Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

General Climate Change Discussion.......

Recommended Posts

Guest North Sea Snow Convection

SC and CB - lol!, I think I have spent a long time rambling day after day trying to say what I did in that short sentence about the foreseeable and the unforseeable. We can't afford to be over entrenched in one aspect of climate research. The percentages are the last part of the jigsaw imo - the even spreading of the eggs is indeed the initial priority. The problems of cart before the horse and running before walking comes to mind - yet again!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're spot on. This is why I think, and have said before (as have many others), that we should spend some time, effort and money on mitigation - certainly insofar as sustainability is concerned - but we should really be thinking more about adaptation, since regardless of the causes we are going to have to adapt!

An even spreading of eggs would certainly be the most sensible way forward :)

CB

I couldn't agree more with that, CB...We can't go on 'addressing' one problem whilst ignoring all the others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've looked at most of those links, but where does it say that all or most of the cooling caused by Solar is lagged by more than 2 years.

They say some of it, so far I have yet to ANY cooling that can be attributed to this solar minimum.

For about the 100th time I am not saying there is NO lag, but I am saying that there is a) no evidence for the lag and :) there is no evidence the the majority of the cooling is lagged.!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've looked at most of those links, but where does it say that all or most of the cooling caused by Solar is lagged by more than 2 years.

They say some of it, so far I have yet to ANY cooling that can be attributed to this solar minimum.

For about the 100th time I am not saying there is NO lag, but I am saying that there is a) no evidence for the lag and :) there is no evidence the the majority of the cooling is lagged.!.

To simplify, most of the links show good correlations with global temperatures and solar activity (of one form or another) if the graphs are offset by particular margins. There is no specific mention of the amount of cooling that is lagged; there is just the fact that there are offsets that make things match up nicely. In fact I'm not sure there even is any such thing as "an amount of cooling" to be attributed - the Sun gives off heat; it does not give off "cool".

I can't help thinking that you are focusing a little too strongly on precise figures rather than upon the phenomenon itself. There is a lag (or there are lags). We should not expect a sudden drop in temperatures any more than we should expect a pan of freshly-boiled water to instantly freeze if it is put in a refridgerator; temperatures will level off and then decline over a period of time - the length of time between solar activity declining and temperatures declining is the lag we're talking about.

CB

EDIT - You may not be explicitly stating that there is no lag, but by claiming time and again (wrongly) that there is no evidence for a lag, and then refusing to acknowledge the possibility of a lag, then you are, in effect, saying there is no lag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That study seems to support a lag of slightly more than 10 years. I will go on and have a butcher's at the others.

I think they determined that the most statistically significant offset was at around the 10-year mark. I have to confess that I didn't read the articles thoroughly - I just skimmed through them. I was just pointing out to Iceberg that a quick Google will return a lot of results suggesting a lag of over 2 years (well over 2 years in most cases), in contradiction of what he stated.

:)

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they determined that the most statistically significant offset was at around the 10-year mark. I have to confess that I didn't read the articles thoroughly - I just skimmed through them. I was just pointing out to Iceberg that a quick Google will return a lot of results suggesting a lag of over 2 years (well over 2 years in most cases), in contradiction of what he stated.

:)

CB

Well, as I said above, as I was a proponent of the idea that oceanic thermal-inertia would cause a time-lag for AGW, I must be equally open to the same idea re: Solar effects...Warming/cooling cannot be instantaneous; it's impossible?? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A portion of the warming will be near instantaneous so will the cooling.

The piece that you've refered to Pete by Solanki is looking at long term trend wrt to solar not the 11 year cycle. I.e the solar minimum of the 1800's and the higher level for the 1900's I was very careful to say that only a major solar minimum will have much effect on global temperatures.

The down trend for temperatures (going from scientific work) start around 2 years after the last solar maximum has been reached i.e 2 or 3 years after solar output has started to go down.

We are now 8 years after the last sunspot maximum but as yet there has still been no attrributable cooling effect, nor any attributable cooling effect on the oceans, ocean currents or any other possible storage or transfer mechanism.!

