May 05 2017

Solar Forcing and Climate Change

sun1A recent article in Principia Scientific International summarizes 20 recent studies showing that solar activity correlates with long term trends in climate change. This is an excellent example of how misinformation campaigns meant to sow doubt and confusion work.

First, we need to consider the source. PSI is not a scientific organization or publication, it is a propaganda front group trying to appear as a scientific organization. This is very common – giving an organization a neutral sounding scientific name that does not reflect its true agenda.

PSI claims, completely contrary to the scientific consensus, that CO2 is not even a greenhouse gas. They actually argue that it causes no warming at all, and in fact may have a cooling effect on the environment. They further argue that wind turbines cause illness, a claim that is demonstrably false.

To put their scientific credibility into perspective, they also maintain that:

Educated parents can either get their children out of harm’s way or continue living inside one of the largest most evil lies in history, that vaccines – full of heavy metals, viral diseases, mycoplasma, fecal material, DNA fragments from other species, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (a sterilizing agent) – are a miracle of modern medicine.

They claim vaccines don’t even work and are just full of “toxins” – what we call, “The toxin gambit.”

Right about now readers who might be sympathetic to the PSI’s point of view might think I am trying to poison the well. That is only a fallacy, however, when you make or imply connections that are not relevant. PSIs credibility is absolutely relevant – they are curating information for a specific propaganda purpose. They are not a reliable source of scientific information.

Solar Forcing

Regardless of the source, what about the 20 papers themselves? What these studies show is that, over a period of centuries, solar activity correlates with average climate temperature. This effect is known as solar forcing and it is not controversial. No one doubts that the total solar irradiance (TSI) affects the Earth’s temperature.

The temperature of the Earth is essentially determined by the equilibrium point at which TSI is balanced by longwave radiation from the top of the troposphere – energy in has to be balanced by energy out. So essentially the Earth warms until the total radiation out balances the radiation in and equilibrium is achieved.

So obviously TSI affects this equilibrium, but so too does radiation out, which is affected by the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases trap longwave radiation, so the temperature has to rise higher before reaching an equilibrium point. The more greenhouse gases there are, the higher the temperature has to be at equilibrium.

Interestingly, over the last 450 million years the TSI has be slowly increases (which is a function of stellar evolution). At the same time total CO2 in the atmosphere has been decreasing because of various negative feedback loops, keeping the Earth’s climate relatively stable.

So, getting back to the PSI article, there is nothing new or controversial over the notion of solar forcing. The question is – how much of a role is solar forcing playing in the recent warming we have been seeing? Scientists have thoroughly investigated that question and the evidence shows that it is minimal. Solar forcing is having only a tiny effect, and cannot explain the recent warming.

Meanwhile, the long term trend of slowly decreasing CO2 content in the atmosphere has been reversed since the industrial revolution with a dramatic increase in CO2.

What the PSI paper shows, however, is how easy it is to sow confusion with selective information. If you do a Google search on solar forcing you will find many climate change denying websites quoting the PSI paper as a source.

This is a common strategy – pile up a bunch of references to make it seem as if there is a compelling case, meanwhile the references are cherry picked, misrepresented, or taken out of context. None of the papers cited call into question the conclusion that recent forcing is due to CO2, or establish that solar forcing can explain a significant portion of recent warming.

53 responses so far

53 Responses to “Solar Forcing and Climate Change”

  1. Willyon 05 May 2017 at 10:27 am

    But, but, but, CO2 is only 400 ppm and it’s plant food and climate always changes and scientists are crooks and remember the cooling predicted in the 70s and Trump knows AGW is a hoax and it hasn’t warmed in 20 years and, anyway, warming would be good.

  2. Sarahon 05 May 2017 at 11:06 am

    Tremendous.

  3. Lobsterbashon 05 May 2017 at 12:15 pm

    Even if we dug up and burned everything deposited by the Carboniferous as quickly as we could, the resulting horrors would still be attributed to causes other than fossil fuels by a segment of the population.

    It seems that the greatest danger to humanity isn’t artificial intelligence, asteroids, disease, nuclear war, etc… it’s our own brains’ inability to naturally reason effectively in a world of our complexity and sophistication.

  4. Jasonon 05 May 2017 at 12:30 pm

    There is a type of solar forcing other than TSI. Solar eruptions disrupt the cosmic ray excitation around which high-albedo cirrus clouds nucleate, which causes temporary cooling.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL038429/full

  5. wellerpondon 05 May 2017 at 12:34 pm

    Denying anthropogenic climate change has always dumbfounded me. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Humans produce tons more than the earth is used to. It’s basic high school chemistry.

    As a geology major (the study of earth, not rocks) in the early 90s we studied the warming trend from dozens of sources, and this is before the hockey stick graph.

    It’s. Right. There.

  6. Lobsterbashon 05 May 2017 at 12:52 pm

    wellerpond, it makes you wonder what non-controversial issue today will be spun into manufactured controversy, doesn’t it?

    It could be a fun game to try to predict the future of pseudoscience and ideologically-motivated conclusions as we don’t see it today. Seal it in a time capsule.

  7. MosBenon 05 May 2017 at 1:05 pm

    One of the things that I find interesting is when science deniers try to use informal logical fallacies against skeptics, as Steve preemptively only to show that they don’t really understand how logical fallacies work. So, for instance, poisoning the well would be something like, “Don’t believe PSI’s report because they all cheated on their spouses.” But as Steve addresses, the fact that they have shown themselves to be unreliable when presenting similar scientific information is not fallacious because it directly impacts the question of whether they are reliable in this instance.

    Anyway, logical fallacies are fun.

