Climate Change, Part III

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

...To disprove this conclusion, you need only do two things, which I don't think any AGW fool can ( or will) do. First, disprove that CO2 from human sources is a problem. I'm happen to agree with you, but if you don't have that, you've got bupkus, so I doubt you'll make that argument. Or, you can disprove current thinking on solar sunspot cycles, which would be tough since there is well established science behind those cycles. If you can't, or won't take up this challenge, then do pipe down. Nobody is listening anyway, so why bother?

Challenge accepted by an AGW Fool:
(I see we're still fond of ad hominem attacks )

Study offers clues on 20th century global warming wobbles

27 August 2013

The amount of solar radiation passing through Earth’s atmosphere and reaching the ground globally peaked in the 1930s, substantially decreased from the 1940s to the 1970s, and changed little after that, a new study has found.

The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that “neither the rapid increase in temperature from the 1970s through the 1990s nor the slowdown of warming in the early 21st century appear to be significantly related to changes of Rs (solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface)”.

The new finding may help explain variations in warming during the 20th century. The authors showed that, while aerosols and clouds did play some role in temperature variations, they did not have a major effect on global mean land temperatures after 1985.

The authors, Kaicun Wang from Beijing Normal University and Robert E. Dickinson from the University of Texas at Austin, compiled a global data set of daily temperatures from the 1900s and through to 2010.

They analysed the relationship between the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth and diurnal temperature range (the daily temperature variations that occur as day turns into night).

The authors of the study said that “the overall increase of global temperature over the last century has been largely attributable to the increase of greenhouse gases. Less well understood are the reasons for the variability of this increase on a decadal time scale… However, global temperatures do not appear to be significantly affected by changing Rs (solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface).”

Wobbles in warming

Steve Sherwood, Director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, said the new paper was not really about whether the sun drives climate change.

“We already know from direct observations of the power coming from the sun that it has contributed nothing to global warming since 1979, though it probably made a small contribution to warming early in the 20th century,” said Professor Sherwood, who was not involved in the study.

“What this paper is really about is trying to explain the wobbles along the way in warming during the 20th century, and in particular the hiatus from about 1940 to 1970 in global warming, which was followed by strong warming thereafter. There has been a long debate as to whether such wobbles have been due to natural variations in ocean heat uptake, or to variations in aerosols (or clouds),” he said.

“This paper shows that aerosols and clouds did play some role but have never altered the global-mean land temperature by more than 0.1 to 0.2 degrees, while its overall warming has been over 1 degree.”

John Cook, Climate Communication Research Fellow at the University of Queensland, said there was growing evidence that solar activity has made little to no contribution to global warming over recent decades.

“In fact, several recent studies have found the sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions, with the sun having a slight cooling effect,” said Cook, who was not involved in the new study.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

You're quite right David, the posts can be tediously long.

The simple answer to why AGW fans are all wet is because CO2 has been increasing, while temperatures have remained stable. We should have cooled off because of less solar irradiance, but we haven't. If CO2 increases temperatures, then it must be increased CO2 that is keeping us from cooling. And more CO2 is going to be needed if we want to avoid another little ice age when we move into sunspot cycle 25, which is predicted to have almost no sunspot activity, resulting in a much cooler earth.

That's as brief as I can make it, and if anyone want's to disprove this conclusion, they must either show that CO2 is irrelevant to warming, or that low sunspot activity doesn't cool the earth.

Briefly? Okay; you're wrong. See post 61.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Delfin

No, I am all in favor of generating energy in as clean a fashion as possible. I am against massive public investments in solar that fail because the product produced makes no economic sense.

It appears you may be contradicting yourself. On the one hand you favour clean energy technologies. On the other you believe they're a waste of money.

As a matter of public policy formulation, the objectives are to encourage research and development to improve upon existing technologies and develop new technologies. Takes money. Ultimately however, the objective is to replace dirty petroleum based energy technologies with existing and new clean technologies powered by renewable resources.

