My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Biochemist]

What data are you referring to?

As I recall, when I wrote this I was thinking about the recent ARGO ocean floats that showed cooling since they were deployed:

 

Opinion: New data shows ocean cooling - OCRegister.com

 

 

But the overriding issue is the fraction of warming related to the solar cycle. There has always been significant research on this topic, although most is generally discounted by the (political) IPCC. There are many studies like the following:

 

Solar Activity and Climate

 

or

 

Solar Activity: A Dominant Factor in Climate Dynamics

 

or

 

Changes in the Earth’s Climate Caused by Changes in Solar Activity.

 

I confess I do not always understand the "forcing" calculations as offered above in InfiniteNow's post #247. I am frankly suspicious of the frameworks that use "Forcing models" that I can't decipher. But when CO2 levels change dramatically (as they have since 1998) and there is insignificant warming (or even cooling), I am more than a little suspicious aboout causality.

 

But the correlation between solar cycles and temperature since about 1850 is much higher than between CO2 and temperature.

[freeztar]

:camera: Note my current location and nomination. :(

 

Ah yes, I see it now. ;)

This whole forum change thingy is messing with me. :camera:

 

I could spit on Amboy from my chair.

 

I'm not sure the residents of Amboy would appreciate it and who wants saliva money anyways. :D

 

Speaking of Amboy, roadcuts, Coopers, and global warming, if not shakiness of belief, there is a magnificant 40 to 60 foot high varve just East of Amboy on a roadcut. The individual layers measure no more than 2 or 3 mm if I recall. Not sure what formal analysis on it is around, but I visited it on a geology course field trip. Might hold some info on past climate in the area. I'll get back to y'all on it; maybe even do a field trip. :hihi: :hihi:

 

Thanks for the new geology lingo. :lol:

Please do let us know what you find out.

[Turtle]

Thanks for the new geology lingo. [varve]:)

Please do let us know what you find out.

 

Roger that; done & done. I think the varve I visited is the boldened reference. Can we say ice age? :winter_brr:

 

{page 14}...the drained lakebed at Fargher Lake accumulated in a proglacial lake impounded by Amboy-age terminal moraines; the lake gradually filled with more than 11 m of organic-rich sand, mud, and peat, punctuated by tephra layers that record eruptions at Mount St. Helens (Rigg, 1958; Heusser and Heusser, 1980; Doh and Steele, 1983; Grigg and Whitlock, 2002). Lake beds are exposed in the south bank of Cedar Creek north-northeast of Bald Mountain. They consist of about 10 to 12 m of dark gray, rhythmically laminated silt and clay. The beds vary in attitude from subhorizontal to subvertical over a distance of 20 m and are unconformably overlain by limonite-cemented cobbly gravel that contains rip-up clasts of varved clay. The small lake in which the rhythmites accumulated probably formed when ice from the Lewis River glacier spilled over into and blocked Cedar Creek; this must have occurred when the glacier was at or near its maximum extent. Scattered angular blocks of andesite as large as 3 m across that now rest on nearby modern alluvium may be ice-rafted erratics. Another small area of lake deposits is inferred to exist about 3.5 km north of Fargher Lake, where a landslide apparently blocked a tributary of Cedar Creek. These deposits are not exposed. ...

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2004/2826/Arl_geol_text.pdf

[InfiniteNow]

But the overriding issue is the fraction of warming related to the solar cycle. There has always been significant research on this topic, although most is generally discounted by the (political) IPCC.

Name what specific conclusion of theirs is false. If you cannot, then I kindly ask you cease from further blanket claims and handwaving. You've tried to dismiss the literally thousands of studies they've brought together with your single comment that they are "political," and that's just not good enough.

 

 

 

I confess I do not always understand the "forcing" calculations as offered above in InfiniteNow's post #247. I am frankly suspicious of the frameworks that use "Forcing models" that I can't decipher.

This is an appeal to ignorance. Basically, you think that since you haven't put the time in to understand the models, and since you are not competent enough to decipher them that there must be something inherently wrong with them. If you are not capable of challenging the content of the presentations made here then you really shouldn't respond.

 

But, really? You couldn't decipher these two graphs? That's quite striking. Why don't you ask a specific question so perhaps we can help you arrive upon the answers you seek?

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the correlation between solar cycles and temperature since about 1850 is much higher than between CO2 and temperature.

