The Solar Impact on Climate

Lord of Planar said:

There is even less cause to believe the TCS like claimed is possible.

Click to expand...

That should have read:

There is even less cause to believe the ECS like claimed is possible.

ECS, not TCS.

Lord of Planar said:

CO2 matters. There just isn't proper evidence to say it has as large of an TCS as claimed. There is even less cause to believe the TCS like claimed is possible. At best, way down in the low end of the modelling.

Click to expand...

That is the reason it seems so odd that people would want to hurry into yet untested and/or inefficient technologies and out of travel and favorite foods like meat. I'd prefer we spend the political capital on other global public goods with a higher benefit.

Lord of Planar said:

That should have read:

There is even less cause to believe the ECS like claimed is possible.

ECS, not TCS.

Click to expand...

Some of us will live long enough to get a better idea of the way things develop. That should give our slice of time an extra kick.

Mithrae said:

Wow. Just wow. And here's the sentence immediately before that one (emphasis added this time), again explicitly and unequivocally asserting a solar influence on climate.



It seems there is no depth so low that you won't sink to it in the interests of your blatant dishonesty. Granted you have in the past asserted malicious and obvious falsehoods about folk you disagree with from beyond the forum (eg. that the EPA "told Alaskans to freeze"), but bringing it home like this is a new low. I still simply can't fathom why you thought it would be a good idea

Click to expand...

As you wish. I thought I was being fair. You obviously do not. Therefore I apologize and withdraw my statement.

Lord of Planar said:

CO2 matters. There just isn't proper evidence to say it has as large of an TCS as claimed. There is even less cause to believe the TCS like claimed is possible. At best, way down in the low end of the modelling.

Click to expand...

Yep, such a hard concept for the religious to get.

Yes, an issue. Not a big issue.

Jack Hays said:

As you wish. I thought I was being fair. You obviously do not. Therefore I apologize and withdraw my statement.

Click to expand...

Hmm.

If I had the time and inclination, I could go through the various cut and paste vomitus you've posted over the years that has told us that:

-The sun is causing all the current warming
-the sun is not as active, therefore there isn't any warming and any variability is clearly solar induced
- the sun is in an active period and is responsible for all the warming seen (although there isn't any warming because all the temp readings are 'manipulated')
- etc etc

And this doesn't even count the posts you 'like' from LoP about his bat**** crazy idea that the warming (which is apparently made up because the records are 'manipulated') is caused by the sun peaking in 1958 and we are finally seeing those effects today!

polgara said:

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

:agree: The IPCC seems to have their mind/s/ made up that our exhaling CO2 is the "problem," hence it would force the wealthy "western countries" to pay the UN to help the poorer countries around the world cope with global warming. Since it is not possible for anyone, even the IPCC, to tell the sun what to do, that is downplayed in favor of blaming us for breathing and since it's all our fault, we just have to make amends to pay for our sin of being born with lungs. Former POTUS Obama even warned that our "utility bills would necessarily skyrocket" as a result, so there you have it - we're guilty as H*** for breathing!

It does seem rather unfair, though, that China is not being stopped from building coal-fired plants as we speak, and they have millions more people than we do - all of them breathing the last I heard - so I question the thinking of the UN to tax us since we are already "wealthy" enough have a debt load of $20 trillion dollars! :2mad:

Click to expand...

All true.
What's insidious is that in discussions in the media, CO2 has become synonymous with pollution and dirty air.
CO2 is anything but pollution.
I just saw Chris Wallace keep referring to it that way.

Mithrae said:

So we've had Jack promoting Murray Salby's views "that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible" in his thread CO2 Doesn't Matter, and now Tim the Plumber likening the "fuss" over CO2 to "the fuss about the magic fairies."

Interesting.



Edit: Maybe it's just me, but is it possible that the recent series of three consecutive hottest years in a row (the first, 2014, having negative ENSO conditions) has brought a new urgency and depth of denial to contrarian views? After all, the decade-long 'pause' in surface/troposphere temperature increases - misleading though the contrarian rhetoric about it was - was undeniably the strongest talking point they had.

Click to expand...

what row? when did the row begin? after 2000? or after 1850 or so?
What's the party line on the cause of the pause, anyway? Can't be a CO2 pause cuz that didn't happen. Can't be solar pause because you guys don't think the sun matters much anyway.
So what was it? I bet I know but I want to hear you say it.

Jack Hays said:

As you wish. I thought I was being fair. You obviously do not. Therefore I apologize and withdraw my statement.

Click to expand...