  8. Sarahon 05 May 2017 at 1:26 pm

    It’s motivated reasoning. Even with the ocean lapping at their front doors, fishermen in Louisiana refuse to accept it because it’s liberal lies, and people in Oklahoma can’t accept that injecting waste water into fracking wells causes earthquakes, or coal companies can’t accept that their product is basically murder.

    People don’t want to accept anything that challenges them too much.

  9. Lightnotheaton 05 May 2017 at 3:18 pm

    How long before Egnor reminds us the evidence for AGW is all fraudulent and we’re repellant atheists?

  10. Willyon 05 May 2017 at 3:28 pm

    …repellent atheists AND Darwin Youth, plus Femi-Nazis.

  11. MosBenon 05 May 2017 at 3:46 pm

    But where’s the data?!

  12. Lightnotheaton 05 May 2017 at 4:05 pm

    At least we’re not (shudder) Anglicans!

  13. bachfiendon 05 May 2017 at 4:39 pm

    It should be noted that ‘Jason’ is actually ‘Atlantean Idol’. He changed his label towards the end of the last AGW thread, which he also abandoned too.

    He’s returned asserting that Svensmark’s cosmoclimatolgy hypothesis is true. He needs to learn the difference between a ‘theory’ and a ‘hypothesis’.

    Jason’s link doesn’t seem to work, but ‘Solar eruptions disrupt the cosmic ray excitation around which high-albedo cirrus clouds enucleate, which causes temporary cooling’. I’ll have to ask him to clarify that.

    Is he asserting that cirrus clouds are increasing or decreasing? Is he asserting that solar eruptions are decreasing or increasing? Is he asserting that cirrus clouds cause cooling or warming? His sentence is ambiguous.

  14. BillyJoe7on 05 May 2017 at 5:34 pm

    bachfiend,

    He doesn’t need to explain what it means. It’s already contained in the sentence you quoted, embodied in thre word “temporary”. Even if the hypothesis gets sufficient support (which one cherry-picked study won’t do – how often do we need to teach these guys about the fallacy of cherry-picking!) to become a theory, it will mean nothing for the long term upward trend in global warming since 1970 (no, there has not been a 22 year pause in global warming!), because it is “temporary”.

    I’m pretty sure he jumped right over the word “temporary” when he was drawn like a magnet to the word “cooling” that followed.

    Anyway, climate deniers are rapidly becoming part of history.

  15. BillyJoe7on 05 May 2017 at 5:44 pm

    wellerpond,

    “Denying anthropogenic climate change has always dumbfounded me. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Humans produce tons more than the earth is used to. It’s basic high school chemistry”

    They claim that negative feedbacks reduce the climate sensitivity to zero.
    Hence the claim that “there has been no warming for 22 years”.

    Yeah, I know, if climate sensitivity was zero, palaeoclimate warming would not have been possible, negating and climate denier refrain “it’s been warmer in the past”, but that’s the nature of a climate denier.

  16. bachfiendon 05 May 2017 at 6:21 pm

    BillyJoe,

    AGW deniers such as Jason (aka Atlantean Idol) rely on smoke and mirror tactics.

    In the last thread on AGW, he linked to a graph, and claimed, look stratospheric temperatures haven’t changed since 1994, this is confirmatory evidence that the pause in surface warming actually happened.

    Ignoring the bottom half of the graph showing that the warming trend in surface temperatures was still continuing since 1990, despite it using the suspect satellite data.

    Sometime in the next day or so I expect he’ll respond. Or not. I expect he’ll do one thing or the other.

  17. Ivan Groznyon 06 May 2017 at 9:30 am

    “Suspect satellite data” translation: “showing less warming, and I don’t like that”

    Whether warming exists on this or that short-time scale is secondary. What is relevant is how the amount of warming on any time scale, especially in longer periods compares with the prediction of climate models based on high sensitivity. Hint: abysmally.

    https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/christy_dec8.jpg

    “Denying anthropogenic climate change has always dumbfounded me. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Humans produce tons more than the earth is used to. It’s basic high school chemistry.”

    Indeed. And let me break this to you: nobody denies it, except some fringe freaks that Novella has found (nothing surprising here, he is now in the business of “debunking” creationists and even literal flat-earthers, so that’s his sport). Every regular climate scientist I know who rejects alarmism, (some names: Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, Steve McIntyre, Patrick Michaels, Chris Lindsea, Fred Singer, Nir Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark, dozens of others) AGREES with your sentence above. It is trivially true, and nobody serious has ever questioned it. And Novella does not know that (or pretends not to), and keeps dis-informing you with his bullshit that climate change “deniers” deny “basic science”. It’s much easier to attack a ridiculous and idiotic straw man, some crazies denying greenhouse effect elevated to the status of “climate deniers”, than to know something about climate sensitivity, or economic or normative aspects of the issue.

  18. Ivan Groznyon 06 May 2017 at 9:40 am

    P.S. the rich irony here is that this group is known as “greenhouse slayers” and Roy Spencer, a “climate denying” climate scientist of the university of Alabama in Huntsville, who compiles UAH satellite data (the “suspect” one) wages a real war with this group on his blog. They troll every thread with their nonsense against greenhouse effect, and accuse Spencer of being a part of a wide range-conspiracy to hide the “truth” about this fake effect.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/

  19. BillyJoe7on 06 May 2017 at 10:49 am

    Ivan climate denier Grosny,

    ““Suspect satellite data” translation: “showing less warming, and I don’t like that””

    The satellite raw proxy data have had to be corrected for multiple inaccuracies discovered over many decades so that it originally showed slight cooling to, more recently, showing warming close to Surface air direct temperature readings. The margin of error in the satellite data was originally 5 times that of surface air temperatures, and is still at least twice that of surface air temperatures.
    The scientists who produce the satellite data agree that surface air temperatures are more reliable.

