Harper makes us proud once again

[Zephyr]

From the Archives:

Urban Toronto Forum > Rest of the Universe Discussion > Politics & Diplomacy > Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

10-13-2007 / Post#19

At this juncture, I am not interested in the politics of Mr. Gore and/or Mr. Clinton, or whether Gore 'deserves' the Nobel Peace Prize or not. II've said all I need to on that in prior posts. But I will defend the global warming end of this, because it is not an invention out of thin air by one man, nor a small band of people with some kind of conspiracy lurking. This issue has been under observation for some time, and many of the world's best scientists have weighed in on it, and more of them seem to agree than disagree, that global warming is an authenic issue.

Besides, there has been no increase in the globally averaged temperature since about 1999.

Not true. Gavin Schmidt, a prominent climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies reports that 2005 is now the warmest year globally in the instrumental record, followed by 1998.

CLICK HERE

Some months ago, NASA quietly revised its statistics to indicate that 1934 was the warmest year of the century.

Quietly revised?

From a NASA standpoint, not quietly nor loudly, simply per normal: the distribution to the outside media was not delayed nor handled in a special or unusual manner.

Not surprisingly for those that saw this as a major flaw to the global warming theory – namely, FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, and the other usual suspects – attempts were made to get the repackaged and misleading information out there. Thus far this effort has had little traction, except among those who were already in tow. I believe this is referred to cynically in political circles as “rallying the baseâ€.

But let us not leave it there. The source of the NASA revisions was James Hansen. Mr. Hansen supported before, and still does support the thesis of global warming. When asked about the significance of the revisions, his response was essentially the following:

• The revisions were not made to the global chart but rather to the US charts
  
• The global charts still show that 1998 is the warmest year on record when averaged for the world, not 1934. (Gavin Schmidt updates this to 2005 - see first section.)
  
• The US chart revisions, when properly updated, do not demonstrate significant differentials to the trends.

US chart (top)
compared to
Global chart (bottom)

Is this Mr. Hansen’s view and no one else at NASA? Is he in effect blind to his own revelations? I don’t think so. Mr. Schmidt also reports that the temperature difference between 1934 and 1998 in the United States (before and after the revisions by Hansen) is not statistically significant.

If one were to bypass Hansen and Schmidt and go directly to NASA’s global charts, it shows the following trend: 10 of the warmest years globally in the instrumental record have occurred after 1989. The key word in all this is the GLOBAL trend, not the US trend! Watch how that point will be lost again by someone submitting another post.

CLICK Here to see NASA’s GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index

 

[Hydrogen]

Thanks again for the big graphs again (which I seen before many times).

First off, sorry but I don't listen to (or watch?) Rush Limbaugh or Fox. Don't have cable, actually. Don't even have a TV. So thanks for telling me what they're up to. Not that it makes any difference.

As Gavin Schmidt most definitely has a bias, I'll take his words with a big grain of salt (RealClimate takes a pretty hard line with respect to AGW). To each his own.

The fact that 1934 and the El Nino year of 1998 (not predicted by any climate model forecast - no El Nino has ever been predicted by a climate model forecast) have the same temperature record ought to be fascinating, particularly when taking into consideration rates of industrial development, numbers of automobiles in use, human population and carbon dioxide emissions of 1934 - all of which were considerably lower than 1998.

But there were also less of those things - cars and factories - during the Medieval Warm Period, and the warm climate trend a thousand years or so before that. Lucky for us, we find ourselves living during a peak in one of the thousand-plus year Daansgard-Oeschger cycles - just like the Medieval peoples and the Romans.

I guess we are a society that is infatuated with the present at the expense of looking at the past. Climate trends are not one year or five year events. They comprise of hundreds and even thousands of years. But whatever.

Nevertheless, some scientists have suggested that changes in how surface temperatures have been measured have created a warming bias. Around the world, thousands of surface stations were closed during the recession years of the 1980's. Creeping urbanization may have started to contaminate data. Many climatologists also suggest that despite the statistical analysis, surface stations are much more useful for recording local trends, rather than being compiled into global measures. There is considerable variation in local tends. For an interesting review of some of the thousands of surface station sites in the United States (the largest number of any country) see:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

If you want to look at an interesting "skeptic" site, try:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

 

[Zephyr]

Thanks again for the big graphs again (which I seen before many times).

First off, sorry but I don't listen to (or watch?) Rush Limbaugh or Fox. Don't have cable, actually. Don't even have a TV. So thanks for telling me what they're up to. Not that it makes any difference.

As Gavin Schmidt most definitely has a bias, I'll take his words with a big grain of salt (RealClimate takes a pretty hard line with respect to AGW). To each his own.

The fact that 1934 and the El Nino year of 1998 (not predicted by any climate model forecast - no El Nino has ever been predicted by a climate model forecast) have the same temperature record ought to be fascinating, particularly when taking into consideration rates of industrial development, numbers of automobiles in use, human population and carbon dioxide emissions of 1934 - all of which were considerably lower than 1998.

But there were also less of those things - cars and factories - during the Medieval Warm Period, and the warm climate trend a thousand years or so before that. Lucky for us, we find ourselves living during a peak in one of the thousand-plus year Daansgard-Oeschger cycles - just like the Medieval peoples and the Romans.

I guess we are a society that is infatuated with the present at the expense of looking at the past. Climate trends are not one year or five year events. They comprise of hundreds and even thousands of years. But whatever.