Dammit. I'll give you a 'like' because I do want to be fair. But honestly:
- The position you attributed to me was ridiculous to begin with
- Rather than giving you an onus of proof, I showed you the most recent post I used the term 'solar'
- You persisted in your absurd accusation
- You sought out and directly quoted one of my earlier posts but...
- You did not provide a link, because the immediately preceding sentence clearly and obviously refuted your bull**** accusation

There really is nothing to suggest that you 'thought you were being fair' - if anything, that cherry-picking and failure to provide a link to your 'proof quote' suggests precisely the opposite. But that said we all make mistakes at times, and as I've said twice already I really cannot fathom why else would you do this. So I'll rate it as 'possible' that it was an honest mistake

bubbabgone said:

what row? when did the row begin? after 2000? or after 1850 or so?
What's the party line on the cause of the pause, anyway? Can't be a CO2 pause cuz that didn't happen. Can't be solar pause because you guys don't think the sun matters much anyway.
So what was it? I bet I know but I want to hear you say it.

Click to expand...

The five hottest years in the instrumental surface records (full agreement between NOAA, HadCRUT, GISS etc.) are 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016. So the three consecutive hottest years on record are 2014, 2015 and 2016.

It's pretty much certain that those have been the hottest years in over 800 years. There's a high probability that they have been the hottest in 2000 years or more, but proxy records back through the Medieval Warm Period have uncertainty margins which rule out any certainties there.

There is no "party line" regarding the 'pause,' though it's understandable that you find it difficult to think outside those terms. The ongoing decrease in solar activity has almost always been mentioned as a minor contributing factor; minor because it was decreasing similarly through the 80s and 90s too. Changes in oceanic circulation have been mentioned in years past (eg. Trenberth & Fasullo 2013), and explicitly revived in Jack Hays' recent carefully-worded thread "The Non-linearity of Global Temperature Changes."

If anything, both of Jack's recent threads seem to be attempts to come to terms with the end of the 'pause.'

bubbabgone said:

All true.
What's insidious is that in discussions in the media, CO2 has become synonymous with pollution and dirty air.
CO2 is anything but pollution.
I just saw Chris Wallace keep referring to it that way.

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court referred to it that way, too. Justice Stevens once authored a majority opinion which held that CO2 was a "pollutant" within the meaning of the Clean Air Act. Just imagine all those soft drinks in all those supermarkets and McDonald's, charged and bubbling with that horrible pollutant!

Threegoofs said:

Hmm.

If I had the time and inclination, I could go through the various cut and paste vomitus you've posted over the years that has told us that:

-The sun is causing all the current warming
-the sun is not as active, therefore there isn't any warming and any variability is clearly solar induced
- the sun is in an active period and is responsible for all the warming seen (although there isn't any warming because all the temp readings are 'manipulated')
- etc etc

And this doesn't even count the posts you 'like' from LoP about his bat**** crazy idea that the warming (which is apparently made up because the records are 'manipulated') is caused by the sun peaking in 1958 and we are finally seeing those effects today!

Click to expand...

Sorry, but "shoulda woulda coulda" is your thing, not mine.

Mithrae said:

Dammit. I'll give you a 'like' because I do want to be fair. But honestly:
- The position you attributed to me was ridiculous to begin with
- Rather than giving you an onus of proof, I showed you the most recent post I used the term 'solar'
- You persisted in your absurd accusation
- You sought out and directly quoted one of my earlier posts but...
- You did not provide a link, because the immediately preceding sentence clearly and obviously refuted your bull**** accusation

There really is nothing to suggest that you 'thought you were being fair' - if anything, that cherry-picking and failure to provide a link to your 'proof quote' suggests precisely the opposite. But that said we all make mistakes at times, and as I've said twice already I really cannot fathom why else would you do this. So I'll rate it as 'possible' that it was an honest mistake

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Onward.

bubbabgone said:

All true.
What's insidious is that in discussions in the media, CO2 has become synonymous with pollution and dirty air.
CO2 is anything but pollution.
I just saw Chris Wallace keep referring to it that way.

Click to expand...

Pollution: The presence or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.

CO2 had definitely been shown to be harmful to the environment in the scientific literature (outside of the denier blogs, of course).

Therefore, its not a stretch to call it pollution.

It's a science thing, bubba. You wouldn't understand.

Mithrae said:

The five hottest years in the instrumental surface records (full agreement between NOAA, HadCRUT, GISS etc.) are 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016. So the three consecutive hottest years on record are 2014, 2015 and 2016.

It's pretty much certain that those have been the hottest years in over 800 years. There's a high probability that they have been the hottest in 2000 years or more, but proxy records back through the Medieval Warm Period have uncertainty margins which rule out any uncertainties there.