This is happening in Germany and the Netherlands as revealed in the link at the bottom of my last post. No reason it can't work in other countries too - provided there is the political courage to develop necessary public policies. No such thing as a free lunch, so the transition costs lots of money. Talk about choice, I'd rather tax money is spent doing this than on cruise missles and bullets

Originally Posted by Delfin

I am also against building wind farms that require that you build 80% of the carbon based generation you would have had without the wind farm to provide energy during the time when the wind isn't blowing hard enough. There are mornings when those massively expensive and maintenance intensive wind farms in California are complete motionless.

The objective is to balance out variations in production by relying on wind, solar, hydroelectric, tide and more - including electricity stored in batteries charged from these same resources. When the wind is calm, solar radiation or other renewable resources (and or batteries) are relied upon to fill the deficit.

Originally Posted by Delfin

You think the people hooked up to the electrical grid don't use electricity during those time periods? If they do use it, where do you suppose that energy comes from? Wind is a complete waste of money, except on sailboats.

Not so, because the wind generators take up the slack when the sun is obscured. Or, when the wind blows the energy produced in the form of electricity can also be used to charge batteries. You are ignoring the fact that the wind, when the generators are turning is 'free'.

Originally Posted by Delfin

Hydrogen? All for it, and it has a great future. Tidal, yeah, maybe, but not much juice can be produced from tidal. Small pebble bed reactors? Now there's the ticket, if you can get left wing loonies to stand down.

Harsh language that reveals more about your biases than comprising useful discourse.

Originally Posted by Delfin

No one likes coal, although there are technologies that have made it far cleaner than ever before and those make sense because they actually do something to help clean the air.

Actually, do they do anything to clean the air? Or, do the modifications simply reduce emissions? And, by how much?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Could you show one example where I have posted incorrect information? Try to be specific, if you can.

If you are still working the CO2 contribution question, I understand that there are AGW fans who will argue that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is solely the result of human activities. But that ignores the fact that if warming exists, the oceans warm, vegetation rots faster and the whole biosphere exhales more CO2, so I don't think that theory holds much water, although it is absolutely key to the calls to reduce carbon emissions by the AGW crowd. Or are you saying that if the oceans warm, they won't emit more CO2? Want to give that a try?

And again, please define what 'climate change' is, if it isn't global warming.

Yes, all your talk about Sunspots is mostly, but not totally, wrong. The sun spot cycle is not a major contributor to our current Global Warming. There's plenty more research than just the single study I posted in #61. You have somehow latched on to wrong data, and therefore your conclusions are wrong.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Teknav

Ok guys...give it a rest and forget about climate change. Any mods around here to deep-six this thread? Whoever does it, I'll send you a home made gallon of coconut ice cream WITHOUT any husks! Kill this damn thread! Grazie!

Mauritz
Ashes to ashes...

Cmon now. Calm down. I understand there's a good exchange going on over in 'Cruising On The Cheap'. Maybe you'll be happier mosying over there.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Briefly? Okay; you're wrong. See post 61.

There ya go calling someone out for being wrong. What part of 'nobody is Wrong but me' don't you understand?

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Yes, all your talk about Sunspots is mostly, but not totally, wrong. The sun spot cycle is not a major contributor to our current Global Warming. There's plenty more research than just the single study I posted in #61. You have somehow latched on to wrong data, and therefore your conclusions are wrong.

Thrice! Count them, thrice you've called someone else Wrong. Please cease and desist before I summon a, uh, well, oh never mind.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Challenge accepted by an AGW Fool:
(I see we're still fond of ad hominem attacks )

Study offers clues on 20th century global warming wobbles

27 August 2013

The amount of solar radiation passing through Earth’s atmosphere and reaching the ground globally peaked in the 1930s, substantially decreased from the 1940s to the 1970s, and changed little after that, a new study has found.

The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that “neither the rapid increase in temperature from the 1970s through the 1990s nor the slowdown of warming in the early 21st century appear to be significantly related to changes of Rs (solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface)”.