  20. BillyJoe7on 06 May 2017 at 10:59 am

    “And let me break this to you: nobody denies it”

    Yes, they have been dragged kicking and screaming by the shear weight of evidence to the fourth stage of climate denialism. Now they have to lie about the existence of a 22 year pause in global warming and they have to lie about negative feedback reducing climate sensitivity to rising CO2 levels to zero. And they can do so only by cherry-picking satellite data, and cherry picking the raw data, and cherry-picking the time period from 1998. A triple cherry-pick.

  21. Jasonon 06 May 2017 at 11:04 am

    bachfiend: Cosmic rays increase cirrus cloud cover. By the way, I’m not claiming to know to what degree the Svensmark process drives climate change, you’d have to ask Svensmark’s peers about that. I just thought it was something interesting to contribute.

  22. Jasonon 06 May 2017 at 11:17 am

    BJ:

    Your mendacity is staggering. You know perfectly well the McKitrick paper on the hiatus that I posted included both surface and lower troposphere data and began in 1994. If you’re going to hitch your wagon to the IPCC’s computer models that wagon is already in a ditch at the bottom of the hill you’ve decided to die on.

  23. tmac57on 06 May 2017 at 11:26 am

    Jason- with respect to cosmic rays relationship to global warming, it hasn’t panned out:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/nov/12/global-warming-humans-not-cosmic-rays

  24. BillyJoe7on 06 May 2017 at 11:37 am

    I’ve already answered your bullshit on the other thread:

    Atlantic Jason climate denier Idol:

    “The IPCC predicted no slowdown whatsoever”

    This is a blatant misrepresentation.

    Climate scientists predicted no slowdown in the effect on global temperatures of rising levels of anthropogenic CO2. In other words, if the effect on global temperatures of all other factors, such natural weather cycles and vulcanoes, are extracted from the raw data, you will indeed get a progressive upward trend in global temperatures since 1970. That was their prediction and that is, indeed, what happened. Their climate models are pretty accurate. Climate deniers, of course, don’t care about these details, they only care about misrepresentation and outright lies driven by ideology and financial interests.

    Climate scientists know about the effect of natural cycles and vulcanoes, and they know roughly how long these cycles last, and they know that they have no long term effect on global temperatures. But they cannot predict exactly when they are going to occur. So, for example, they did not know that an El Niño event was going to occur in 1998 and several La Niña events thereafter. But, after they did occur, they could correct the raw data to extract out the influence of these events (which are cyclical and, therefore, have no long term effect) and find the inexorable upward trend in global temperatures since 1970 that they have been pretty accurately predicting all along.

    Similarly, vulcanic eruptions are unpredictable, but, once they occur, their effect can be measured and extracted from the raw data.

  25. tmac57on 06 May 2017 at 11:56 am

    Here are a few links that deal with the trope about how climate models supposedly have ‘failed’ in their projections:

    https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/models/

  26. Ivan Groznyon 06 May 2017 at 12:35 pm

    “Yes, they have been dragged kicking and screaming by the shear weight of evidence to the fourth stage of climate denialism.”

    You are hopeless. None of them ever denied CO2 is a greenhouse gass> Swante Arenius shoed that in the late 19th century. Everyone knew that in 1960 and 1970s when peopl were obsessing about global cooling.

    “Now they have to lie about the existence of a 22 year pause in global warming”

    Hm I suppose Mike the Hockey Stick Mann who published with 5 coauthors a paper two years ago arguing that the pause was caused by natural climate variability is also lying that the pause exist. And that the paper just published in Nature this week, also arguing that the pause is nothing to worry about also is lying that it exist
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL068159/full

    And that Kevin Trenthbet was also lying when he said in one of the leaked Climategate emails that it is the “travesty” that we cannot explain the pause

    “And they can do so only by cherry-picking satellite data”

    Again wrong. as fits an uneducated religious fanatic. Both satellite and weather balloon data show very similar rates of warming. Christy’s data include the averages of two different satellite data sets and four different weather balloon data sets. NO cherry picing at all. And compares those averages against 105 of IPCC climate models. The only “outliers” are notoriously manipulated and unreliable surface records which are corrected every year or two years, always in the direction of warming the present and cooling the past.

  27. Ivan Groznyon 06 May 2017 at 12:42 pm

    “In other words, if the effect on global temperatures of all other factors, such natural weather cycles and vulcanoes, are extracted from the raw data, you will indeed get a progressive upward trend in global temperatures since 1970. That was their prediction and that is, indeed, what happened. Their climate models are pretty accurate”

    Again painful ignorance. Climate models are based on the assumption that natural climate variability is much smaller than the CO2 effects. That’s why global warming in the models is dominated by CO2 greenhouse effect. You have that in every IPCC report. Howver, the model predictions have typically two or three time higher rate of warming than observed (models with higher sensitivity in which most modellers want to believe).

    When faced with this, some of the alarmists are now trying to have it both ways: to claim that natural variability temporarily “masked” the large greenhouse warming (that’s essentially what Mann et al 2016 claim) and once this natural trend reverses itself, the greenhouse warming will accelerate. But this directly defeats the initial assumption of the models – that natural variability is negligible as compared to CO2. Either models are correct and there could be no decadal or multidecadal pause or slowdown, or slowdown is real, but then the claim of models to accurately represent the climate system is incorrect. Take your pick.

  28. Ivan Groznyon 06 May 2017 at 12:51 pm

    P.S. And all of this underlines one basic sad facts that Richard Lindzen emphasized: very little is known about many crucial features of natural climate variability including solar forcing, oceans, aerosols. And IPCC admits that in their technical reports. The only elements of the climate system that they think we understand well are greenhouse gasses. But, clouds, sun, water vapour, volcanoes, aerosols, it is either medium or low confidence and oftentimes, and more honestly, virtually unkown (as in the cases of solar and volcanoes). But, you cannot read those caveats from technical report in activists’ jeremiads about saving the planet and “consensus”.