 

Now, that's just wrong. Here is another simple example for you. What part do you think is incorrect or misrepresentative? Be specific.

 

 

 

 

I've found a wealth of knowledge at the following, so perhaps you can catch yourself up too!

 

RealClimate - Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays

RealClimate - A critique on Veizer’s Celestial Climate Driver

RealClimate - The lure of solar forcing

RealClimate - Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?

RealClimate - Another study on solar influence

 

[T]here is not much evidence pointing to the sun being responsible for the warming since the 1950s.

 

 

 

But the correlation between solar cycles and temperature since about 1850 is much higher than between CO2 and temperature.

 

You know, I've quite countered your point already above with an abundance of resources, but I'll add a little jab into your rib cage to really crystalize my point.

 

There's also a correlation between people carrying umbrellas and it raining outside, but that doesn't mean that people carrying umbrellas makes it rain. :winter_brr:

[Biochemist]

Name what specific conclusion of theirs is false. If you cannot.....

Fuhgonnesake IN, relax. The links I included (and I am sure I could have found a hundred, as could you) contest the notion (asserted by the IPCC) that the impact of variation in solar radiation is trivial. The links I included suggest that it is significantly greater than CO2.

But, really? You couldn't decipher these two graphs? That's quite striking. Why don't you ask a specific question so perhaps we can help you arrive upon the answers you seek?

 

 

OK. This graph is an interesting representation of interpretive data. Can you explain "modeled forcing response" in two sentences? And if you can, are you pretty certain that the "model" fairly reflects the meaning of the underlying data? I am sure you are aware of the numerous (valid) critiques of the now-infamous "hockey-stick" graph in the earlier IPCC report. I certainly hope this "model" is better than that one.

 

Further, back in my basic research days, we would always rate any basic science study on the quality of the methods. If we couldn't figure out the methods, we would ignore the conclusion of the study. I think the above graph tests the validity of the forcing model, not the underlying data.

Be specific.

Was I specific enough? did you glance at my earlier references?

[Biochemist]

I've found a wealth of knowledge at the following...

 

RealClimate - Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays

RealClimate - A critique on Veizer’s Celestial Climate Driver

RealClimate - The lure of solar forcing

RealClimate - Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?

RealClimate - Another study on solar influence

 

These are indeed good references. Clearly biased, but worth the read.

 

Bio

[Essay]

That the LENGTH of solar cycles is correlated with temperature is pretty neat.

I remember when that came out in Science v.254, Nov.1, 1991, p.698f. I wish there was more current data.

hmmmm....

Maybe solar activity affects the soil microbes and depresses CO2 uptake. :eek_big:

 

But the overriding issue is the fraction of warming related to the solar cycle. There has always been significant research on this topic, although most is generally discounted by the (political) IPCC. There are many studies like the following:

Changes in the Earth’s Climate Caused by Changes in Solar Activity.

 

...

But the correlation between solar cycles and temperature since about 1850 is much higher than between CO2 and temperature.

 

Just a quick note:

I happened to choose the above link you provided, and to quote from it:

 

"Such models were applied by Kelly and Wigley (1992) and Schlesinger and Ramankutty (1992) using the solar cycle length as a proxy for total solar irradiance. They both found that variations in solar irradiance have been contributing to the observed global temperature change since 1860 but their calculations also indicated that since the nineteenth century, greenhouse gases have been the dominant contributor."

 

...btw, last I heard....

I think the IPCC attributes about 15-20% of "global warming" to solar activity. :shrug:

:)

[InfiniteNow]

The links I included suggest that it is significantly greater than CO2.

A suggestion which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false... even your own link addresses this.

 

 

Please note that when I said:

You know, I've quite countered your point already above with an abundance of resources...

... that was also reminding you how I've already contributed heavily to this 263 post thread.

 

You are now here regurigating the same tired arguments which have already been defeated, and doing so without offering something new which might change the outcome. I ask that you at least show members of this forum enough respect to review the thread under discussion in it's entirety before commenting.

 

You are, by no means, just a noob, so I am not as forgiving with you on this as I might otherwise be... Life's not fair, eh? :shrug:

 

 

"Hi Guys, I haven't really read much of this thread, but HERE's what I think! The sun did it!" :eek_big:

[InfiniteNow]

These are indeed good references. Clearly biased, but worth the read.