Can you find the "rapid increase in temperature from the 1970s through the 1990s" referred to above in this July, 2013 summary of data from NOAA satellites, posted below? As noted, these NOAA satellites provide an accurate measurement of low atmosphere temperatures, having replaced other satellites that were shown to overestimate temps. The result? A .17 degree C increase since 1980. That is 1/6th of one degree during a period of time when the CO2 levels increased in the atmosphere by quite a lot. This is why the global warming balloon is deflating - there is just too much data that it is all so much, well, hot air. Or, would you recommend ignoring this data because it doesn't fit your paradigm? Or perhaps NOAA is in the pay of the oil industry, or perhaps the climatologist posting the data is their pay. Alternately, the obvious may in fact be correct. The earth doesn't appear to have warmed at all since 1980. Can you explain this data with any other interpretation that is scientifically credible?

Regarding the assertion that solar activity has no impact on terrestrial temperatures, well, you seem to be a denier of solar science, since there is a consensus among solar scientists (not climate scientists) that the sun's cycles are firmly linked to earth climate. The data demonstrating this link goes back hundreds of years, and is hardly in dispute. The Maunder Minimum would be exhibit A in making the point.

Sun dial-down: Looming weak solar max may herald frosty times ? RT News
Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predicts

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Wrong

It appears you may be contradicting yourself. On the one hand you favour clean energy technologies. On the other you believe they're a waste of money.

No contradiction. I am in favor of clean technologies that are cost efficient. Carbon reduction schemes are anything but.

Originally Posted by Wrong

As a matter of public policy formulation, the objectives are to encourage research and development to improve upon existing technologies and develop new technologies. Takes money. Ultimately however, the objective is to replace dirty petroleum based energy technologies with existing and new clean technologies powered by renewable resources.

There is enough oil and gas in the ground to power the world for the next 300 years, minimum. Natural gas is about as clean as it gets, and clean burning gasoline engines are now the norm. We don't need to piss away billions on 'clean' technologies that are far more costly than equally clean existing energy sources. If the market wants them, the market will develop them. Fracking was developed because the price of oil went high enough to warrant the investment, even though the current administration has tried to fight it off. The U.S. will produce more oil than Saudi Arabia in a few years as a result.

Originally Posted by Wrong

This is happening in Germany and the Netherlands as revealed in the link at the bottom of my last post. No reason it can't work in other countries too - provided there is the political courage to develop necessary public policies. No such thing as a free lunch, so the transition costs lots of money. Talk about choice, I'd rather tax money is spent doing this than on cruise missles and bullets

Or medical research apparently. Spain went down the road of green energy generation with the promise of jobs. The result - one of the highest unemployment rates in the EU.

Originally Posted by Wrong

Not so, because the wind generators take up the slack when the sun is obscured. Or, when the wind blows the energy produced in the form of electricity can also be used to charge batteries. You are ignoring the fact that the wind, when the generators are turning is 'free'.

You mean like at night when the wind isn't blowing? Free? That is like saying that Obamacare is 'free'. Nothing is free because you have to build and maintain the stupid things.

Originally Posted by Wrong

Harsh language that reveals more about your biases than comprising useful discourse.

You mean left wing loonies aren't responsible for fighting every nuclear initiative proposed, no matter how safe or sound, like small pebble bed reactors? News to me...

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Yes, all your talk about Sunspots is mostly, but not totally, wrong. The sun spot cycle is not a major contributor to our current Global Warming. There's plenty more research than just the single study I posted in #61. You have somehow latched on to wrong data, and therefore your conclusions are wrong.

Since the earth hasn't warmed for 30 years, based on the NOAA satellite data, I guess we needn't worry about it then, correct?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Also, you apparently don't know that science isn't a club, or a series of clubs. Science is a process - a methodology for advancing knowledge. When you attack the field of climate science, you're attacking the practitioners... 95% of them it seems, with nothing to back it, beyond some googling. Who died and made you worthy of judging an entire field?

Just a guess, but you don't have anything to do with any scientific endeavor, do you....

Scientific theories are attacked, and scientists defend them. Good scientists welcome that process, while no nothing cheerleaders of a particular point of view equate non acceptance of an interpretation of data to be the equivalent of a war crime.

