tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post4824147079370185293..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: How climate models dismiss the role of the Sun in climateUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-49035057766200983982013-12-17T14:04:05.457-08:002013-12-17T14:04:05.457-08:00http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/04/paper-fi...http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/04/paper-finds-solar-influence-on-climate.htmlMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-4203794257383947772013-11-05T00:04:26.223-08:002013-11-05T00:04:26.223-08:00Another graphic showing the GISS model solar forci...Another graphic showing the GISS model solar forcing assumptions:<br /><br />http://i56.tinypic.com/25ovreh.jpgMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-46598455864417202632013-10-12T09:57:27.958-07:002013-10-12T09:57:27.958-07:00New paper published yesterday by Leif’s friend Jud...New paper published yesterday by Leif’s friend Judith Lean finds the difference in TSI measured during the 1990s by solar radiometers vs. with SORCE could alone account for 0.4C temperature change, without any amplification or consideration of 2nd order effects. But, no problem, all we have to do is change the cloud cover in our models to make it all balance out on a global basis… Hold on, that changes regional climate simulations…<br /><br />The Impact of Different Absolute Solar Irradiance Values on Current Climate Model Simulations<br /><br />http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00136.1?af=R<br /><br />Simulations of the pre-industrial and doubled CO2 climates are made with the GISS GCMAM using two different estimates of the absolute solar irradiance value, a higher value measured by solar radiometers in the 1990s and the lower value measured recently by SORCE. Each of the model simulations is adjusted to achieve global energy balance; without this adjustment the difference in irradiance produces a global temperature change of 0.4°C, comparable to the cooling estimated for the Maunder Minimum. The results indicate that by altering cloud cover the model properly compensates for the different absolute solar irradiance values on a global level when simulating both the pre-industrial and doubled CO2 climates. On a regional level, the pre-industrial climate simulations and the patterns of change with doubled CO2 concentrations are again remarkably similar, but there are some differences. Using a higher absolute solar irradiance value and the requisite cloud cover affects the model’s depictions of high latitude surface air temperature, sea level pressure, and stratospheric ozone, as well as tropical precipitation. In the climate change experiments it leads to an underestimation of North Atlantic warming, reduced precipitation in the tropical Western Pacific, and smaller total ozone growth at high northern latitudes. Although significant, these differences are typically modest compared with the magnitude of the regional changes expected for doubled greenhouse gas concentrations. Nevertheless, the model simulations demonstrate that achieving the highest possible fidelity when simulating regional climate change requires that climate models use as input the most accurate (lower) solar irradiance value.<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/10/the-sun-does-it-now-go-figure-out-how/#comment-1444428MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-66261847188795084342013-10-11T08:01:06.031-07:002013-10-11T08:01:06.031-07:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/10/the-sun-does...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/10/the-sun-does-it-now-go-figure-out-how/#comment-1444181MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-89782867813575243252013-10-10T18:56:13.805-07:002013-10-10T18:56:13.805-07:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/10/the-sun-does...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/10/the-sun-does-it-now-go-figure-out-how/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-56356865846180693462013-10-10T18:56:00.193-07:002013-10-10T18:56:00.193-07:00Models also do not consider the time-integral of s...Models also do not consider the time-integral of solar activity and the great inertial lag of the earth-atmosphere system<br /><br />“Temporal changes in the power of the longwave radiation of the system Earth-atmosphere emitted to space always lag behind changes in the power of absorbed solar radiation due to slow change of its enthalpy. That is why the debit and credit parts of the average annual energy budget of the terrestrial globe with its air and water envelope are practically always in an unbalanced state. Average annual balance of the thermal budget of the system Earth-atmosphere during long time period will reliably determine the course and value of both an energy excess accumulated by the Earth or the energy deficit in the thermal budget which, with account for data of the TSI forecast, can define and predict well in advance the direction and amplitude of the forthcoming climate changes. From early 90s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth. The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014. Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline. The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease. The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11. <br /><br />reference link http://www.thegwpf.org/russian-astrophysicist-predicts-global-cooling/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-38132743126962495942013-10-08T09:05:05.803-07:002013-10-08T09:05:05.803-07:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/04/the-great-cl...