 

Please do, sir, show us all where their conclusions are false as a result of your accused bias. Is this like your contention that the IPCC's data is false because they are "political?" Surely, as you've been involved in research yourself, you know that such an accusation does zero to change the data or it's accuracy and applicability. :eek_big:

[freeztar]

That the LENGTH of solar cycles is correlated with temperature is pretty neat.

I remember when that came out in Science v.254, Nov.1, 1991, p.698f. I wish there was more current data.

hmmmm....

Maybe solar activity affects the soil microbes and depresses CO2 uptake. :eek_big:

 

 

 

Just a quick note:

I happened to choose the above link you provided, and to quote from it:

 

"Such models were applied by Kelly and Wigley (1992) and Schlesinger and Ramankutty (1992) using the solar cycle length as a proxy for total solar irradiance. They both found that variations in solar irradiance have been contributing to the observed global temperature change since 1860 but their calculations also indicated that since the nineteenth century, greenhouse gases have been the dominant contributor."

 

...btw, last I heard....

I think the IPCC attributes about 15-20% of "global warming" to solar activity. :shrug:

:)

 

Good post Essay. I especially liked the idea of soil microbes controlling uptake. :)

 

As far as solar goes, as I said before, it is the main driver of climate (afterall, without the sun, nothing else matters). Nonetheless, this variable is well accounted for. Essay's quote above exemplifies this point.

[Biochemist]

...You are now here regurigating the same tired arguments which have already been defeated....

Well, given my obvious ignorance on this topic, why don't you indulge me and confirm (based on the CO2 forcing "model" that you graphed earlier in posts 247 and 259) what fraction of the reported data in the current plateau period (about 1998 to present) was predicted by the forcing model on which you hang your proverbial hat?

[Biochemist]

Surely, as you've been involved in research yourself, you know that such an accusation does zero to change the data or it's accuracy and applicability.

No, but it certainly changes which data is reviewed and summarized. Were you actually suggesting that the IPCC report was not political in nature? After several reputable scientists removed their names form the report given the text of the "summary"?

[InfiniteNow]

why don't you indulge me and confirm (based on the CO2 forcing "model" that you graphed earlier in posts 247 and 259) what fraction of the reported data in the current plateau period (about 1998 to present) was predicted by the forcing model

 

Look again. I've shared many models in this thread, but if I interpret your statement correctly, then you are referring to the most recent data I've shared (posts 247 and 259). As anyone can see, those data show observations, not predictions. Your request to me does not seem relevant to the discussion in which we are engaged.

 

 

It's as if you've asked me, based on my reading of yesterday's stock ticker, to show where the ticker predicted today's market. It was never intended as a predictive tool, only to show to actual forcing attributions, and hence your request is not relevant.

 

Please enlighten me if I've misread your request for me to "confirm what fraction of the data was predicted."

[InfiniteNow]

No, but it certainly changes which data is reviewed and summarized. Were you actually suggesting that the IPCC report was not political in nature? After several reputable scientists removed their names form the report given the text of the "summary"?

 

Stop wasting our time. The IPCC report was a meta-summary. Which data do you challenge specifically? If you won't be specific, I won't be responding.

 

You are also verging on the logical fallacy of strawman, where you misrepresent my position and then attack that misrepresentation instead of my true position, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to your lack of experience with the subject matter at hand.

[Biochemist]

...I've shared many models in this thread, but if I interpret your statement correctly, then you are referring to the most recent data I've shared (posts 247 and 259). As anyone can see, those data show observations, not predictions. ...

Well, than as I said previously, I really must be extraordinarily stupid (since anyone can see the graphs, as in post 259, are observations).

 

I really thought that the label on the right-hand y-axis is "modeled forcing", which (again, given my ignorance) I construed to mean a "model" of "forcing", as opposed to, say, absolute levels of CO2, or a change in CO2 (which I would think of an an "observation". So, my question (again, based on my unmatchable ignorance) is how does the "model" explain the "observed" data for the temperature plateau period 1998 through 2008?

[InfiniteNow]

Relevance?

[CraigD]

Were you [infiniteNow] actually suggesting that the IPCC report was not political in nature? After several reputable scientists removed their names form the report given the text of the "summary"?

As you’re making a claim – and an interesting one, of which a reader such as myself would very much like to know more – you need to back it up with links or references. This is not merely an observation and suggestion, but a site rule.