Interesting last statement in that piece that the warming of the last 30 years is NOT attibutable to the normal solar variance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A portion of the warming will be near instantaneous so will the cooling.

The piece that you've refered to Pete by Solanki is looking at long term trend wrt to solar not the 11 year cycle. I.e the solar minimum of the 1800's and the higher level for the 1900's I was very careful to say that only a major solar minimum will have much effect on global temperatures.

The down trend for temperatures (going from scientific work) start around 2 years after the last solar maximum has been reached i.e 2 or 3 years after solar output has started to go down.

We are now 8 years after the last sunspot maximum but as yet there has still been no attrributable cooling effect, nor any attributable cooling effect on the oceans, ocean currents or any other possible storage or transfer mechanism.!

Interesting last statement in that piece that the warming of the last 30 years is NOT attibutable to the normal solar variance.

Well what do you put 11 years of no warming down to then???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again CB this is talking about a 40 year lag from a Gleissberg minimum, and an upto 10 years lag from a 10 year solar variance. However the upto 10 year lag is only a small proportion of the cooling, with most of it in the first 5 years.

Well what do you put 11 years of no warming down to then???

Well I think I've clearly put this down to ENSO as I've said many times, throw in a the fact that temps have increased over the last 10 years. !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again CB this is talking about a 40 year lag from a Gleissberg minimum, and an upto 10 years lag from a 10 year solar variance. However the upto 10 year lag is only a small proportion of the cooling, with most of it in the first 5 years.

Well I think I've clearly put this down to ENSO as I've said many times, throw in a the fact that temps have increased over the last 10 years. !

I'm sorry, but temps have not increased for 11 years, that's a fact!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good reply, Ice.

That the recent warming cannot be entirely ascribed to Solar effects is, I expect, what we will find. But, believe it or not, I hope I'm proven wrong! The only one shred of hope, as I see it, is that the 'assumed to be upcoming' Solar minimum might give mankind a breathing space??

Straw clutching or what? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but temps have not increased for 11 years, that's a fact!!!!!!

Yes you are quite right if you stretch the 10 year period to 11 to include one of the top 2 warmest years on record as the start of the time period then they haven't yet.

But they have for 10 years, we can keep saying this time and time again but it must get boring for the readers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but temps have not increased for 11 years, that's a fact!!!!!!

Okay, that's true. But they haven't been falling either? Why aren't they? We're 8 years on from the Solar max, it should be having SOME effect by now...

PS: I am not saying a Solar minimum won't happen. No-one knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, that's true. But they haven't been falling either? Why aren't they? We're 8 years on from the Solar max, it should be having SOME effect by now...

No they haven't Pete, but they show no signs of warming in the near future either. Iceberg your right about ENSO, after all that and high solar activity, where responsible for the warming. And no fudged IPCC data, will convince the masses otherwise!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again CB this is talking about a 40 year lag from a Gleissberg minimum, and an upto 10 years lag from a 10 year solar variance. However the upto 10 year lag is only a small proportion of the cooling, with most of it in the first 5 years.

Well I think I've clearly put this down to ENSO as I've said many times, throw in a the fact that temps have increased over the last 10 years. !

The way cooling occurs is not affected by the type of solar cycle involved, in much the same way that man-made CO2 affects the atmosphere exactly the same way that natural CO2 does.

There either is a lag or there isn't. You can't pick and choose which lags you wish to accept and which you don't.

As I said in an earlier reply to Pete, I didn't thoroughly read through each link - that wasn't the point of the exercise. You clearly said, unequivocally, that there is no evidence for lags of over 2 years which, as the many links I posted show, is simply not true.

Sadly I do not have time to read through, and fully digest, those articles right now (off on holiday on Friday!), so I can't write a response any more detailed than that at the moment. When I get back in about a week I hope to discuss this further with you - perhaps we can start a separate thread for it ("Solar Time Lag" or something).

I would like to emphasise that I don't necessarily agree with the articles I linked to (how could I since I haven't fully read through them?!), but I was just pointing out that there is plenty of evidence of time lags in excess of 2 years.