    Even measurements are very tentative and problematic. Everyone is obsessing over two or three inches of sea level rise. Carl Wunsch, one of the leading oceanographers in the world, professor at MIT, and supporter of the IPCC party line, openly admits that current measurements are not good and precise enough to inform climate policy. He says that in his papers, but will not repeat on television. Because he has a big climate change program to manage and does not want to rock the boat. Going along publicly with the “consensus” makes his life eisier.

  29. Pete Aon 06 May 2017 at 1:23 pm

    I’ll correct that for you:

    “Very little is known by Ivan Grozny about many crucial features of natural climate variability including solar forcing, oceans, aerosols.”

  30. Ivan Groznyon 06 May 2017 at 2:38 pm

    Pete A,

    take a look at Summary for Policy Makers, Fourth Assessment Report by IPCC, page 4, the chart describing the level of scientific understanding of climate forcing. Here is the link:

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

    See what level of scientific understanding (LOSU) of aerosols and solar forcing is (also other that I did not mention in my previous comments, albedo, land use). And then be so honourable and come back and correct the ignorant statement from your previous comment.

    Those are just “forcings” i.e. anthropogenic and natural outside factors that change climate. Once you learn basics about this we can shift to the level of scientific understanding of INTERNAL climate variability (oceans, cloulds, AMO, PDO).

  31. Pete Aon 06 May 2017 at 3:06 pm

    Ivan Grozny,

    Why is the cryosphereretreating — taking into account the enthalpy of fusion of water (333.55 kJ/kg)?
    http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/retreat-of-the-cryosphere/
    http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/retreat-of-the-cryosphere/#comment-301046

  32. bachfiendon 06 May 2017 at 4:24 pm

    Jason,

    I thought that’s what you meant.

    It’s not actually known whether increasing cirrus cloud cover causes warming or cooling. For what it’s worth, in the three day experiment with the shutdown of aviation after September 11, the disappearance of contrails (a form of cirrus cloud) resulted in warmer nights (due to the clouds ftapping outgoing heat) and cooler days (due to increasing albedo).

    If the same is the case with cirrus clouds in general, then increasing cirrus clouds could cause warming, if the warming at night is greater than the cooling during the day. And vice versa.

    Are you claiming that the current warming (which you haven’t admitted is happening despite your linking to a graph showing it in the last thread) is due to changes in cirrus cloud cover? And in which direction? And in which direction is the solar magnetic field going?

    The cirrus cloud connection was a little surprising to me. Svensmark’s hypothesis is that cosmic rays increase low level clouds.

  33. Pete Aon 06 May 2017 at 4:43 pm

    Mentions of cosmic rays are red herrings, unless the claimant states which energy levels they are talking about.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray

  34. bachfiendon 06 May 2017 at 5:48 pm

    Pete A,

    Svensmark’s hypothesis was that high energy cosmic ray particles create a spray of secondary particles, such as muons, when they collide with nuclei in the upper atmosphere. It’s supposed to be the lower energy secondardary particles which are supposed to, in a hand waving exercise, to provide nuclei for cloud formation in the lower atmosphere (I see I’ve unfortunately used ‘nuclei’ for 2 different things).

    Could it be a factor in climate? Yes, possibly, maybe.

    Could it explain the current global warming? No.

  35. tmac57on 06 May 2017 at 5:48 pm

    Pete- I agree about the red herring, it is a distraction. The theory is not crazy though, and was worth pursuing, but it turns out that there is no substantial relationship between warming and decreased cosmic rays. Yet another contrarian hypothesis fail.
    We should remain open to any new data, approach, or hypothesis, but just having them is not enough to declare AGW vanquished. Those ideas actually have to survive scrutiny before they are accepted. In this, the deniers get low marks. They grasp on to any straw of an idea, and then loudly proclaim that AGW is either dead, or overblown. Urban heat island effect anybody?

  36. Pete Aon 06 May 2017 at 6:17 pm

    bachfiend,

    I’m fully aware of that. I am also fully aware of the relationship between the particle density and the particle energy as plotted on the log-log scale in my reference.

  37. Lightnotheaton 06 May 2017 at 7:37 pm

    Ivan,

    ‘…let me break this to you: nobody denies it, except some fringe freaks that Novella has found (nothing surprising here, he is now in the business of “debunking” creationists and even literal flat-earthers, so that’s his sport). Every regular climate scientist I know who rejects alarmism, (some names: Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, Steve McIntyre, Patrick Michaels, Chris Lindsea, Fred Singer, Nir Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark, dozens of others) AGREES with your sentence above. It is trivially true, and nobody serious has ever questioned it. And Novella does not know that (or pretends not to), and keeps dis-informing you with his bullshit that climate change “deniers” deny “basic science”. It’s much easier to attack a ridiculous and idiotic straw man, some crazies denying greenhouse effect elevated to the status of “climate deniers”, than to know something about climate sensitivity, or economic or normative aspects of the issue.’

    Once again the “you’re strawmanning!” straw man, in which you accuse your critics of acting as if the most extreme position is the most representative denialist view, rather than your own more nuanced stance. Come on, a simple review of the earlier posts and threads on this subject clearly shows that’s not the case. Time after time these more reasonable points have been addressed, one example being Steven’s complete demolition of your argument about southern hemisphere cooling, which you never rebutted. (By the way in that thread you used the same “you’re strawmanning” straw man.) W?Your example of Steven debunking flat earthers is especially disingenuous, since he stated right at the outset of that post that his purpose was to examine how motivated reasoning works, and was not claiming flat earthers were representative, mainstream denialists. And indeed, most of the time when Steven and others address the more extreme claims it is either this kind of exercise, or in direct response to someone making such a claim.

