Climate-gate

[sculptor]

From what I've read, the sun's effect on climate doesn't happen in the present(real time) nor in a day, nor a week, nor a year, nor a decade.
Tracking tsi and/or sunspots and then temperature, there is a lag time for the effect on temperature and climate.

Let us assume that #25 is a non starter, it will still take us years to get back to 1900 (Gleisberg "grand" minimum---which was nowhere near a "grand minimum") temperatures.
Let us assume that #26 will also be weak. Again, the lag time for climate response will most likely be decades.

It seems that many who would dismiss the sun as a major climate driver have refused to look at and define likely lag times.

................
If we look at the sun's effect on climate during the average 11+ year cycle, we see little climate difference between the maximum and minimum of any given cycle. The earth is a marvelous heat sink which smooths out the effects.
We are constantly losing heat energy into space.
Without an @11 year maximum to reload/recharge the earths heat budget, we will lose more than we gain. A prolonged (grand)minimum will show cooling results long after it begins.
(I've always thought that this was pretty basic stuff)

Has anyone looked into the sidc data?

 

[Trippy]

Here are some exact expression for three trig function, but note x is in radians, not degrees. Sorry but I don't do "tex" and can't correct this well. perhaps some reader will copy and correct.
$$\sin x = \sum^{\infty}_{n=0} \frac{(-1)^n}{(2n+1)!} x^{2n+1} = x - \frac{x^3}{3!} + \frac{x^5}{5!} - \cdots\quad\text{ for all } x\!
\cos x = \sum^{\infty}_{n=0} \frac{(-1)^n}{(2n)!} x^{2n} = 1 - \frac{x^2}{2!} + \frac{x^4}{4!} - \cdots\quad\text{ for all } x\!
\tan x = \sum^{\infty}_{n=1} \frac{B_{2n} (-4)^n (1-4^n)}{(2n)!} x^{2n-1} = x + \frac{x^3}{3} + \frac{2 x^5}{15} + \cdots\quad\text{ for }|x| < \frac{\pi}{2}\!$$

It was already formated as LaTeX Billy, you just needed to put the tags on it.

I owe people replies. It's been a busy week. I'll try to get to them tonight.

 

[Billy T]

Billy T, your "Pessimistic Predictions" graph incorrectly starts all curves at the same point when you are comparing climate model forecasts with observed data which is weather + climate. Since 1990 was hotter than years around it (weather) this distorts the comparison of climate model with observed climate.

From http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ :
1988 0.375
1989 0.245
1990 0.492
1991 0.397
1992 0.093

Good and obvious point I had not noticed. The 2001 graph should start from 2001, not 1990. Blame Der Spiegel -They constructed the graphs as you can see at the link given for the quote. I. e. credit given there as: "IPCC models v. reality [Image Source: Der Spiegel]"

Your link looks very interesting and more informative, but I need to open the links to the discussion text still.

 

[iceaura]

It seems that many who would dismiss the sun as a major climate driver have refused to look at and define likely lag times.

Nope

One thing is that the people who would promote the sun as the major driver of the current warming trend have been unable to come up with a "lag time", mechanism, causal chain, or anything else, that fits the data. People will look at anything along those lines, but so far nobody can find it.

Another issue is the visible slide from "a major climate driver" to "the major cause of the current warming trend". It's pretty easy to show that the sun is a major driver of climate on earth. Showing that its fluctuations are the major cause of the current warming trend is another matter entirely. It's been tried now, repeatedly, for half a century, without success.

 

[Billy T]

One thing is that the people who would promote the sun as the major driver of the current warming trend have been unable to come up with a "lag time", mechanism, causal chain, or anything else, that fits the data. People will look at anything along those lines, but so far nobody can find it. ...

And they never will because it not possible to store all the excess heat given earth during the prior peak solar output for 11 years, so it could now be released to explain Sculptor's ridiculous claim (pure BS from right wing ignorance) that the sun's delayed energy is why temperature are rising now while solar out put has been falling since about 2002.

