Do humans contribute to climate change substantially?

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

For completeness it should be added that of the various papers related to the recent solar grand maximum, Vonmoos et al (graphic source) differ to a degree from other authors e.g. Usoskin et al 2003 and Solanki et al 2004. The latter papers cite recent solar activity at levels above that seen for 1000 or 8000 years depending on which paper is taken. However there is agreement that "the level of solar activity over the past 50 years is indeed high" and as such, given the key climate consideration in and outside this thread relates either 1) to post-industrialisation or 2) to the last 30 years, depending on how far back true belief is retreating at the time, there is agreement on a very high level of solar activity in recent decades - recent here meaning after the Maunder Minimum and LIA from 1645 to 1715 - culminating in the 1990s.

Well here is where there looks to be an upset apple cart to me. Recent solar activity doesn't look much different to what it was in the 18th century and much of the 19th century ie no long term trend over the last 300yrs (per Svalgaard).

You're looking at sunspot numbers again because it suits your purpose to keep the blinkers on. Look wider.

The grand solar maximum ending in the 1990s isn't dismissed via sunspot numbers, as there are other aspects to solar activity which I included in recent posts.

Your point rests on Leif's revised sunspot numbers, but the grand solar max doesn't.

The previous peaks in solar activity are not post-industrialisation, there was increased solar activity around the MWP and RWP so it's good to see a true believer pushing for these other periods of enhanced solar activity to be recognised alongside the climate optima of the same vintage. As you will recall members of 'The Team' tried and failed to wipe out the MWP to push 'The Cause'.

There's only the very recent short duration (in relative terms) solar grand maximum at work in 20th century. 14C and 10Be data reflect the recent grand solar maximum and as such it doesn't depend on sunspot numbers or revisions.

Your approach seems to be deliberately blinkered, as though you're trying to make your case fit a preconceived position. In selecting Vonmoos et al for the graphic I gave the worst case (for solar activity-to-climate) as it still makes a very strong case for a very marked rise in solar activity from the end of the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum of the time, up to the 1990s.

Subsequently I gave the other two papers as they are even more supportive of a recent grand solar maximum, unique in over a thousand years or considerably more.

The case that true believers need to make, namely that the recent solar grand maximum didn't actually happen and that solar activity has not been at remarkably high levels in very recent decades, meaning since industrialisation, is shot through by all three papers and is not reliant on sunspot numbers as implied by your earlier post and again by the above post.

It's as though you can't read the numbers and letters in 14C and 10Be.

[turbobloke]

We've been here before.

1
On the 10Be point, you (Bedazzled) do realise that an active Sun means high solar shielding of galactic cosmic rays which decreases radionuclide production rates...so in the graphic I posted from V et al, the low point on the left hand side of the chart is the present grand solar maximum, with low 10Be and a high level of solar activity. These variables are anticorrelated. The chart you posted shows 10Be production declining into the late 1900s from 1900, that reinforces high and increasing solar activity from ~1900 to ~2000. What point was it you were trying to make?

Here's a flashback to 2011 when I was discussing 10Be with kerplunk in one of the climate science threads.



click and scroll


2
And about the pointlessly narrow focus on sunspots seen recently, where no mention was made of other key solar activity such as coronal holes, which have a strong role to play in the interaction between the solar magnetosphere and the Earth because coronal holes represent areas with open magnetic field lines, not loops as seen above active sunspot pairs.

In 2009 and not for the first time on PH I said:

The additional factor is solar eruptivity, which operates through surface features other than spots e.g. coronal holes, and involves the solar wind...this impacts on cosmic ray flux and so cloud formation, albedo, and climate. The auroral oval effects, due also to solar magnetic activity and solar wind variability impact on global circulation patterns and hence climate.

Eruptivity is going to have some degree of linkage to irradiance (sunspot cycle) but as described above the effects are not purely spotty so it's not possible to account for all solar forcings by merely considering irradiance, yet this is what the IPCC try to do and what True Believers try to do. It's the ostrich position in climate terms.

click and scroll or search the page for coronal

[Globs]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

Well here is where there looks to be an upset apple cart to me.

Your approach seems to be deliberately blinkered, as though you're trying to make your case fit a preconceived position..

TB: You have neatly summed up the entire UN/IPCC group and their grant feeders!!

