Well, 15% is something, but not commanding.
There’s not “a” relationship so much as many different relationships – radically different impacts on different timescales, cyclical relationships that aren’t relevant to the energy balance equation at all, and everything in between. Let me make a general comment first and then a more specific one about the sun.
Climate science is complicated and that’s why it’s so easy to misrepresent, spin, or misinterpret. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen blogs that basically take the following approach: look, they, say, you’re a fairly intelligent person, let me just show you the facts, you can follow along and clearly see for yourself that I’m right and the mainstream scientific community is just trying to pull a fast one on you. The trouble is, the “facts” in these agenda-peddling blogs invariably turn out to be wrong, or incomplete, or distorted in some fundamentally important way that leads the reader to the wrong conclusion. I do find some of the postings of FX quite humorous (I hope you read this diatribe about water vapor! :D) but in the end I don’t ask that you trust one poster here over another; what I ask is that people should trust reputable scientific sources, like the National Academy of Sciences, the IPCC, and the body of scientific literature on which they draw.
The IPCC chart of radiative forcings may not be persuasive by itself without a detailed explanation, but that can be found in the current AR5 WG1 report which is online and some of which I quoted, not sure if that’s part of the recent links. If one doesn’t like the IPCC, let’s consider a couple of things that our friend FX posted recently – a reference to a recent National Research Council report from the National Academy of Sciences which is actually a collection of reports from a workshop on solar variability, and some papers discussing UV variability. All of them were posted to try to support the idea that solar variability is supposedly a hugely important thing to consider in the context of contemporary climate change. These variations do affect climate, but to imply that they significantly change the energy balance or are otherwise a significant factor in post-industrial global warming is just plain wrong. That’s where the disconnect between claim and reality comes in. Let’s look at what the NRC report actually says (this is The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate: A Workshop Report from 2012):
This is similar to the IPCC statements that I quoted previously and may or may not be part of the bunch of stuff I linked for you upthread. It confirms everything I’ve been saying throughout these discussions, which can be summed up more or less like this: the 11-year solar cycles have an impact on climate due to a cyclical solar variance of up to 0.1%, but cyclical effects have a zero net effect on the energy balance. The net effect of longer-term solar variations isn’t significant on decadal timescales. The UV variations which FX made such a big deal about in another thread is even less significant. I talked a bit about them here. IOW, solar variations do have various effects on climate on various timescales, and they do have cyclical and regional effects on short timescales, but overall they are not a relevant factor in the radiative imbalance driving post-industrial global warming. This was the basis of the very tiny role of solar variations in the IPCC radiative forcing chart. Those are the facts, but you can see how easy it is to spin them into something they’re not.
The astute observer might wonder then, why you are so intent on discussing “it”.
Of course multiple times now I have clearly stated, including in the OP, that 2002 was only used to avoid anyone bringing up the GISS data to “debunk” the cooling trend. But since even GISS, which ALWAYS over states warming, shows a cooling trend since 2002, I picked 2002 as the date.
In the real world, where we use satellites and ARGO floats and measure most of the arctic and antarctic regions, the cooling trend starts in 1997.
That’s hard evidence of 17 years of no warming, or to be honest, of cooling.
Which causes true warmists to start frothing at the mouth and jumping up and down. Nobody wants to see that.
But, and this is a critical point, and it is in the OP as well, this does not actually mean climate change “stopped”, or that on a global level, warming stopped.
What the fuck? How can that be?
Again, I explained this clearly in the OP. And based on the data, I stand by my statement that warming has not stopped.
Only if you use a global mean to talk about climate change can you say “the world has cooled” since 97, or 98, or 2000, or 2002.
But the global mean isn’t the whole story at all.
Just for good measure, the SH ocean shows the same thing as the satellite readings do.
Cooling since 1997
So how can it still be warming?
Forget the mythical “heat somehow is now going down in the water”, a scientific impossibility. Warm water rises, even when it gets buried by wind, it shows back up. The laws of physics have not changed.
here is an example of what we know is happening. That is summertime anomalies. They are still going up.
What isn’t going up, is the NH winters. Even the global mean shows this. The the NH winter shows up on the global means. It’s become so damn cold, it actually, with no doubt at all, brings the entire global mean down.
Look at the graph.
The 1995 January anomaly was 0.178, and yet the 2008 anomaly was -0.113
2011 was 0.08
2012 was -0.064
2000 was -0.055
Now look at the NH land temps.
The goddamn winter of 2011 is 0.192, 2008 is 0.188
1975 was 0.397
1981 was 0.962
Hell, 1921 was 0.788
While 1926 was 0.684
You can’t actually say the January NH land mean is warmer now, if it’s cooler than it was a hundred years ago.
So the entire thing is unexpected and interesting. unless you are in denial still screaming how nothing has changed, global warming is still going strong.
But please.
17 years.
How many will it take to mean anything to the hysterical?
They won’t say.
Most people will simply not see this, but on this data graph, you can see that global mean temperatures “now”, are almost exactly the same as in 1990-1992
How is that possible?
Once again, it’s the much colder winters in the NH.
Now stay tuned for a complete meltdown.
You know, I think I figured out the huge misunderstanding. I’m not pointing out that the sun was/is the only source of warming of the global mean.
What I’m trying to get you to realize, **is that the lack of UV **is the source of the cooling. Not the warming.