If this was just normal variation, then 50% of the years would be less than average, but not one has been since about 1975! Odds of that happening by chance are same as flipping 40 heads in a row with no tails! i.e. 0.5^40 = 9.09E(-13)= 0.000,000,000,000,909

Which raises the question: "How ignorant can Sculptor be?

 

[sculptor]

solar out put has been falling since about 2002.

You sure about the 2002 number?

 

[milkweed]

Which raises the question: "How ignorant can Sculptor be?

It always irks me when people start tossing about the word ignorant. Are you ignorant of the solar cycles?

http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html

Look closely at the little change in TSI during the maunder minimum or the dalton minimum. Look closely at the consistant high TSI for the past 100 years.

Pretty close to the sunspot numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

Past temp adjusted:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/04/past-temperature-in-greenland-adjusted-to-fit-new-theory/

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/bo...n-creates-discontinuities-and-changes-trends/

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/the-mysterious-lost-hot-sunday-in-bourke-did-it-really-happen/

This link may not interest you but I find it interesting. You can pick from RAW, TOB and Adj Mean. Gives the location of the station (but they are not always easy to find via google/earth or maps). Kinda fun finding out they are adjusting temps up when the station is state of the art and in a downtown area (no kidding 3 feet from the parking meters) or temps down when you can find the station via google earth out in a field 600 feet from any road. Or the adjustments up to stations located within 30 feet of a runway:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html

I have zero confidence in the adjustments, in part due to the lack of transparency/documentation of need in combination with my own observations and some pretty wild zone designations combining multiple growing zones together.

No Warming for 17 years:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/...ate-no-global-warming-for-17-years-11-months/

39 excuses and counting:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/

What the researchers didn’t expect were “enormous holes” in the sea ice, currently under investigation. “We can’t explain them yet,” Gallaher said.

“And the Antarctic blew us away,” he said. In 1964, sea ice extent in the Antarctic was the largest ever recorded, according to Nimbus image analysis. Two years later, there was a record low for sea ice in the Antarctic, and in 1969 Nimbus imagery, sea ice appears to have reached its maximum extent earliest on record.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/...-ice-discovers-enormous-holes-in-the-sea-ice/

Dont like Watts up? Well its a quote from watts up source:

http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2014/nimbus.html

Tree line during the last interglacial was much further north than now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian

Point being there still is nothing going on Temperature wise that hasnt happened in past interglacials. Point being Nature isnt cooperating with the models. Nature isnt cooperating with what co2 does in a test tube.

And I will most certainly entertain the very real possibility co2 is a marginal factor in climate. I will entertain the idea that science may have missed the mark:

http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/29/partisanship-and-silencing-science/#more-15507

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/

Having worked in government I know full well the efforts to keep the funding going for a particular job, having watched my dept (in collusion with other depts under scrutiny) scrambling to hire outside consultants to provide data to support the continued funding of these particular departments rather than combining them to reduce costs to the taxpayer.

There is no funding when the answer is "nothing to see here folks; everything is within the natural parameters".

 

[zgmc]

Global conspiracy then, huh? From what I've seen from the sources you reference, they aren't very credible.

 

[sculptor]

It always irks me when people start tossing about the word ignorant. ... .

This subject seems to bring out the worst in some people. Attempted insults of that nature are childish projections brought on by deep feelings of insecurity on the part of the claimant. From a psychological perspective, such behaviors are indicative of the persons feelings of inadequacy. The pity, really is that such childish outbursts diminish the credibility of those who feel the need to voice such nonsense.

 

[milkweed]

Global conspiracy then, huh? From what I've seen from the sources you reference, they aren't very credible.

Yeah. .edu .gov Jo Nova posts about stories going around the australian news circuits that are behind paywall. Judith curry link is talking about the efforts of vested interest groups to silence science papers that reduce the impact their particular interest relies on. The Atlantic covers a bunch of stuff medical science has dropped the ball on over the years.

I've read the IPCC stuff (though not all of it). I used to visit Real Climate to see what they had to say. Couldnt stand the moderation (never posted there just read), nor the condescending attitude.

