rise....? perhaps you mean a descent from at least 2002 on...!

 

from GISS NASA

only decent Im seeing is these two guys I once had a climate change conversation with going down in flames

 

Boston,
I had posted this already, but probably you missed it:

SCAFETTA AND WEST: SOLAR CONTRIBUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

From there:
"Climate is relatively insensitive to solar changes if a temperature reconstruction showing little preindustrial variability is adopted. In this scenario most of the global warming since 1900 has to be interpreted as anthropogenically induced. On the other hand, if a secular temperature showing large preindustrial variability is adopted, such as MOBERG05, the climate is found to be very sensitive to solar changes and a significant fraction of the global warming that occurred during last century should be solar induced. If ACRIM satellite composite is adopted the Sun might have further contributed to the recent global warming."

Cheers.

 

Figure 5: Cosmic ray data from the Oulu Neutron Monitor. Temperature data from GISS. http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/

While a number of solar-related factors are undoubtedly important in shaping Earth’s climate, they seem highly unlikely to have been responsible for the unprecedented rate of warming over recent years. TSI, sunspots, and cosmic rays have lacked any significant trend over the last three decades. Those interested in a more technical analysis of solar trends in recent years, including advanced statistical techniques to filter out cyclical trends in various datasets, are encouraged to read the recent Lockwood and Fröhlich article (pdf). http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

 

thats why I said I wanted a longer term graph comparing the variables
by showing the pre industrial age a base line of whats normal can be determined
in the times previous to the industrial age I would expect that solar forcing is the main quantity in the cyclical nature of the past
with certain events like canthrates eruptions and other such large events having an influence
but in time since the industrial revolution
I would expect there to be a deviation from that norm


in the data so far presented its easy to see a deviation
but
I want to see the norm as well over a longer term in order to find a baseline and so measure the deviation

 

I find this kinda interesting
the guy who wrote it is making a prediction
and is wrong in his prediction
this is written in 2000
and the prediction I highlighted in red
ten years down the road is now and the global temp mean has increased dramatically not decreased as he predicts

he goes on to say