    Meanwhile, within the very same passage above where you complain of strawmanning, you implicitly indulge in that exact same type of strawmanning, when you list “regular” climate scientists who reject “alarmism.” Sure sounds like you’re equating the doomsaying fringe with the mainstream consensus, which is simply that AGW is real.

    And once again I ask you, why do I not hear these same types of arguments from you with regard to the consensus that GMOs are safe? The GMO-safety deniers sound exactly like you: hyper-critical of the science the consensus rests on, hyper-vigilant about bias possibly leading to data falsification or misinterpretation, focusing strongly on anomalies, claiming that the defenders of the consensus are strawmanning, etc., etc. Yet in this case you flip to the other side. Your ideological motivation could not be clearer.

  38. BillyJoe7on 07 May 2017 at 3:12 am

    Ivan Grosny,

    “None of them ever denied CO2 is a greenhouse gass”

    No, they just imply it.
    The greenhouse effect means that, if the global CO2 level rises, GLOBAL temperature must rise.
    Negative feedbacks won’t prevent this because they are either cyclical or incomplete.
    So when they claim there’s been no global warming for 22 years, they are effectively denying the greenhouse effect.
    They are also lying.

    “Everyone knew that in 1960 and 1970s when people were obsessing about global cooling”

    Another blatant misrepresentation.
    Global cooling in the 70s was a minority view at best.

    BJ: “Now they have to lie about the existence of a 22 year pause in global warming”
    IG: “I suppose Mike the Hockey Stick Mann who published with 5 coauthors a paper two years ago arguing that the pause was caused by natural climate variability is also lying that the pause exist”

    There is no conflict here.
    There has been no pause in GLOBAL warming.
    There has been a “pause” in ONE SET OF SATELLITE DERIVED RAW DATA.
    There has been no pause in corrected satellite derived temperatures.
    There has been no pause in surface air temperatures.
    Seen from the perspective of the ENTIRE data going back to the 1970s, there has not even been a deceleration in warming.
    That conclusion is based on just a straight forward statistical analysis of ALL the data from 1970s.

    “And that Kevin Trenthbet was also lying when he said in one of the leaked Climategate emails that it is the “travesty” that we cannot explain the pause”

    You simply don’t get it, do you?
    He is not saying that there has been a pause in GLOBAL warming.
    He is explaining why the raw satellite data seems to show that there has been a pause in TLT/TMT

    “The only “outliers” are notoriously manipulated and unreliable surface records”

    Another blatant misrepresentation.
    Ask the climate scientists who produce the satellite data!
    Even they say that the direct surface tempertures are more reliable.
    Initially the error bars in the satellite proxy data was 5 times that of direct surface data.
    Even now, after correcting for errors in the raw data, it is still twice that of surface data.
    And, before you spout off again, correction of raw data is part of normal science.
    Raw data can be completely misleading.

    “the model predictions have typically two or three time higher rate of warming than observed”

    Here is how this goes:
    – You say something that is simply a misconception on your part.
    – I correct your misconception.
    – You ignore my correction of your misconception.
    – You repeat your misconception – which I will now categorise as a lie.
    The models do not include factors that cannot be predicted.
    They cannot predict the timing of solar maximums and minimums.
    They cannot predict the timing of El Ninos and La Ninas.
    But they have been studied and their effect on surface and deep ocean temperatures are known.
    In other words, the models predict temperatures minus the effect of natural cycles etc.
    But these effects can be accounted for after the event.
    Also, cycles do not effect long term climate change – because the are CYCLES.
    Now please do not repeat your misconceptions lies again.

    some of the alarmists climate scientists are now trying to have it both ways: to claim explain that natural variability temporarily “masked” the large greenhouse warming…and once this natural trend cycle reverses itself, the greenhouse warming will accelerate be unmasked”

    Corrected that for you.

    “But this directly defeats the initial assumption of the models – that natural variability is negligible as compared to CO2.”

    In fact, the effect of cyles is zero in the long run – because they are CYCLES!
    There are some negative feedbacks that are uncertain as to direction and magnitude, but the evidence is that they are unlikely to be important overall in reducing the effect of CO2 rise.

    ‘Either models are correct and there could be no decadal or multidecadal pause or slowdown, or slowdown is real, but then the claim of models to accurately represent the climate system is incorrect. Take your pick.”

    There is no contradcition – see above.
    You are simply confusing satellite derived TROPOSHERC temperatures with GLOBAL temperatures.
    You are ignoring the very real problems associated with satellite proxy data.
    You are misreading what the models say.
    You are not looking at the entire record for a valid statistical analysis.
    Because you, like most climate deniers, are ignorant of the statistics which demonstrate that fact.

    “And all of this underlines one basic sad facts that Richard Lindzen emphasized: very little is known about many crucial features of natural climate variability…”

    He exaggerates but, of course, there is some truth in this.
    But, based on the available evidence, climate scientists makes their best estimates.
    And they use error bars to indicate their uncertainty.
    The uncertainty is not hidden – it’s there in the error bars!
    To deny the estimates because of the uncertainty is to claim that there is NO effect.
    You can do that but then don’t claim you are doing science!

    “Carl Wunsch, one of the leading oceanographers in the world, professor at MIT, and supporter of the IPCC party line, openly admits that current measurements are not good and precise enough to inform climate policy. He says that in his papers, but will not repeat on television. Because he has a big climate change program to manage and does not want to rock the boat. Going along publicly with the “consensus” makes his life eisier”

    Nice climate denying “just so” story without any basis in fact.
    I suppose he is a mate of yours and revealed all to you in private conversation and you’re now spilling the beans and jeopardising his pay packet.
    No, didn’t think so.