But I can understand why you would not want to read these pieces that I link to.

I think these people (Jones, Mann, Trenberth, et al) truly believe what they think is correct and this was the opportunity to prove it. And thats where the failing begins. The objective wasnt climate it was Mann impact (without having the benefit of understanding of the natural process first). Hence the 39 excuses and climbing.

Theres lots of ways to look at whats gone wrong:
Noble cause corruption.
Ends justifies the means.
Confirmation bias.

Sorry but I know past interglacials were warmer (and cooler) than now (natural variability). I know the earths past has had much higher co2 levels and didnt turn into venus or much higher oxygen levels and the atmosphere then did NOT burst into flame (though you take pure enough oxygen...). I've read about old growth forest remains revealed under melting glaciers in alaska; carbon dating verify these forests grew during this interglacial).

http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

Happens in europe too. Several times according to various reports. During this interglacial. Advances and retreats of glaciers.

One thing about this whole fiasco. I doubted memes as plausible. I mean come on, we all got a brain. But then CCC or AGW or MMGW or whatever acronym you want to assign to the climate flavor of the month and I watch usually intelligent people being swallowed into the 'consensus' and promoting the idea with the same vigor and hatred (of those who dont think this 'evidence' stands on its own) with all the internal delight that godhatesfags gets when they protest a military funeral. I mean come on.. homogenization without verification.. shit my backyard temp can be 10 degrees different than the twin cities on some days, or just as warm on others. Depends on where the cold front is sitting. Your going to tell me they check these factors out when 'adjusting'. Prove it. It does not appear to be happening. Shortcuts that are destroying the historical record. Refusal to release the data because someone "only wants to find something wrong with it".

And you dont want to read the links I provide?

 

[zgmc]

Case closed I guess. Looks like you got it figured out. Why do you chose to believe one side over the other? Do you not think money, like from fossil fuel producers, has an influence in the deniers claims? Maybe its just cool to be an outsider?

 

[iceaura]

Point being there still is nothing going on Temperature wise that hasnt happened in past interglacials.

That is false. There has been a very rapid warming trend like nothing seen in paleontological history, without observable cause other than the greenhouse gas buildup.

Sorry but I know past interglacials were warmer (and cooler) than now (natural variability).

None of them got this warm this fast. All of them followed warming cycles with cooling cycles, instead of following the peak warmth of the interglacial with another warming trend. All of them exhibited evidence of tracking solar radiation patterns and orbital/rotational cycles with CO2 acting as a feedback rather than initial cause. And so forth.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html

Look closely at the little change in TSI during the maunder minimum or the dalton minimum. Look closely at the consistant high TSI for the past 100 years.

Pretty close to the sunspot numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

Past temp adjusted:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/0...it-new-theory/

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/bom...hanges-trends/

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/the...really-happen/

You do realize none of those links has anything to do with any discussion here of the current warming trend, yes? We are all familiar with the sunspot cycles and their correspondence with TSI, for example.

 

[milkweed]

Case closed I guess. Looks like you got it figured out. Why do you chose to believe one side over the other? Do you not think money, like from fossil fuel producers, has an influence in the deniers claims? Maybe its just cool to be an outsider?

I doubt the 'consensus' has it figured out (Hence the 39 excuses) and I dont believe they have the evidence to support the 95% confidence. What do you think? Have you chosen a side? Or do you not choose a side until you think you got it figured out. Oh wait. Your the one who wont read my links.

 

[milkweed]

That is false. There has been a very rapid warming trend like nothing seen in paleontological history, without observable cause other than the greenhouse gas buildup.

There have been improvements.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1335.full

But then, the author is a part of Climategate (thread title, not trolling).

http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/dealing-a-mortal-blow-to-the-mwp/

I suppose he caved to the cause.

None of them got this warm this fast. All of them followed warming cycles with cooling cycles, instead of following the peak warmth of the interglacial with another warming trend. All of them exhibited evidence of tracking solar radiation patterns and orbital/rotational cycles with CO2 acting as a feedback rather than initial cause. And so forth.