When scientific theories make predictions, and those predictions fail, they are thrown out. Not so with climate 'science', which is a political movement, not a scientific one. So, to put the conversation on the level of science, please address the data from the NOAA satellites above and explain why we should reject measurements like these that indicate that all those climate scientists you feel so protective of should continue to be taken seriously if they continue to insist, contrary to the data, that the earth is a) warming, and b) it's all mankind's fault.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Delfin

No contradiction. I am in favor of clean technologies that are cost efficient. Carbon reduction schemes are anything but.

There is enough oil and gas in the ground to power the world for the next 300 years, minimum. Natural gas is about as clean as it gets, and clean burning gasoline engines are now the norm. We don't need to piss away billions on 'clean' technologies that are far more costly than equally clean existing energy sources. If the market wants them, the market will develop them. Fracking was developed because the price of oil went high enough to warrant the investment, even though the current administration has tried to fight it off. The U.S. will produce more oil than Saudi Arabia in a few years as a result.

Or medical research apparently. Spain went down the road of green energy generation with the promise of jobs. The result - one of the highest unemployment rates in the EU.


You mean like at night when the wind isn't blowing? Free? That is like saying that Obamacare is 'free'. Nothing is free because you have to build and maintain the stupid things.



You mean left wing loonies aren't responsible for fighting every nuclear initiative proposed, no matter how safe or sound, like small pebble bed reactors? News to me...

Well. Anyone with anything to add? No room for discussion here. Keep moving, nothing to see. Anything you venture to say that does not conform to the content above must be incorrect.

[Lake-Effect]

[QUOTE=Delfin;1329379Scientific theories are attacked, and scientists defend them. Good scientists welcome that process, while no nothing cheerleaders of a particular point of view equate non acceptance of an interpretation of data to be the equivalent of a war crime..[/QUOTE]

I'm not a scientist. You aren't either. A science-free dismissal of the best in the field is willful ignorance. Not a war crime, but lousy for our future.

When scientific theories make predictions, and those predictions fail, they are thrown out. Not so with climate 'science', which is a political movement, not a scientific one. So, to put the conversation on the level of science, please address the data from the NOAA satellites above and explain why we should reject measurements like these that indicate that all those climate scientists you feel so protective of should continue to be taken seriously if they continue to insist, contrary to the data, that the earth is a) warming, and b) it's all mankind's fault.

Sure - climate scientists are bigger fakers than the oil lobby. Got it.

And of course, to make your point, it's perfectly acceptable to oversimplify, misinterpret, and lie. (unless you can actually link to someone saying that global warming is all mankind's fault.)

Do carry on.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm not a scientist. You aren't either. A science-free dismissal of the best in the field is willful ignorance. Not a war crime, but lousy for our future.

Probably best for you to speak for yourself...

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sure - climate scientists are bigger fakers than the oil lobby. Got it.

I don't think I said they were fakers. There are climate scientists I agree with working at major universities, publishing in climate journals, and others I disagree with. That's the nature of science. So again, just sticking to science, what do you make of the NOAA satellite data? You see, contrary data has to be accounted for. I can account for land based temperature measurements showing warming because they are point sources of data subject to error. If the sensor is near a parking lot (happens quite a bit), then the temps are warmer than actual. However, satellite measurements like these are quite immune to such local anomalies. My guess is that is why you would ignore them - they represent actual real data that conflicts with your preferred point of view. I was perfectly prepared to accept that the earth is warming, reserving skepticism for its causes for the reasons stated. But I have trouble accepting now that proposition based on this data. Explain how that's an unreasonable position...

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

And of course, to make your point, it's perfectly acceptable to oversimplify, misinterpret, and lie. (unless you can actually link to someone saying that global warming is all mankind's fault.)

Happy to have you reference where I have oversimplified, misinterpreted or lied. That would give me a chance to correct the record. But I'm going out on a limb and presuming you won't take me up on my offer. Fact based analysis doesn't seem to much appeal to you....

