What Do We Think About Climate Change

now admit it, you were told to say that

 

I prefer to eschew labels at all because they are almost totally without meaning and most people don't have any clue about history, global context, etc.

If you were to pigeonhole me, I'd say that I am a "Classical Liberal" in the Age of Enlightenment sense. Today that would probably qualify me as a Constitutional Conservative and a Libertarian. Philosophically I am a humanist and an empiricist and skeptic above all else.

I believe government has a role, but that it should be limited to the things that private citizens cannot reasonably attend to themselves.

So, assuming you know what progressivism actually means and its history in America and Western Europe, than you and I are probably about as far apart as we could possibly be politically (in 21st century the western world) short of despotism and communism.

With that said, I think we can both agree on all (most?) the things I said, and Hoyte reiterated in my previous post.

While we are on the subject of "What do we think about climate change?" why don't we ask "What do we think about a change in political climate?". It seems we are always 2 minutes before midnight (on the doomsday clock). Detente is getting us nowhere. Compromise will never happen, but there sure is a lot of room for consensus.

 

Oh, the voices in my head said to say that. Did I meet you in Ward D?

 

yes ward d, I came to visit you but you had just taken your meds

 

Great place, Club Med.

 

You're painting with a broad brush there. I doubt that as a group, scientists are any worse about being greedy whores than the rest of the population is.

Or are you judging them by what you would do in their place?

 

Yeah, but probably not any less either.

Best to always educate yourself and use your own brain. I think it is always good to maintain a healthy level of skepticism on all things, not to be a stick in the mud but to take the position that regardless of how solid something seems you could be wrong, we easily get ourselves walled into old habits and fail to see what later is obvious.

I often take the position of the skeptic even when I am pretty sure of something, old habits die hard, but it keeps you honest.

----

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
~Siddhārtha Gautama

 

....and after doing that for a while, to take breath and rest your mind, begin with the painful and challenging doubting again. Humankind only advances that way. Ubi dubium ibi libertas.

 

The words i quoted where said by the new york scientist who in the 60s started the big freeze and in the eighties started the debate about global warming, the full scientific world is in dispute about global warming. the truth is there are no records before about 1900 and with a weather cycle of over a 1000s years they can only go by short term models since records began the world has heated up by .75 of 1 degree. Then someone one day found a hole in the roof and said lets fill it in., what if that hole was supposed to be there? It had obviously be there fore some time not just the one day someone spotted it, mabe we are playing with our worlds system to much and destroying it ourselves. we can all make our own minds up. regards andy

 

Comparing 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 periods

As the ACO2GW supporters here do not answer my simple questions because they know their theory will become in evidence, I'll do it myself . I have already answered the question about the subjacent warming trend of about +/- 0.44ºC per century since around 1850 caused by the coming out from the LIA (or 0.72ºC if we consider the end of the LIA as happenning around 1910 -remember Humlum?), and the over-riding quasi 65 years mean global temperature cycle, induced by natural causes.

Now the question about the comparing between 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 periods (30 years periods, so statistically significant for climate matters, as AGW supporters ask for):

The +/- 1910-1940 warming period had a similar temperature rising trend than the +/- 1970-2000 one (around 0.5ºC increase in 30 years). But the increases in athmospheric CO2 concentrations were of only 10 ppm for the first but a five folds increase of 50 ppm for the second (roughly)

This clearly supports CO2 is not such a relevant temperature forcing as AGW proponents say. Or then it doesn't work as they say at all. The small relevancy is supported as well by the fact that CO2 concentration kept on its increasing trend for the cooling period of +/- 1940-1970 (approx 15 ppm), and even more steeply during the present 2000-2010 +/- ten years temperature plateau (approx. 20 ppm, so a rate of about 60 ppm if projected for a similar +/- 30 years period).