I still feel that you are missing something with regards to how this thermal inertia works - while I am on holiday I shall try to sketch out a full explanation of how I understand it and we can take the discussion from there.

CB

EDIT - Having had another quick skim through the paper, I think you're getting some things confused. I shall elaborate on this after my holiday, but quickly, the initial analysis is comparing temperature with sunspot number, which shows a 25-year lag for the most part, but this relationship breaks down at around 1900 and the apparent lag is reduced to 10 years.

The 30-40 year lag is based upon a comparison not with sunspot numbers but with solar cycle length. This is showing a somewhat different correlation, which is rather interesting.

Anyhoo, that's enough from me for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks CB, it seems to me that while the possibilities of a time lag re the solar minima may not yet have kicked in, the telling statement from the first link you posted seems to be this one.

"Strong temperature increase in the 20th century can not be explained by the sun

“Our study distinguishes between the pre-industrial era (1250-1850) and the period covered by the past 150 years”, emphasises Anja Eichler, scientist at the Paul Scherrer Institute. “While changes in the solar activity were a main driver of temperature variations in the pre-industrial period, the temperatures in the Altai have shown a much higher rate of increase than that of solar activity during the past 150 years. The strong increase in the industrial period, however, correlates with the increase in the concentration of the greenhouse gas CO2 over this time. The results of our regional study indicate that changes in solar activity explain less than half of the increase in temperature in the Altai since 1850. This agrees with global studies, based on reconstructed northern hemispheric temperatures”, says the researcher."

Now while I make no claims for the validity of this statement, it does however demonstrate that natural cycles are being taken on board by those investigating climate change.

As for a time lag if we are to see some results from this, please not 30-40 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks CB, it seems to me that while the possibilities of a time lag re the solar minima may not yet have kicked in, the telling statement from the first link you posted seems to be this one.

"Strong temperature increase in the 20th century can not be explained by the sun

“Our study distinguishes between the pre-industrial era (1250-1850) and the period covered by the past 150 years”, emphasises Anja Eichler, scientist at the Paul Scherrer Institute. “While changes in the solar activity were a main driver of temperature variations in the pre-industrial period, the temperatures in the Altai have shown a much higher rate of increase than that of solar activity during the past 150 years. The strong increase in the industrial period, however, correlates with the increase in the concentration of the greenhouse gas CO2 over this time. The results of our regional study indicate that changes in solar activity explain less than half of the increase in temperature in the Altai since 1850. This agrees with global studies, based on reconstructed northern hemispheric temperatures”, says the researcher."

Now while I make no claims for the validity of this statement, it does however demonstrate that natural cycles are being taken on board by those investigating climate change.

As for a time lag if we are to see some results from this, please not 30-40 years.

(I should be packing for my holiday, but I'm having a coffee break!)

You're quite right, weather eater - most of the links I posted say that most, if not all, of the 20th Century warming can't be explained by solar activity, which is what prompted me to consider the possibility of a long term cumulative solar effect (since solar activity was higher through most of the 20th Century than at any other time in the sunspot record). Village Plank then proposed the Leaky Integrator idea, which is discussed in great detail on the LI thread - well worth checking out if you're interested :D

I agree also that natural cycles are being incorporated into AGW, but my main concern with AGW is the fact that natural cycles are not well understood. In fact, AGW proponents seem happy to declare that we don't understand natural cycles well, but we do understand CO2 to the extent that CO2 must be responsible for warming. Now, maybe it's just me, but that seems like a huge logical leap. Since climate is as much about interactions as it is about individual phenomena, how can we claim that CO2 must be mostly responsible for warming if we don't have a great understanding of the natural phenomena that CO2 must interact with?

Anyway, one would certainly hope that we don't have to wait the best part of half a century to find out who is right!

:)

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly is a difficult one, CB; and one that science's, reliance on Reductionism makes even more difficult IMO?

That said, without reductionist techniques we'd still be in the Dark Ages, when everything that was unknown (or misunderstood by certain individuals) was 'solved' by a witch hunt or the ducking stool. Fear of others' knowledge has always been as pernicious as has ignorance itself.