You are straight up wrong on following the peak with another warming trend. I dont know how you can say "none of them got this warm this fast"; As I understand paleoclimate, they cant break it down into small enough time period to say Yes/No it warmed this fast

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7344/fig_tab/nature09983_F4.html

Note in above image how little of this potential interglacial (compared to past ones) is recorded. We have no idea whether the natural warming has peaked.

You do realize none of those links has anything to do with any discussion here of the current warming trend, yes? We are all familiar with the sunspot cycles and their correspondence with TSI, for example.

Apparently not everyone is familiar.

Its the Climategate thread. The links are relevant to the topic.

 

[iceaura]

I doubt the 'consensus' has it figured out (Hence the 39 excuses) and I dont believe they have the evidence to support the 95% confidence.

At what level of confidence would you begin to consider making some prudent arrangements to forestall potential disaster? - if the odds were, say, inverted, with only a 5% chance of disaster, would you recommend doing nothing to mitigate the worst of the possible consequences?

Your the one who wont read my links.

I glanced through most of them - familiar, long debunked stuff from five or ten years ago, most of it. Have you taken a moment to vet your sources? Several of them are known for shaky grounding in physical reality and a willingness to espouse garbage ("17 years of no warming" for example) in the interests of their financial backing.

 

[sculptor]

.
None of them got this warm this fast. All of them followed warming cycles with cooling cycles, instead of following the peak warmth of the interglacial with another warming trend. .

Oft repeated, and totally without scientific support. Quite the contrary for the eemian, according to recent work done by Maureen Raymo et. al.
(assuming, of course, that rapid sea level rise is an indication of rapid warming near the end of the eemian)

Another thing she said was that "The climate community has always underestimated the rate of (past) climate change".

 

[sculptor]

... chose .. one side over the other?

Is this about science? or gang warfare?

 

[billvon]

Having worked in government I know full well the efforts to keep the funding going for a particular job, having watched my dept (in collusion with other depts under scrutiny) scrambling to hire outside consultants to provide data to support the continued funding of these particular departments rather than combining them to reduce costs to the taxpayer.

Yep. Money can indeed influence science. Now compare the amount of money the oil and coal companies have vs. the amount of money dedicated to science in the US. There is a definite bias - and that bias is towards denialism, to the tune of trillions of dollars.

It becomes very difficult for someone to understand climate change when his job depends on not understanding it.

 

[billvon]

Is this about science? or gang warfare?

For many deniers it is indeed about "gang warfare." They make it all about personalities - Al Gore, Michael Mann - rather than about the science. They fear a change in their comfortable ways of life; they fear having to buy a more efficient car, or use less electricity, or use less water. And thus they attack at what they see are the "leaders" hoping that if they can silence the leaders, the rest will follow.

Science, of course, is not like that. Deniers can use their money and influence to threaten and bully all they like; it doesn't change the underlying causes of our current warming, and that will continue whether or not deniers achieve their ends. The climate change scientists who study AGW understand this, which is why their research continues despite a hostile political climate.

 

[sculptor]

For many deniers it is indeed about "gang warfare." They make it all about personalities - Al Gore, Michael Mann - rather than about the science. They fear a change in their comfortable ways of life; they fear having to buy a more efficient car, or use less electricity, or use less water. And thus they attack at what they see are the "leaders" hoping that if they can silence the leaders, the rest will follow.

Science, of course, is not like that. Deniers can use their money and influence to threaten and bully all they like; it doesn't change the underlying causes of our current warming, and that will continue whether or not deniers achieve their ends. The climate change scientists who study AGW understand this, which is why their research continues despite a hostile political climate.

By continuing to use pejorative terms like "denier" or "alarmist" are you not perpetrating this irresponsible gang warefare ethos?
My leaders are now and have long been scientists. (and, I have referenced several in here.)
We will all be better off if we stick to referencing, quoting and studying the scientists and science rather than focusing on "choosing up sides" (i had enough of that on the grade-school playground).
Time to put away such childish nonsense and behave as adults.