(Graph from HadCRUT3 data)

 

As a matter of curiosity it is interesting to realize that when AGW supporters here blame the ones of us analyzing trends for the last decade OR SO, because they very nervously say the period is not statistically significant, forget the fact that ICSU's SCOPE released their report #29, for which IPCC chairman Bert Bolin was the lead author, blamed greenhouse gases for climate change (mainly CO2) as soon as in 1986, this is, only a dozen OR SO of years after the 1940-1970 COOLING period (in fact it rather ended around 1975) . This report would form the basis of the first IPCC Assessment Report.

All the GWA scandalizing (Hansen and his mariachi) began by then.

This is what we call in Spain "the funnel law": the small opening end always for the opponents. Or then, can we call it hypocrisy...?

 

Here you have what happens when we detrend SS temperatures in the amount of 0.72ºC for the period 1900-2010 (would be very similar for tropospheric temps), run a 37 months mean, scale and offset as appropriate, and compare with the quasi 11 years solar sunspots Schwabe cycles (half of the +/- 22 years Hale full solar magnetic cycles). It is quite evident the similar behaviour between such Sun cycles and temperature anomalies which, on their side, over-ride the quasi-65 years cycle.

This is in line with what Quian et al. showed in their paper I posted a few posts ago. I'm quite convinced that when instrumental data is 500 years old, the Sun's quasi centurial cycles (remember Komitov?) will also be clearly apparent. But I'll not be here to see it.

Cheers.

 

The Boris Komitov's last part of his series on Sun and Climate,

THE “SUN - CLIMATE” RELATIONSHIP : III. THE SOLAR ERUPTIONS, NORTH-SOUTH SUNSPOT AREA ASSYMETRY AND CLIMATE

is at last available on line (Komitov sent it to me around one year ago, but I could not post it here as it was not yet publicly available). Here you have it now:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1007/1007.2099.pdf

Through the series Komitov demonstrates the correlation between the quasi 60 years climatic cycle and the Sun's high energy particles HESPs (mainly protons) from eruptive solar processes. Strong solar corpuscular events play a cooling climate role, similar to the one of GCRs (galactic cosmic rays) by influencing the low clouds formation.

So the conjunction of several Solar driven influences like those from the TSI, GCR and HESP play a complex and significative role in modulating the climate on Earth, clearly discernible in the temperature records.

I had posted already links to Komitov's Papers I and II, but now I post them here again, so those of you interested can download the full thing from this post.

The "Sun – climate" relationship. I. The sunspots and the climate.
The "Sun - climate" relationship. II. The "cosmogenic" beryllium and the middle latitude aurora.

Cheers.

 

Now, for the sake of newcomers let's review again what Abdussamatov wrote in 2009:

....the Earth has already reached in 1998–2005 the stage of maximal global warming.... The tendency toward a decline in global temperature observed in 2006-2008 will stop temporarily in 2010-2012. Then an increase in the TSI is expected, as solar cycle 24 (a “short” cycle) will temporarily compensate for the declining bicentennial component. But if solar activity in the “short” cycle does not rise sufficiently, the cooling of planet will begin to the deep temperature minimum in 2055-2060 ± 11 years, when temperature will be lower by 1.0 – 1.5 degrees. The following climate minimum will last 45-65 years, after which warming will necessarily begin, but only at the beginning of the 22nd century

(bolded is mine)

See the Astrometria project page here

First attached figure: NASA prediction for Solar cycle 24

Second attached figure: Observed variations in the 11-year sunspot activity (continuous thin line) and the bicentennial activity of the Sun (continuous heavy line) 1700-2008, and Abdussamatov's forecast of variations in these values for the period of 2009-2042 (dotted lines).

Well, it seems things are presently moving as Abdussamatov predicted, although it is soon yet to confirm. We'll have to wait till 2013 to confirm or not the cooling tendency.

But as I said, we should rather beware of the cold....

 

Yep. But I notice he doesn't say, "blindly reject anything you don't like the sound of and don't want to believe, regardless of the evidence...

It's extremely irrational to reject man-made climate change, as some people do, on the grounds that it's some sort of international plot cooked up by scientists, politicians, businessmen, the New World Order, and God knows who else. The conspiracy they imagine would require more conspirators than victims....