There is no "party line" regarding the 'pause,' though it's understandable that you find it difficult to think outside those terms. The ongoing decrease in solar activity has almost always been mentioned as a minor contributing factor; minor because it was decreasing similarly through the 80s and 90s too. Changes in oceanic circulation have been mentioned in years past (eg. Trenberth & Fasullo 2013), and explicitly revived in Jack Hays' recent carefully-worded thread "The Non-linearity of Global Temperature Changes."

If anything, both of these recent threads seem to be attempts to come to terms with the end of the 'pause.'

Click to expand...

Why only 800 years? You mean after the MWP which was quite likely warmer than today. (I assume that was a typo in your sentence - ..."uncertainty margins which rule out any uncertainties there")

The point is that you can make the claim about "warmest period on record" depending what/when you define the record to be ... which is what you did by choosing "800 years"... meaning you could also have made the same claim anywhere along the warming trend since the end of the LIA or the start of any other naturally occurring warm period (e.g. Roman), large and small of which there were others, even though we weren't around to measure them ... even better, using the same approach you could also have made the claim that certain cool periods were a cause for ice-age alarm, and wouldn't you know it, that's what they did in the 70's.

But warming is where the action is today and despite the frequent pauses and fluctuations in warming that can last years, the IPCC is committed to CO2 as the main driver so they recognize other influences only to minimize them in their models.

There are many positive warming influences they treat that way and they will apply stronger negative influences when they need them to explain the failure of their models.

Threegoofs said:

Pollution: The presence or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.

CO2 had definitely been shown to be harmful to the environment in the scientific literature (outside of the denier blogs, of course).

Therefore, its not a stretch to call it pollution.

It's a science thing, bubba. You wouldn't understand.

Click to expand...

There you go again repeating some scary jargon you heard ... what are we going to do with you.

Got a list of other pollutants vital to life?

bubbabgone said:

Why only 800 years? You mean after the MWP which was quite likely warmer than today. (I assume that was a typo in your sentence - ..."uncertainty margins which rule out any uncertainties there")

Click to expand...

A typo corrected 33 minutes before you finalized your response, but yes that was the original text. The MWP probably wasn't warmer than today. Even statisticians McShane and Wyner back in 2010 - despite being rather critical of reconstructions such as Mann et al 2008 - suggest that "If we consider rolling decades, 1997-2006 is the warmest on record; our model gives an 80% chance that it was the warmest in the past thousand years."

Note that the possibility of one or two hotter years somehow escaping the proxy reconstructions is higher than the probability of five or ten years doing so. But either way, with the hottest years on record all having occurred since then (and more importantly, a longer stretch of years equivalent or higher than the 97-06 mean), the probability that the last 15-20 years have been the warmest period of that length since the Roman warm period must be well above 80%.*

But it's still not a certainty, or even 'almost certain' in my own personal lexicon.




* Edit: In fact it's within the realms of possibility that we've had the warmest period of a given length since the previous interglacial, over 100,000 years ago, but from what I've gathered proxy reconstructions don't have the resolution necessary to either confirm or disconfirm that yet. More the point, I don't really see the point of such speculation. It's well known that after the Holocene thermal maximum ~9,000 to 5,000 years ago, in the natural course of events we should be headed back towards another interglacial period: Emphasizing how warm it may have been in the past merely emphasizes how dramatically we are interrupting the natural cycle. Not that the natural cycle is necessarily ideal for our needs, but reversing several thousand years of natural cooling in the space of two centuries: Good? Probably not.

Mithrae said:

A typo corrected 33 minutes before you finalized your response, but yes that was the original text. The MWP probably wasn't warmer than today. Even statisticians McShane and Wyner back in 2010 - despite being rather critical of reconstructions such as Mann et al 2008 - suggest that "If we consider rolling decades, 1997-2006 is the warmest on record; our model gives an 80% chance that it was the warmest in the past thousand years."

Note that the possibility of one or two hotter years somehow escaping the proxy reconstructions is higher than the probability of five or ten years doing so. But either way, with the hottest years on record all having occurred since then (and more importantly, a longer stretch of years equivalent or higher than the 97-06 mean), the probability that the last 15-20 years have been the warmest period of that length since the Roman warm period must be well above 80%. It's well within the realms of possibility that they've been the warmest period of that length since the previous interglacial, over 100,000 years ago, but from what I've gathered proxy reconstructions don't have the resolution necessary to either confirm or disconfirm that yet.

But it's still not a certainty, or even 'almost certain' in my own personal lexicon.

Click to expand...

That paper you reference, does it say anything other than for that 10 year rolling average and it's 80% probability chance?

Tim the plumber said:

But it does make the fuss about the magic fairies which pull the plane off the ground go away.

Click to expand...

Goalpost shift, laughable. Good day.

bubbabgone said:

That paper you reference, does it say anything other than for that 10 year rolling average and it's 80% probability chance?

