The sun and climate change...

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
The new I.P.C.C. report has a tiny little change to it...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/12/ipcc-admission-has-climate-world-buzzing.php

It shouldn’t be a surprise that variations in the Sun’s output are responsible, at least in part, for variations in Earth’s temperatures. The problem is that if you simply do the math on radiant heat, the known increase in solar activity during the second half of the 20th century accounts for only a small portion of the assumed increase in temperature over that period. So the alarmists have denied that the Sun plays a significant role. More recent work has strongly suggested that solar radiation plays a role above and beyond radiant heat, by influencing cloud cover, which is a key factor in temperature. Given the strong correlation between solar activity and temperature, this work has been persuasive.

So that is the admission that was leaked yesterday. The current draft of the IPCC report says:

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. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.


So the IPCC, at the moment at least, stands ready to admit that the evidence supports a much larger role for solar activity, and a correspondingly much smaller role for CO2. Of course, other sections of the report implicitly contradict this admission. Watts Up With That has all the details on the controversy. I am not sure I agree with those who say this represents the death knell for climate alarmism, but it certainly does illustrate how flimsy the “science” underlying the hysterical position is.

Also...

This is the background: climate alarmism is based in substantial part on the assumption that other causes of global warming can be accounted for, and whatever is left over must be due to human-emitted CO2. This sort of reasoning is rarely valid, but it is particularly inappropriate in a field as little understood as climate. One obvious reason why the Earth has gotten warmer and colder over the millenia is that the amount of energy put out by the Sun varies. Moreover, over the last few centuries, sunspots–considered to be a good proxy for solar activity–have correlated very closely with Earth temperatures. More sunspots equal higher temperatures.
 
How many freakin times do I have to list many of the possible causes for global warming before people actaully read them...and no, I am not going to list all the ways again


This is nothing new, or earth shattering or all that hard to prove if it is the reason and it likely has little to do with it until possibly recently in this round of global warming.
 
An intriguing look into the science of climate change:

[yt]sfkLHxQe-SU[/yt]

[yt]MNKliq1n4gA[/yt]

[yt]00PqZNPcTVw[/yt]

Warning this is not sound-bite TV. That's three hours of investigation and reporting so if you are only interested in snappy head-lines then these are not for you :).
 
I like the clips where the narrator is just walking around. Well, 12 minutes into the second video. He has mentioned the temp. stations, and seems to use them to discredit the skeptics, but as yet hasn't asked the skeptics about why these boxes are off. As I watch more...will he show the temp. stations that have had cities build up around them and all the heat that generates, as opposed to the one in the rural countryside that he highlighte. Over at Wattsupwiththat.com, they have people send in pictures of these boxes that have had buildings and parking lots (covered in black, heat attracting asphalt) built up around them. The ones I really enjoy are the ones next to the heat exhaust of air conditioning units. Those are great pictures. He was just going into satelite data...does he discuss NASA changing the data about global warming? Well see...

Will he mention the temp. stations in the coldest parts of Russia that aren't counted? We'll see..

Hmmm...the satellite data was marred by human error...hmmm...which they then corrected to their advantage...hmmmm...

Since they were wrong the first time...why are they so sure they got it right this time?
------------------------------------------
From another source on the cherry picking of temp. data from Russia...

http://rt.com/news/data-cherry-picked-climatologists/

Meanwhile, a new climate scandal is gaining momentum. The Moscow-based Institute for Economic Analysis (IEA) has accused the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research of the British Meteorology Office of only using statistics from weather stations in Russia that fitted its theory on global warming, and ignoring those that did not.
The British Met Office’s Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which was earlier involved in a scandal dubbed “Climategate” by some media, jointly run the climate database.
The Centre has recently made public part of the raw data used by HadCRUT, its joint research team with the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, in order to diffuse the recent row over leaked emails revealing an alleged conspiracy by climatologists and politicians.
In a report this week, the IEA says the HadCRUT’s study of climate change ignored data from three quarters of the weather stations on the territory of Russia. This includes “more than 40% of the area,” which was not included, not due to missing data, but “for some other reasons.”
That means 40% of Russia’s territory is unrepresented in the world’s most important temperature record.

This cherry-picking and misrepresenting data is nothing new, according to those opposed to the summit in Copenhagen.
“There was the famous Hockey Stick diagram, produced by somebody called Mann, which purported to show that for the last thousand years temperature had been fairly steady, before suddenly going up very rapidly,” says climate skeptic Stuart Wheeler. “But it's now been shown that any separate figures could be manipulated in the way Mann's system did to produce a Hockey Stick diagram.”
Moreover, of the data available for the same location, the British researchers chose incomplete sets of temperature with growth trends over complete ones that did not fit into the global warming model. Also, data from stations located in cities – which are always likely to be warmer due to waste heat generated by local industries and homes – were preferred over those in remote areas, the IEA says.
All in all, the institute evaluates the difference between the growth of average temperatures between 1870s and 1990s, based on all data available for Russia and those delivered by HadCRUT, as at least 0.64 degrees Celsius.

And about that satellite data...

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds.

Sooo...I'll finish this series as I can, but there is less fairness to it than seems to be...well...fair...
 
Last edited:

Latest Discussions

Back
Top