[turbobloke]

Bedazzled said:

turbobloke said:

On the 10Be point, you (Bedazzled) do realise that an active Sun means high solar shielding of galactic cosmic rays which decreases radionuclide production rates...so in the graphic I posted from V et al, the low point on the left hand side of the chart is the present grand solar maximum, with low 10Be and a high level of solar activity. These variables are anticorrelated. The chart you posted shows 10Be production declining into the late 1900s from 1900, that reinforces high solar activity - what point was it you were trying to make?

Yes I do, in fact it was mentioned in the quote, the authors are claiming their 10Be measurement shows the solar maximum in the late 1900's was not significantly different to previous solar cycles during the last 600 years, i.e. there may be no Modern Grand Maximum, as does the corrected TSI data. In other words their trend is relatively horizontal, while yours dips dramatically.

No SGM in 600 years? The first one going back was the MWP, the charts you cited don't even go back that far!

Sources and sources, I gave three papers in almost total agreement. Look into the methodology. Beyond that, there was indeed a grand maximum recently, as confirmed by 14C and 10Be and the climate optimum which accompanied it. Pity it's over, no?

As the charts you link to show clearly, solar activity rose significantly between 1900 and 2000. I don't dispute that and neither does the data in the charts you gave. The point that solar activity, in terms of BOTH eruptivity and irradiance, can explain modest slow natural warming overall in the 20th century remains valid.

Prior to that on far longer timescales than the current anthropogenic carbon dioxide kerfuffle, there were earlier similar solar maxima, not least around the time of the MWP and RWP. I already agreed in general terms with findings that cite earlier powerful solar maxima as there were earlier climate optima. Again, what point are you trying to make? How grand is a grand maximum? Totally moot in the post-industrialisation discussion. All you're looking at tops is whether the recent grand maximum was so-much above or so-much below earlier grand maxima. Look at the interval 1800 to 2000 in the charts you posted. Solar activity rising to very high levels. We agree, it would appear.

As mentioned earlier, something new would be good for 2013. Forget the comment about something convincing from true belief, as without that visible causal human signal there is nothing.

[Bacardi]

turbobloke said:

Your approach seems to be deliberately blinkered, as though you're trying to make your case fit a preconceived position.

No! Never, surely not. Plunky's integrity is beyond question! As seen over the years...

[BliarOut]

Despite it being on BBC Breakfast news, I can't find anything about this on the Biased Broadcasting Corporation's website this morning.

Met Office Forecasts No Global Temperature Rise

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5...

Plunky...

[chris watton]

BliarOut said:

Despite it being on BBC Breakfast news, I can't find anything about this on the Biased Broadcasting Corporation's website this morning.

Met Office Forecasts No Global Temperature Rise

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5...

Plunky...

article said:

The UK Met Office has revised its global temperature predictions as a result of a new version of its climate model and climate simulations using it. It now believes that global temperatures up to 2017 will most likely be 0.43 deg C above the 1971 -2000 average, with an error of +/- 0.15 deg C. In reality this is a forecast of no increase in global temperatures above current levels. If the latest Met Office prediction is correct, and it accords far more closely with the observed data than previous predictions, then it will prove to be a lesson in humility. It will show that the previous predictions that were given so confidently as advice to the UK government and so unquestioningly accepted by the media, were wrong, and that the so-called sceptics who were derided for questioning them were actually on the right track.—David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 7 January 2013

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

For completeness it should be added that of the various papers related to the recent solar grand maximum, Vonmoos et al (graphic source) differ to a degree from other authors e.g. Usoskin et al 2003 and Solanki et al 2004. The latter papers cite recent solar activity at levels above that seen for 1000 or 8000 years depending on which paper is taken. However there is agreement that "the level of solar activity over the past 50 years is indeed high" and as such, given the key climate consideration in and outside this thread relates either 1) to post-industrialisation or 2) to the last 30 years, depending on how far back true belief is retreating at the time, there is agreement on a very high level of solar activity in recent decades - recent here meaning after the Maunder Minimum and LIA from 1645 to 1715 - culminating in the 1990s.

Well here is where there looks to be an upset apple cart to me. Recent solar activity doesn't look much different to what it was in the 18th century and much of the 19th century ie no long term trend over the last 300yrs (per Svalgaard).

You're looking at sunspot numbers again because it suits your purpose to keep the blinkers on. Look wider.

The grand solar maximum ending in the 1990s isn't dismissed via sunspot numbers, as there are other aspects to solar activity which I included in recent posts.

Your point rests on Leif's revised sunspot numbers, but the grand solar max doesn't.

I'm looking at sunspots cos they're 'news' and I'm interested in the direct warming/cooling effect of TSI variation historically (primarily).