So please, carry on.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Can you find the "rapid increase in temperature from the 1970s through the 1990s" referred to above in this July, 2013 summary of data from NOAA satellites, posted below? As noted, these NOAA satellites provide an accurate measurement of low atmosphere temperatures, having replaced other satellites that were shown to overestimate temps. The result? A .17 degree C increase since 1980. That is 1/6th of one degree during a period of time when the CO2 levels increased in the atmosphere by quite a lot. This is why the global warming balloon is deflating - there is just too much data that it is all so much, well, hot air. Or, would you recommend ignoring this data because it doesn't fit your paradigm? Or perhaps NOAA is in the pay of the oil industry, or perhaps the climatologist posting the data is their pay. Alternately, the obvious may in fact be correct. The earth doesn't appear to have warmed at all since 1980. Can you explain this data with any other interpretation that is scientifically credible?

Regarding the assertion that solar activity has no impact on terrestrial temperatures, well, you seem to be a denier of solar science, since there is a consensus among solar scientists (not climate scientists) that the sun's cycles are firmly linked to earth climate. The data demonstrating this link goes back hundreds of years, and is hardly in dispute. The Maunder Minimum would be exhibit A in making the point.

Sun dial-down: Looming weak solar max may herald frosty times ? RT News
Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predicts

You've made a number of points. It's difficult to answer them all in a single post, so I will initially stick with the solar activity issue. As I have time I may come back to your other erroneous conclusions.

First I want to point out a small piece of trivia that may or may not be relevant to the discussion. On the web page that you referenced in your attachment it gave a brief introduction to the author. It said "Roy Spencer, PhD, climatologist (not solar scientist, which you seem to think is an important distinction), author, and former NASA scientist." Now isn't it curious that he considers himself a FORMER NASA scientist. Maybe it mean nothing. Maybe it means something.

Second, I want to re-post the text part of your attachment:

Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures

Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere. Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets (see here and here)that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of fourteen instruments flying on different satellites over the years.



As of June 2013, the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite has been removed from the processing due to spurious warming and replaced by the average of the NOAA-15, NOAA-18, NOAA-19, and Metop-A AMSUs. The graph above represents the latest update; updates are usually made within the first week of every month. Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch.

The important part to notice is that these satellites are measuring tropospheric temperatures, not surface temperatures. Why is that important to global warming? Because, ultimately, it is surface temperatures that matter most, not tropospheric temperatures. So your assertion that the tropospheric temperatures follow the sun spot patterns may or may not be relevant to whether surface temperatures also follow sun spot activity.

Next I will post an article which gives a little history of the interpretation of those tropospheric satellite readings. Note that Roy Spencer and co-author John Christy are specifically mentioned.

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992). One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995).


Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.


To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.






The MSU satellite data is collected from a number of satellites orbiting & providing daily coverage of some 80% of the Earth's surface. Each day the orbits shift and 100% coverage is achieved every 3-4 days. The microwave sensors on the satellites do not directly measure temperature, but rather radiation given off by oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. The intensity of this radiation is directly proportional to the temperature of the air and is therefore used to estimate global temperatures.


There are also differences between the sensors that were onboard each satellite and merging this data to one continuous record is not easily done. It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).



When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased.


At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record. Furthermore data also shows now that the stratosphere is cooling as predicted by the physics.


All three groups measuring temperatures of the troposphere show a warming trend. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program produced a study in April 2006 on this topic. Lead authors included John Christy of UAH and Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Labs. The first page has this quote:

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

There are still some discrepancies between satellite measured temperatures in the tropics and those measured by radiosondes. Most researchers believe this difference is likely due to instrument errors.
The original discrepancy is an excellent example of how science works and of critical thinking. With many different indicators showing warming, it did not make sense that the troposphere would be cooling. This discrepancy was taken very seriously by the scientific community, and the consistency and accuracy of all relevant data were examined intensely.



Science advances by trial and error. The result is an increased knowledge of how to measure the temperature of the troposphere from space.

As you can see, the bulk of climate scientists now think that tropospheric temperatures match both land temperature readings, subsequent satellite readings, and theories of atmospheric physics.

Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest theory which fits ALL the data is most likely the correct one.

I don't think you are intentionally making a mistake by being an AGW skeptic, but I do think that you have not kept up the latest scientific research.

As a spread trader, you, more than most, ought to know that your first loss is usually your cheapest loss. Right now you are digging yourself in deeper and deeper.