  39. Ivan Groznyon 07 May 2017 at 11:19 am

    Pete A,

    you are now making a spectacular bait and switch. Please, correct your wrong assertion about solar forcing and aerosols first, and then we can discuss other things.

  40. Ivan Groznyon 07 May 2017 at 11:48 am

    “There is no conflict here.
    There has been no pause in GLOBAL warming.
    There has been a “pause” in ONE SET OF SATELLITE DERIVED RAW DATA.
    There has been no pause in corrected satellite derived temperatures.
    There has been no pause in surface air temperatures.
    Seen from the perspective of the ENTIRE data going back to the 1970s, there has not even been a deceleration in warming.
    That conclusion is based on just a straight forward statistical analysis of ALL the data from 1970s.”

    Tell this to Mann et al (2016) who explained “slowdown” in warming 2000-2015 by natural variability. Deniers! When you look more closely Mikee the Hockey Stick probably does not believe in greenhouse effect either…

    Or look at those idiots who published a paper in Nature just two days ago, also trying to explain the “hiatus” in warming, apparently unaware of your cutting-edge discovery that there had never been a “hiatus” to begin with:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22315.epdf?referrer_access_token=hympehHIyVLDFKYScpDhZdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NuFtYPLl1PUnqxUYbpB1uVru_rIjRyseUxK8YNRXQS46Tpa21x-vwjLraHJV2WWDOd7rzP-5_uGJHWoKN87dtIDyBdNky75pFNm3b1kPsZxFgLQCm1UFW4NOEQe9y-d0LIIFM51eerv_KMOolbXA-_zYlLSGtwkRvxvaAL_iZ_ahmkqUVIQ9DKmzi7uZMfF0E_AB4nI0NGR9ysvX-gKcKiacdVJnGlupBJgpzyxunH5fNJrXpPbKMXCsMEWMZb5KQ%3D&tracking_referrer=www.spiegel.de

    “In fact, the effect of cyles is zero in the long run – because they are CYCLES!”

    Another brilliant cutting-edge discovery that will revolutionise climate science. Those idiots who spent decades trying unsuccessfully to make sense of climate cycles and their overall effects on climate, never thought for a moment that it could be that easy, simple and elegant…

    “So when they claim there’s been no global warming for 22 years, they are effectively denying the greenhouse effect.
    They are also lying.”

    Is it really possible that you are that stupid? If climate sensitivity is low (as it likely is), and if there is a small natural cooling tendency, no warming trend over long periods of time is exactly what you would EXPECT to see in the temperature record (eg 0.2 C of greenhouse warming – 0.2 C of natural cooling = zero temperature trend). No OVERALL warming is perfectly consistent with CO2 being a greenhouse gas.

  41. Pete Aon 07 May 2017 at 12:12 pm

    Ivan Grozny,

    How many ‘effing times do I have to state the bleedin’ obvious:

    QUOTE
    Atlantean Idol,

    I think it unfair to ask anyone the question: Do you agree with the following statement: Absent human activity, the increase in global temperature since 1880 would be less than half of what has been observed.

    That is an anthropogenic global warming question, it is not an anthropogenic climate change question. They are very different questions due to three factors:

    1. The enthalpy of fusion [aka: latent heat of fusion] of water: to melt ice at 0 °C into water requires 333.55 kJ/kg, but there is no rise in temperature;

    2. The albedo of Antarctic snow-covered ice is ~0.8, which is 13 times greater than the albedo of an open ocean (~0.06).

    3. Evaporation from the oceans increases rapidly as the temperature rises above 0 °C, which is crucially important because water vapour is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide.

    AGW, being based in very small global temperature variations, completely hides from the observer of its data the huge regional and global changes in climates.

    http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/retreat-of-the-cryosphere/#comment-301046

  42. BillyJoe7on 07 May 2017 at 5:03 pm

    It is imposible to talk to idiots who don’t understrand the first thing about what you are trying to explain to them.

  43. bachfiendon 07 May 2017 at 5:23 pm

    Ivan the Terrible,

    Did it escape your attention that the authors of your linked paper near its start noted that the ‘pause’ or ‘plateau’ was initially publicised by AGW deniers who noted after the event that drawing a line between the average global temperatures of 1998 and 2005 gives a horizontal line? That it was cherry picking the data set?

    Cherry picking of data sets after the event has occurred is a no-no.

    An analogy I like to use is to suppose you have a rigged coin which gives heads when you toss it 60% of the time. If you toss it 150 times, you’d expect 90 heads and 60 tails. You’d do very well if you were allowed to bet on heads every time.

    Suppose you do toss it 150 times and record the result each time. Suppose towards towards the end of your already recorded and happened throws you notice a tail, and 16 throws later you notice another tail, with the intervening 15 throws giving the expected 9 heads and 6 tails. So for just that 17 throws (out of 150, a cherry picked subset) you’ve got 9 heads and 8 tails, not statistically significantly different from 50:50.

    No one sensible would argue that it indicates that the coin is fair. But that’s what AGW deniers are doing. The authors going on to consider what climate factors cause the year to year variations in average global temperatures (temperatures do go down in some years despite there being a general warming trend) is no different to someone trying to explain why heads or tails results with each throw (perhaps some throws are higher, perhaps there was a freak gust of air?).

    You’re essentially claiming that anyone trying to explain why tails results on any throw means that the coin isn’t rigged.