Svalgaard thinks the adjusted sunspot count brings into question claims of a modern grand solar maximum in the 20th century and the TSI variation inferred from that maximum.

eg.

Question to Svalgaard: "What does it mean, to you, that there was no Grand Maximum? What does this tell us, in the context of Climate on earth? AGW? TSI?"

Svalgaard: "It tells me that if people use the sunspot number (which they do) as a basis for reconstructing TSI and correlating with climate, that they will get things wrong (which they do)."

[BliarOut]

Seems you're out of step with the Met Office Plunky, how does it feel to have backed the wrong horse?

[kerplunk]

BliarOut said:

Seems you're out of step with the Met Office Plunky, how does it feel to have backed the wrong horse?

I don't recall backing a horse for what the climate will do in the next 5 years.

[rovermorris999]

kerplunk said:

I don't recall backing a horse for what the climate will do in the next 5 years.

The IPCC did and have got it wrong so far.

[BliarOut]

rovermorris999 said:

kerplunk said:

I don't recall backing a horse for what the climate will do in the next 5 years.

The IPCC did and have got it wrong so far.

As did the Met Office. Seems they've reconsidered their stance. Will you now that the established bodies seem to have accepted they were mistaken?

[jurbie]

BliarOut said:

Despite it being on BBC Breakfast news, I can't find anything about this on the Biased Broadcasting Corporation's website this morning.

Met Office Forecasts No Global Temperature Rise

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5...

Plunky...

It's here currently their 7th most read article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2094...

It tries very hard to say that although it isn't warming it as actually getting warmer.

[kerplunk]

rovermorris999 said:

kerplunk said:

I don't recall backing a horse for what the climate will do in the next 5 years.

The IPCC did and have got it wrong so far.

I've not seen that.

[BliarOut]

kerplunk said:

rovermorris999 said:

kerplunk said:

I don't recall backing a horse for what the climate will do in the next 5 years.

The IPCC did and have got it wrong so far.

I've not seen that.

Rather than getting sidetracked, what does the Met Office's revised position say to you?

[kerplunk]

BliarOut said:

rovermorris999 said:

kerplunk said:

I don't recall backing a horse for what the climate will do in the next 5 years.

The IPCC did and have got it wrong so far.

As did the Met Office. Seems they've reconsidered their stance. Will you now that the established bodies seem to have accepted they were mistaken?

'mistaken' about what will happen in the next 5 years - maybe. It remains to be seen of course.

[London424]

kerplunk said:

BliarOut said:

rovermorris999 said:

kerplunk said:

I don't recall backing a horse for what the climate will do in the next 5 years.

The IPCC did and have got it wrong so far.

As did the Met Office. Seems they've reconsidered their stance. Will you now that the established bodies seem to have accepted they were mistaken?

'mistaken' about what will happen in the next 5 years - maybe. It remains to be seen of course.

My prediction. They will continue being revised down.

You know...as what is actually happening is causing a real issue with the 'models'.

[Globs]

kerplunk said:

BliarOut said:

rovermorris999 said:

kerplunk said:

I don't recall backing a horse for what the climate will do in the next 5 years.

The IPCC did and have got it wrong so far.

As did the Met Office. Seems they've reconsidered their stance. Will you now that the established bodies seem to have accepted they were mistaken?

'mistaken' about what will happen in the next 5 years - maybe. It remains to be seen of course.

With CO2 as the primary climate driver it say that the CO2 theory is wrong, doesn't it.
Basically the Met office is saying that man made CO2 causes warming and it continues to increase, but we don't expect any warming now.

If this is the new 'stable' temperature for the planet what was the $400bn for then KP?

[kerplunk]

BliarOut said:

kerplunk said:

rovermorris999 said:

kerplunk said:

I don't recall backing a horse for what the climate will do in the next 5 years.

The IPCC did and have got it wrong so far.

I've not seen that.

Rather than getting sidetracked, what does the Met Office's revised position say to you?

It says decadal-scale forecasts are very new and subject to change. I wouldn't put much store by the new or the old forecast based on my limited knowledge of what they do. It seems inherently uncertain to me given we can't predict ENSO patterns very well and over a such a short period what ENSO does will be a major factor. The error bars are quite wide though of course so perversely i'd say thay have a good chance of being right!

[Globs]

Bedazzled said:

Not so chilly in the southern hemisphere... "Fire service issues catastrophic warnings in New South Wales with temperatures expected to breach 45C in coming days. A record-breaking heatwave and high winds across south-eastern Australia have produced some of the worst fire conditions seen in the country" - here

You know it's peak summer there right?