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/04/the-great-climate-shift-of-1878/#comment-1436896MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-3159259287278225892013-10-08T09:03:23.159-07:002013-10-08T09:03:23.159-07:00http://clivebest.com/?p=5254#comment-5211http://clivebest.com/?p=5254#comment-5211MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-29731300432788956662013-10-07T11:53:27.432-07:002013-10-07T11:53:27.432-07:00New post today:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com...New post today:<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/10/new-paper-finds-multiple-amplification.html<br /><br />Are you listening David?MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-84869248414960755862013-10-07T11:04:53.835-07:002013-10-07T11:04:53.835-07:00New paper shows 20th century solar activity was at...New paper shows 20th century solar activity was at highest levels of past 9,400 years<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-shows-20th-century-solar.html<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3341045/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-86373928655887625992013-10-07T10:59:09.181-07:002013-10-07T10:59:09.181-07:00http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/07/current-sunspot...http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/07/current-sunspot-cycle-weakest-in-190-years-recent-model-temperature-deviation-due-to-solar-activity-experts-say/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-75310596117071657242013-10-07T10:55:20.702-07:002013-10-07T10:55:20.702-07:00Recent variability of the solar spectral irradianc...Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on<br />climate modelling<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/04/new-paper-finds-large-changes-in-solar.html<br /><br />MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-86602942267392887792013-10-07T08:29:54.443-07:002013-10-07T08:29:54.443-07:00David,
I realize you wrote that article before Cl...David,<br /><br />I realize you wrote that article before Climategate, but how can you possibly imply Soon & Baliunas are frauds while keeping tight lipped about the supposed pillars of science Mann & Jones quoted in your article, two of the biggest frauds in the history of science?MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-32525876499604347852013-10-07T08:22:46.660-07:002013-10-07T08:22:46.660-07:00I read your Sci Am article on Soon and Baliunas......I read your Sci Am article on Soon and Baliunas...<br /><br />I have also read almost every abstract published in the paleoclimate literature over the past 5 years, and in many cases, paid for the full papers and feature graphs from the papers on this site. I fully agree with their conclusion that "across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climate period of the last millennium."<br /><br />Here's 30 recent "non-hockey-sticks" for a sampling<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=non-hockey-stick&max-results=30&by-date=true<br /><br />You apparently didn't understand that many paleoclimate indicators such as d18O and tree-rings are used as proxies for both temperature & precipitation, thereby slandering Soon & Baliunas use of these indicators for both temperature & precipitation. In fact, this is routinely done in hundreds of paleoclimate papers due to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.<br /><br />Paleoclimate proxies are also not exact with respect to dating, so your criticisms about that are also dubious.<br /><br />David, why don't you do some real science investigative reporting on clear-cut frauds from the CAGW side such as these:<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/stanford-scientist-claims-current-pace.html<br /><br />http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2013/09/how-flimsy-pro-global-warming-science.html?m=1<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/political-advocacy-by-climate.htmlMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-5378153407882352532013-10-05T19:15:24.951-07:002013-10-05T19:15:24.951-07:00Sci Am articles are not peer reviewed science eith...<i>Sci Am articles are not peer reviewed science either.</i><br /><br />Read my article. It lays out very clearly the logical problems with the Soon & Baliunas paper. They did very, very poor science. <br /><br />The only question really is, was it on purpose? David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-68077030671124419622013-10-02T11:26:00.071-07:002013-10-02T11:26:00.071-07:00Sci Am articles are not peer reviewed science eith...Sci Am articles are not peer reviewed science either. Peer-review or "pal-review" is often corrupted by conflicts of interest. I know first hand from my publications in the peer-reviewed literature. <br /><br />David, I've got other things to do now, so am ending the comments on this thread as we're just going around in circles on the same points. ByeMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-44102607273737212232013-10-02T11:18:47.934-07:002013-10-02T11:18:47.934-07:00You apparently don't understand the difference...You apparently don't understand the difference between heat and radiation. "Heat radiation" is a misnomer to a physicist, but it's not my job to educate you.<br /><br />There's a lot of support for a 1.5 to 4 W/m2 increase in TSI over the 20th century, as I stated in the post. This doesn't include any solar amplification effects, which have been shown from direct observations to be 6.6 W/m2 per decade in the latter 20th century from global brightening alone. <br /><br />Your logic appears to be that because I can't quantify the amount of solar UV "forcing" then it must be bunk. Likewise, the IPCC can't quantify a CO2 forcing effect within the huge range of 1.5-4.5C, and gave up on a central estimate, that must be bunk as well.<br /><br />Self projection: "It is interesting how you people are all fine with accepting proxies and models when they support your view, and rejecting them when they do not." applies much much more to AGW proponents.