Click to expand...

Yes, as I said it indicates A) a higher probability of a single year escaping the proxy limitations and B) the possibility that the lower average incorporating years before the late 90s may have been historically exceeded. Hence it's the past 15-20 years in particular which have a greater than 80% probability of exceeding medieval temperatures, since they have averaged above the 1996-2006 average.

Not sure why my pdf version screws up the spacing when I copy it, but here's a fuller quote if you're interested:

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
But if there are factors which are bigger than CO2 out there all the fuss goes away.

Click to expand...

Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
No, it doesn't.

Wing design is the biggest factor in aircraft minimum landing speeds but that doesn't make the fuss about weight go away.

Click to expand...

But it does make the fuss about the magic fairies which pull the plane off the ground go away.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

Goalpost shift, laughable. Good day.

Click to expand...

The point is that if factors other than CO2 are important in climate change the temperature increase between 1970 and 1998 are of no significance at all. They are the product of normal variation in climate plus some impact of CO2.

That means that the upper range of the IPCC's predictions are out.

So all the fuss goes away.

You may be wedded to your doom cult but the real world will safely ignore it.

Tim the plumber said:

The point is that if factors other than CO2 are important in climate change the temperature increase between 1970 and 1998 are of no significance at all. They are the product of normal variation in climate plus some impact of CO2.

That means that the upper range of the IPCC's predictions are out.

So all the fuss goes away.

You may be wedded to your doom cult but the real world will safely ignore it.

Click to expand...

Other factors being important doesn't just automatically reject CO2s influence. Math doesn't work that way.

bubbabgone said:

There you go again repeating some scary jargon you heard ... what are we going to do with you.

Got a list of other pollutants vital to life?

Click to expand...

Scary jargon? LOL. It's a 'definition'. Look it up sometime.

List of pollutants vital to life?

Well, sure.

Most trace metals are essential to life- Chromium, Molybdenum, Arsenic, Lithium, Zinc, which are also classified as pollutants. I could probably lost ten more.

Nitric Oxide is a pollutant, yet one that is absolutely essential for life given its critical role in cellular signaling. But I wouldn't want to breathe it.

I can think of lots more, but this is probably enough, if not too much, for you to process.

Emission of anthropogenically created CO2 from fossil fuels is clearly leading to adverse environmental consequences, and therefore classifying it as a pollutant is appropriate, even in context of the wailing by yourself, Polgara and all the other deniers.

Threegoofs said:

Scary jargon? LOL. It's a 'definition'. Look it up sometime.

List of pollutants vital to life?

Well, sure.

Most trace metals are essential to life- Chromium, Molybdenum, Arsenic, Lithium, Zinc, which are also classified as pollutants. I could probably list ten more.

Click to expand...

On a more mundane level, while it's not quite essential to life sound is pretty important to most humans - yet folk regularly call the police to deal with noise pollution complaints late at night.

Maybe Bubba is just a rowdy teenager annoyed with these geriatric impositions on his freedom to crank up the volume, drink a keg and vent some methane? :lol:

Mithrae said:

Yes, as I said it indicates A) a higher probability of a single year escaping the proxy limitations and B) the possibility that the lower average incorporating years before the late 90s may have been historically exceeded. Hence it's the past 15-20 years in particular which have a greater than 80% probability of exceeding medieval temperatures, since they have averaged above the 1996-2006 average.

Not sure why my pdf version screws up the spacing when I copy it, but here's a fuller quote if you're interested:

Another advantage of our method is that it allows us to calculate posterior probabilities of various scenarios of interest by simulation of alternative sample paths. For example, 1998 is generally considered to be the warmestyearonrecordintheNorthernHemisphere.Usingourmodel,we calculatethatthereisa36%posteriorprobabilitythat1998wasthewarmest yearoverthepastthousand.Ifweconsiderrollingdecades,1997-2006isthe warmestonrecord;ourmodelgivesan80%chancethatitwasthewarmest in the past thousand years. Finally, if we look at rolling thirty-year blocks, the posterior probability that the last thirty years (again, the warmest on record) were the warmest over the past thousand is 38%.​

Click to expand...

I'll just point out that the MWP is really just a myth.

The definitive point here is made by the most comprehensive and largest paleoclimate study done to date, Pages 2k, which pretty clearly states:

"There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between AD 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years."



Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia : Nature Geoscience : Nature Research

I recall a thread/cut and paste regurgitation a while ago, claiming warm ocean conditions in the MWP, defined as year 0-1000AD, and some denier (JH? Bubba?) claiming that it shows Mann was lying because he buried the MWP, even though I'm pretty sure Europes MWP was around 1200AD...