  44. BillyJoe7on 07 May 2017 at 5:55 pm

    Ivan,

    Did you even try to understand this bit that you quoted from my post:

    “Seen from the perspective of the ENTIRE data going back to the 1970s, there has not even been a deceleration in warming.
    That conclusion is based on just a straight forward statistical analysis of ALL the data from 1970s.”

    Please demonstrate that you understood this.
    When statisticians do a statistical analysis of the entire record from the 1970s onward, they get a staight line slope trending upwards. Statistically there is no pause.

    And get this through your thick head:
    The climate scientists are addressing the “pause” to explain why the pause AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY CLIMATE DENIERS is false. They explain that the so called “pause” is the result of natural cycles masking the effect of climate warming WHICH HAS CONTINUED UNABATED. Climate deniers use it to falsely claim that climate warming has stopped.

  45. tmac57on 07 May 2017 at 5:57 pm

    And as Pete keeps repeatedly saying, effectively, loss of ice in the cryosphere that is trending downward, is a sign of warming without adding to surface temps, just like the upward warming trend in the oceans is not reflected in surface temps immediately. But it is all a piece of a warming planet. It is excess energy coming into the system and sloshing about in chaotic ways, but it is still EXCESS!
    Continuing to turn up the burner even slowly is still asking for climate disruption that we currently have no way of reversing if it has serious consequences.
    And don’t be fooled by the uncertainty of such a situation, as to be sanguine about it, because uncertainty cuts both ways. Maybe it won’t be so bad, but maybe it can be very much worse , and the irreversibility of the situation should be haunting your dreams if you give even the slightest damn about the people who will have to endure the potential harm coming their way. We have no right to impose that on others, just as we shouldn’t trash the entire planet and deplete every resource just because we are too selfish to do otherwise.

  46. BillyJoe7on 08 May 2017 at 12:52 am

    Ivan,

    “Is it really possible that you are that stupid?”

    Well, are you?
    Well, let’s see…

    “If climate sensitivity is low”

    Climate sensitivity is between 1.5 and 4.5 (average 3.0)
    That is not LOW.
    If you pick a lower figure than this range you are CHERRY-PICKING!
    That is STUPID.

    “if there is a small natural cooling tendency, no warming trend over long periods of time is exactly what you would EXPECT to see in the temperature record”

    No.
    No.
    No.
    The greenhouse effect tells us that the GLOBAL temperture must rise if CO2 levels rise.
    (It is perhaps more accurate to say “global energy” to account for Pete’s point re melting ice, but you are too STUPID to understand his point so I will let that pass)

    “(eg 0.2 C of greenhouse warming – 0.2 C of natural cooling = zero temperature trend)”

    You can’t just make up your own numbers!!!
    Pulling number randomly out of your ass proves absolutely nothing.
    Except that you are STUPID.

    “No OVERALL warming is perfectly consistent with CO2 being a greenhouse gas”

    BULL SHIT.
    (again with deference to Pete’s point)
    You are simply looking at a small portion of the globe – SURFACE tempertures! (<3% of the total)
    That is STUPID.
    There has been no pause in total GLOBAL warming.

    http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/17/1381976927298/IPCC-AR5-WG1-Box-3.1-Fig-1_450.jpg

    Yeah…STUPID as charged.

    Now repeat after me:

    THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT IS REAL.
    CO2 LEVELS ARE RISING.
    THEREFORE THE GLOBE MUST BE WARMING.

    THEREFORE THERE HAS BEEN NO PAUSE IN GLOBAL WARMING.

    Good boy.

  47. BillyJoe7on 08 May 2017 at 6:47 am

    Ivan,

    “Or look at those idiots who published a paper in Nature just two days ago, also trying to explain the “hiatus” in warming, apparently unaware of your cutting-edge discovery that there had never been a “hiatus” to begin with”

    Well, I finally found time to look at your reference.
    And guess what?
    It says the exact opposite of what you are claiming!

    This is how STUPID you are.
    You make a claim and provide a link to support your claim and are too STUPID to realise it refutes it.
    Typical climate denier.

    It’s in the summary right on page one:

    Between about 1998 and 2012, a time that coincided with political negotiations for preventing climate change, the surface of Earth SEEMED hardly to warm. This phenomenon, often termed the ‘global warming hiatus’, caused doubt in the public mind about how well anthropogenic climate change and natural variability are understood. Here we show that APPARENTLY CONTRADICTORY conclusions stem from different definitions of ‘hiatus’ and from different datasets. A combination of changes in forcing, uptake of heat by the oceans, natural variability and incomplete observational coverage RECONCILES MODELS AND DATA. Combined with stronger recent warming trends in newer datasets, we are now more confident than ever that human influence is dominant in long-term warming

    This is friggin’ incredible.
    A direct, clear, incontrovertible refutation of your claim from the very link you provided to support your claim!
    And a pretty good summary of everything I’ve been telling you right here in the thread.

    How STUPID can you get?

    Here’s your homework:
    Read that summary again.
    Then read it again
    And then again.
    And keep reading it…

    …UNTILL YOU FRIGGIN’ WELL UNDERSTAND IT!

  48. BillyJoe7on 08 May 2017 at 7:38 am

    Maybe an analogy will help…

    Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called…
    “God is not great”.
    So, he must believe god exists, right?

    Wrong.

  49. Pete Aon 08 May 2017 at 9:02 pm

    When a system has reached thermal equilibrium:
    1. its temperature is constant;
    2. its power output is exactly equal to its power input therefore its net power level is zero.

    Increasing the level of atmospheric CO₂ (and other greenhouse gasses) reduces the power output much more than the power input, because greenhouse gasses are, by definition, less transparent to infrared [power output path] than they are to sunlight [power input path]. Therefore:
    a. the net power level of the system becomes positive;
    b. the system is no longer in thermal equilibrium;
    c. the temperature of the system will continue to increase until its power output once again matches its power input.