That is what the data actually shows. When the sun decreases the UV, it effects the ozone and other factors on earth. And that causes cooling. Of a certain kind.
That’s what you are missing.
And it is clear that this is what you miss, when reading the reports carefully it was clear that there are doubts that the UV effects are constant, but besides that the research and NASA made the point that one result is that if UV is an important factor then we are underestimating the warming caused by humans. That is because once the effect reduces, as cycles do, the human factor is still in the background, and increasing.
While the solar sidetrack might be a bit off topic, it seems to me that anyone still banging the drum of “the sun hardly has any influence over mankinds CO2”, has been taken in by this insidious movement by certain parties to try and overturn all solar science.
see also
Bard, E. and Frank, M. 2006. Climate change and solar variability: What’s new under the sun? Earth and Planetary Science Letters 248: 1-14.
Goode, P.R. and Palle, E. 2007. Shortwave forcing of the earth’s climate: Modern and historical variations in the sun’s irradiance and the earth’s reflectance. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 69: 1556-1568.
Polissar, P.J., Abbott, M.B., Wolfe, A.P., Bezada, M., Rull, V. and Bradley, R.S. 2006. Solar modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103: 8937-8942.
Then why do you keep insisting it’s as simple a CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations? Every time anyone brings up any of the twenty or so other known components to climate change, you act like it an attack on your understanding. It’s not, wolfpup, we’re exploring the various sciences involved. It’s been pointed out that ARGO only has 3500 bouys to monitor Sea Surface Temps. This isn’t much data to base sweeping conclusions on. We only have six or seven satellites in orbit measure solar output. That’s even less data to make sweeping conclusions.
I’m not trying to spin anything, I just want to know what percentage each of the climate change components contribute to the whole. We have the unpredictable solar output contributing 15%, what about orbital geometry or all the many biological contributions? Now if this plateau in average global temperatures is caused by the energy sinking into the oceans, whoa, the oceans can sink a considerable amount of energy. We may be plateau’ed for centuries if not millennia.
I’m still left with the basic question: Once solar energy is absorbed by the oceans, how much is radiated back out, how much is convected and how much remains in the oceans?
What you continue to miss is that it is by taking into account the past and current solar activity that allows the scientists to report that the sun is not the driver of the current warming. Once again, it is clear that your efforts are to declare that there is a movement of scientists to conspire to bang an imaginary drum; nonsense, they report what the evidence is telling us.
That’s a mischaracterization. An orbiting satellite is incredibly useful because, with solar-synchronous orbits combined with polar orbits, you can cover the entire globe with roughly five satellites.
Of course, we can’t get instant data on every portion of the planet at once, but that would require a huge number of geosynchronous orbit satellites.
Seven dedicated to weather and temperature should be enough to cover the globe and it’s not a small data set. Remember, satellites don’t just look at whats directly beneath them, they have roughly 90 degrees of visibility of the earth, which is a pretty large swath of land, depending on orbit distance.
Ironically, past climate change is evidence for strong climate sensitivity and net positive feedback. Climate response to CO2 forcing is not subtracted magically from that, eventually the natural cycles will return to a more positive state and the human factor will still be there and increasing. Past climate change is used by scientists to be more confident now than they were in the 70’s to declare that more warming is coming after this “pause” on the surface temperatures.
You’ve misunderstood, I’m speaking to the satellites pointed toward the sun measuring solar output, not Earth’s output. Interplanetary space is an extremely caustic environment, what with full UV exposure and protons slamming into the satellites, these highly sensitive spectrometers just don’t last but a few month or maybe a year or two. It’s a total bitch keeping them calibrated.
Of course, the well known problem with satellite observations is that they only give a two-dimensional image of what is a three-dimensional object. There are limits to what can be learned about what’s happening on the sun say 1,000 miles below the photosphere. Earth observing satellites can’t distinguish the altitude of the various features they record. We still need a guy on the ground launching a weather balloon with an instrument package so determine the the true structure of the atmosphere every six hours.
Yes, GIGO, and it doesn’t hurt to look at these natural processes. I’d like to know what you mean by “net positive feedback”, because that should lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, something you’ve dismissed previously.
Another thing I’ve seen posted here is the stipulation of “a doubling of CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere”. Do you mean in absolute terms, like going from 400 ppm to 800 ppm? That’s would mean a quadrupling of man’s contributions. OR do you mean a doubling of man’s contribution, given a final reading of 500 ppm? This is based on having 300 ppm of natural CO[sub]2[/sub] at the 100,000 year peak level (which we’re in right now). (± 50 ppm)
Of course then we arrive to another misunderstanding, most scientists are not alarmists, a runaways is not likely.
No. That isn’t correct.
What pause?
:rolleyes:
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” “Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming” and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 “will not dramatically increase the global temperature.” “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don’t add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.
Much more here
Pray tell … which “positive feedback we learned in high school”. Yeah, I remember setting fire the school’s amplifiers with an electric guitar (got suspended three days for that prank). I didn’t see anything getting smaller and smaller.
But … yeah … misunderstanding … that’s why I’m asking. What do you understand as “net positive feedback”?
It seems that you do know what quote marks are used for, they are used also for sarcasm and irony.
I “didn’t” know that.
Yes, that was the way it was supposed to be, the point stands though, you don’t know what quote marks are used for. So, there was really no pause and the world has not been cooling since 2002.
You are “correct”.