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-22256830479456048362013-10-02T11:09:44.927-07:002013-10-02T11:09:44.927-07:00Blog posts aren't science. When McIntyre gets ...Blog posts aren't science. When McIntyre gets his PAGES critique published in the peer reviewed literature, it will be possible to take it seriously. Until then it's just a blog. <br /><br />CO2 science did similar tricks with methodology as did Soon & Baliunas 10 years ago. I tore that apart in Scientific American, and it taught me that some people will resort to all kinds of tricks to try and mislead people. They are very obvious once you start digging into them, as is CO2's science. I learned not to trust any of them, and to be very skeptical. <br /><br />http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hot-words-2003-06-24David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-70723458282953180032013-10-02T11:04:58.999-07:002013-10-02T11:04:58.999-07:00And you have left out some crucial conclusions of ...And you have left out some crucial conclusions of the Shapiro et al work:<br /><br />"As we are aware that maintaining a stable calibration to better than 0.1 % over 30 years is very demanding we<br />cannot claim that the historical data confirm our reconstruction."<br /><br />"...until new evidence become available we are in a situation that different approaches and hypothesis yield different solar forcing values."<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.4763v1.pdf<br /><br />In short, the conclusions of this paper need some serious confirmation, as even the authors admit: <br /><br />"Our result allows the climate community to evaluate the full range of present uncertainty in solar forcing."David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-61339996945496586542013-10-02T10:57:45.504-07:002013-10-02T10:57:45.504-07:00Heat radiation can solar radiation aren't equi...Heat radiation can solar radiation aren't equivalent. Just one example is albedo and how various wavelenghts reflect. In any case, there is little support for a 4 W/m2 increase in TSI over the last century. And you've been unable to quantify changes due to UV changes. <br /><br />It is interesting how you people are all fine with accepting proxies and models when they support your view, and rejecting them when they do not. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-22972095353371334692013-10-02T10:52:40.338-07:002013-10-02T10:52:40.338-07:00Steve McIntyre summaries the curious & cherry-...Steve McIntyre summaries the curious & cherry-picked reconstructions used by PAGES, many of which he and others have previously debunked.<br /><br />http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/21/pages2k-reconstructions/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-2181615647963194872013-10-02T10:45:46.826-07:002013-10-02T10:45:46.826-07:00You dismiss over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers in mai...<i>You dismiss over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals by over 1,200 scientists just because CO2science.org links to them.</i><br /><br />I don't dismiss the individual papers, I dismiss the way CO2 science has organized them and the claims they have made about them. Their methodology is well known to be faulty:<br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval_project.html<br /><br />Meanwhile, real scientific work like that from PAGES comes to a much different view:<br />http://www.pages-igbp.org/download/docs/Diaz%20et%20al_2011-1(32).pdf<br /><br />"In summary, in answer to the question posed above regarding the spatial and temporal scales of the MCA, the general consensus of the participants is that <br />in the past 15 years additional evidence has become available of a climatic anomaly occurring during the time interval ca. 900-1300 AD, albeit with important differences regarding the timing and spatial extent. The participants also stressed that a Northern Hemisphere or global mean value is of less relevance when looking at the regional spatial scales where the impacts of climatic anomalies are experienced."<br /><br />Note especially the last clause of the first sentence.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-86192066952721561432013-10-02T10:40:43.761-07:002013-10-02T10:40:43.761-07:001. The IPCC makes no such distinction that 1 W/m2 ...1. The IPCC makes no such distinction that 1 W/m2 of solar forcing is any different from 1 W/m2 GHG forcing<br /><br />2. In fact, OLR has increased with increased GHGs, the opposite of GHE theory<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/09/scientist-there-is-no-observational.html<br /><br />3. In fact, a 1 W/m2 increase in solar shortwave has much more warming effect on earth than a 1 W/m2 alleged increase in LWIR from GHGs, because only solar shortwave can penetrate the ocean surface to heat the bulk of the oceans. LWIR only causes evaporative cooling of the ocean skin layer.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-39756992951665284832013-10-02T10:31:47.938-07:002013-10-02T10:31:47.938-07:00If you claim a 4W/m2 forcing causes a dT ~ 0.2 K, ...<i>If you claim a 4W/m2 forcing causes a dT ~ 0.2 K, why do you think the alleged 3.7W/m2 TOA forcing from doubled CO2 would lead to a dT ~ 3K?</i><br /><br />Because one reduces OLR, and the other is an increase in incoming shortwave radiation.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-39052964224026659972013-10-02T10:31:04.881-07:002013-10-02T10:31:04.881-07:00David, if you are going to make ad hom, "deni...David, if you are going to make ad hom, "denier" or abusive comments, they will be deleted per the comment policy. It is clear that your comments reveal lack of any objective interest in exploring any possible explanation other than AGW. You dismiss over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals by over 1,200 scientists just because CO2science.org links to them, due to your desire to believe in the fallacy that the MWP was local. So, stop wasting my time with your CAGW propaganda.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.com