    While the net power level stays above zero, energy is being transferred into the system. Some of this energy will directly start to raise the system temperature (via absorption of heat energy); and some of it will indirectly — after a very long time delay — raise the temperature after firstly being converted into mechanical energy. E.g., driving the ocean currents, ocean waves, atmospheric currents and storm systems. Importantly, the volume of water evaporated from the oceans into the atmosphere will increase: water vapour is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than is CO₂, which greatly amplifies the effect of increasing CO₂.

    NB: I personally object to the term “forcing” because and amplifier is just an amplifier; it is not a “force”!

    During the time which the net power level remains above zero, in order to regain thermal equilibrium, the state of the system must continually change. The only thing on Earth that can bring about this change is global climate change. Denying this would be denying the well established laws of thermodynamics: such an extraordinary denial would require an equally extraordinary level of evidence.

  50. Ivan Groznyon 09 May 2017 at 4:25 pm

    “Climate sensitivity is between 1.5 and 4.5 (average 3.0)
    That is not LOW.
    If you pick a lower figure than this range you are CHERRY-PICKING!”

    3 is not “average”, it used to be “best estimate” before. Most recent estimates published after 2010 put it at 1.5-2 C. That’s low. And the amount of warming in the period 2000-2015 from such sensitivity is indeed only 0.2 C or so.

    “Do you agree with the following statement: Absent human activity, the increase in global temperature since 1880 would be less than half of what has been observed.”

    I don’t know and nobody knows. But it’s certainly plausible. Imagine it’s correct. That would mean that anthropocentric warming in the last 120 years was somewhat more than 0.5 C. Which is approximately consistent with about 1 C climate sensitivity. the lower limit of IPCC range is 1.5 C.

    Pete A,
    are you going to correct the wrong claim about solar forcing, albedo and the rest, or not?

    You spent an entire comment trying to convince me that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and I appreciate your effort, but I already knew that. That bait and switch will not save you from the duty to address the problem of uncertainty in the IPCC reports and correct your false statement.

    Billy Joel
    I know that it probably exceeds your powers, but the article I linked does not deny that there was “hiatus”: it only argues, in a similar fashion Mann et all 2016 do, that this hiatus in warming does not disprove the models, but that greenhouse warming was “masked” by natural variability (plus reliance on one dubious new surface data set to shorten the length of the pause).

    I give up on the task of conveying to you that natural climate variability can counteract greenhouse warming. Natural cooling of the climate system can make the global temperature stagnate or even fall, even if we add enormous quantities of CO2. Climate sensitivity of 1.5 will give you about 0.2 C of warming per decade, and climate itself can cool (or warm) more than that on a decadal basis without any human influence whatsoever. That’s why rising CO2 does NOT have to lead always to global warming and that’s what Mann et al say that’s what new paper in Nature also says. That’s all, not rocket science exactly, but obviously too much for such a blockhead.

    “Now repeat after me:
    THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT IS REAL.
    CO2 LEVELS ARE RISING.
    THEREFORE THE GLOBE MUST BE WARMING.
    THEREFORE THERE HAS BEEN NO PAUSE IN GLOBAL WARMING.”

    Sounds like a nursery rhyme for retarded kids.

  51. bachfiendon 09 May 2017 at 5:27 pm

    Ivan the Terrible,

    Even if the climate sensitivity is less than 1.9 Kelvin, then that’s still a big effect. The Earth being warmer by 1 Kelvin (going on a very optimistic view) when the atmospheric CO2 levels double from pre-industrial levels (and there’s no guarantee that they won’t shoot far past 540 ppmv on a ‘business as usual’ lack of plan), doesn’t mean that it’s just going to be 1 Kelvin warmer at all locations and at all times on Earth.

    Averages hide a lot of details regarding where it’s warmer and colder at times.

    As an example in the opposite direction the 1815 eruption of Tambora resulted in the 1816 Year without a Summer, snow in New England in June, failure of crops in Western Europe, North America east of the Appalachians and China, possibly the first cholera pandemic, … And average global temperatures dropped less than 1 Kelvin.

    A warmer climate means more frequent heatwaves. Such as the 2003 one in France. And the 2010 one in Russia which so adversely affected its wheat crop and caused strains in the global food supply.

    Go back and reread my rigged coin analogy. Your argument, such as it is, is based on cherry picking and a lack of basic reasoning skills.

  52. BillyJoe7on 09 May 2017 at 5:50 pm

    Ivan,

    And all this time you still don’t understand that “global surface temperature” does not equal “global temperature”. Natural cycles have masked the rise in global surface temperatures since 1998. But global temperatures have continue to rise at the predicted rate. Less than 3% of the extra heat goes into the atmosphere. Greater than 93% of the extra heat goes into the oceans. Hiatus and pause are climate denier terms and relate only to the cherry picked global surface temperatures. And they cherrypick the least reliable satellite data. Climate scientists have addressed the hiatus trope to show it does not exist, by looking at all the data. Just like Christopher Hitchens addressed the god question whilst not believing in gods, climate scientists address the hiatus trope whilst not believing the hiatus exists.

    The greenhouse effect means that global temperatures must rise with increase in CO2 levels.
    If you understood that you wouldn’t cherrypick you way into nonsense.

    Get yourself an education.

  53. Charonon 12 May 2017 at 10:40 am

    Anyone talking about a hiatus should really look at the most basic data here: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

    Look in particular at the running average, which smooths over distracting temporary fluctuations like El Niño. The small hiatus there was an interesting thing, and worth climate modelers working to explain (which they did). Emphasis on was.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.