As a 'follower' of James Lovelock, I agree that it's interactions that are important, and that many remain entirely unknown. But, the overall 'heat-budget' MUST ultimately depend only on what goes in and what goes out; and CO2 can only reduce that which goes out?

On the other hand, the primary driver of climate must be the Sun, as nothing else (interstellar gas-clouds, meteorite impacts and the like excluded) can alter the amount of energy going in (reaching the atmosphere). Thus, Solar effects as such can never provide feedback: the Sun can never respond to conditions emaniting from Earth?

But terrestrial systems can, do and always have responded to variations in the Solar Constant. (Naturally-produced CO2 is a classic example?) Which is what attracts me to the Leaky Integrator model: if we want to talk about feedback we should be turning our attention to the planet Earth.

If it's drivers we want to focus on, by all means look to the Sun... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly is a difficult one, CB; and one that science's, reliance on Reductionism makes even more difficult IMO?

That said, without reductionist techniques we'd still be in the Dark Ages, when everything that was unknown (or misunderstood by certain individuals) was 'solved' by a witch hunt or the ducking stool. Fear of others' knowledge has always been as pernicious as has ignorance itself.

As a 'follower' of James Lovelock, I agree that it's interactions that are important, and that many remain entirely unknown. But, the overall 'heat-budget' MUST ultimately depend only on what goes in and what goes out; and CO2 can only reduce that which goes out?

Agreed, Pete. The heat budget is, in principle, a simple statement of what goes in and what goes out. CO2, in and of itself, can only reduce that which goes out. Two pertinent points, though, are how much does CO2 stop from going out, and how do other, natural, factors counteract the proposed positive feedback from CO2?

For example, does more CO2 lead to warming, which creates more evaporation, which creates more clouds, which block out more incoming solar energy? Does CO2, therefore, ultimately have a net cooling effect on the Earth? I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case, but how do we know it's not the case unless we understand these natural mechanisms well enough to be able to make that claim?

It's all very well to say "we know what CO2 does with an enormous degree of certainty," but what is meant is that "we know what CO2 does, in a lab, when all else is equal." What happens if the natural climate response is to alter, thereby stopping all else from being equal? I concede that the natural climate may alter to the extent that the problem becomes even worse, but the point is that we simply can't make that judgement without a better understanding of natural factors.

On the other hand, the primary driver of climate must be the Sun, as nothing else (interstellar gas-clouds, meteorite impacts and the like excluded) can alter the amount of energy going in (reaching the atmosphere). Thus, Solar effects as such can never provide feedback: the Sun can never respond to conditions emaniting from Earth?

But terrestrial systems can, do and always have responded to variations in the Solar Constant. (Naturally-produced CO2 is a classic example?) Which is what attracts me to the Leaky Integrator model: if we want to talk about feedback we should be turning our attention to the planet Earth.

If it's drivers we want to focus on, by all means look to the Sun... :D

Again, I agree entirely - who'da thunk we would agree so much?! :)

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:) CB,

Maybe we should get together with VP after your holiday, and get the LI hypothesis going again? It's an idea. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems appropriate to put this here as it's a "heat budget" article:

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/warming-caused-soot-not-co2

Good stuff, Jethro!

I do believe that there is more than a grain of truth in that...I believe it was Lovelock who suggested that it's mankind that'll suffer, and not Planet Earth: Earth will survive, even if we do not?

I think we should put all this into the LI model and see where it leads, once Captain Bob returns from his holiday, that is. What say you? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should put all this into the LI model and see where it leads, once Captain Bob returns from his holiday, that is. What say you? :)

Go for it. I'm sure I've got some similar stuff book marked some where; not sure how many variables they wanted thrown into the melting pot of the LI thread though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if the science in that article can be trusted any more than the "mainstream", in the sense that the effects of aerosols are so prone to uncertainty that we could find more evidence pointing either way in the future. But again it raises some good points about sources of uncertainty in computer models being treated way too casually.

I totally agree that the question is "Earth can almost certainly cope... but can we?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...