Nevertheless, some scientists have suggested that changes in how surface temperatures have been measured have created a warming bias. Around the world, thousands of surface stations were closed during the recession years of the 1980's. Creeping urbanization may have started to contaminate data. Many climatologists also suggest that despite the statistical analysis, surface stations are much more useful for recording local trends, rather than being compiled into global measures. There is considerable variation in local tends. For an interesting review of some of the thousands of surface station sites in the United States (the largest number of any country) see:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

If you want to look at an interesting "skeptic" site, try:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Now you are really being churlish. Despite how we converse here, by training and by nature, I happen to be a numbers person, and that is where we are inevitably headed at this juncture. You have left no other avenue by this constant recourse to calling this biased or that, and surmising that the perspectives on global warming are somehow impossible to legitimately defend. If I have to, I shall pull from every resource I have available that can be found on the internet that is reputable. I try to do this anyway, but I'll make a special effort this time around. After all, that is the only resource we have readily available to both of us, given the lack of a place to go verify every document you or I may also cite or personally have. Since I have to work and sleep and eat, I will not always be there immediately after your post, but I will return all your responses as soon as I am able, and I hope you will do the same. And this time, we must be prepared to debate this to the bitter end. As far as I am concerned, all other posts will be secondary until we come to some kind of common ground on respecting opposing views. I am not claiming that your comments are uninsightful, but I am claiming they do not allow for the ligitimacy of the global warming argument or theory.

Let us start again with the last post from the archives. Of course I know you have seen it, I brought it back to support my recollection of events that you apparently have forgotten with that post you left for me. And the fact that it is unaltered was to avoid any charge that it had been manipulated. Why drag the 'I don't care about Limbaugh' part out for discussion, other than to mis-direct? This inclusion of Limbaugh was in the original post on a thread where it had a relevance; if the post is unaltered, it cannot be helped that it is included here. But I will not be mis-directed away from the central discussion, by your curious habit of addressing secondary trivia when the bulk of that post directly confirmed what I had believed that it had said in the other thread before finding it again. Let me drive this home, as honestly as I can:

• I did challenge your implication that the alteration by NASA temperature charts still had not altered the global temperature measure, because the temperature chart changed was a national not a global chart, Now you act as though your post introduced this little detail when it patently didn't - you just made the claim as if it somehow did.
  
  
• Furthermore, NASA data arguably supported, and in fact still does, the points we are debating here and now about global warming trends based on a world perspective, and never denying that individual nations can contribute to the whole by doing their part.
  
  
• Opinion are what we do here, but then they seem to be revolting to you even when they are done in an informed and measured way. The so-called bias of Schmidt et. al., leaves you only with the NASA charts which you initially made reference to in your comments on the other thread. We can continue in that vein if that is the only way we can get past this bickering about bias and manipulation from those that are convinced that evidence does exist for supporting the global warming thesis.
  
  
• As a simple ground rule from the outset let us accept that it is not out of bounds to challenge any assertion have some documented source or verifiable fact. Not just for me, but for you as well - it is only fair.

What we have to look forward to will probably be dull for most people but that is OK with me. I only ask that we both try to stay away from jargon and place the raw figures out into the open. I am anxious to see the evidence you can muster from the internet to support an unbiased view from a reputable up to date source or sources, because I quite frankly don't know of any such evidence and would like to see it. I know this one thing - before you say the internet is not large enough or good enough, which I would not disagree with in general - there is a wealth of charts at NASA that are accessible to both of us, and there are other archival materials that can be drawn from reputable studies. It may take some time, but I am in no hurry, I just want to see what you have, and hopefully you will see what I think is equally responsible evidence.

For starters, I am requesting you to review the last few lines of the archived post again - the chart that was there, without opinions or bias, to illustrate the point. The fact that Schmidt was in charge of its compilation is because that is what he does for a living and is paid to do so. I don't know of anyone who questions his credentials, and I respect his valuable insight even if you don't, but I'll agree to put it aside and just look at this chart first. I'll wait for your response on that data, especially on its own merits.

 

[Hydrogen]

Now you are really being childish. If I have to I will pull from every resource I have available, and we will argue this time to the bitter end. I will forget all the other posts.

This is from the archives, so I know you have seen it, And the fact that it is unaltered was to avoid any charge that it has been manipulated.

You cannot drag the'I don't care about Limbaugh part out to misdirect' This inclusion of Limbaugh was in the original post.

The point is that I had corrected you on the alteration by NASA, and you very well know that.

And you very well know that the NASA data supports the scientific opinion.

OK we will just use the charts, which was the third piece of the post. I will enjoy seeing how you will call those charts bias as well.

Try to be a little less sensitive, Zephyr. You sound as if you are taking this all too personally. Believe it or not, it wasn't meant personally. This is a bulletin board, after all. People come here to let their hair down.

Versions of this graph have been published before - if that's what you are making reference to. And I don't really care what Limbaugh and others like him have to say. I don't pay attention to him. And do note that I said that Gavin Schmidt has his biases. I visit the RealClimate site. As for the correction, it has been reported that 1934 was the warmest year in to 20th century. I don't have a link to any of the articles because I don't really archive this stuff.

As I pointed out earlier, considering 1934 and the other warm years in that period, when compared to today, there was just a fraction of the carbon dioxide emissions at that time, yet the temperature peaks are close to what they are today.

The relationship between increasing carbon dioxide and increasing temperature is logarithmic, which would result in a reduction of the forcing effect of each successive increment of C02. This would mean that we have already seen most of the forcing effects of human emissions of C02 (280 ppm to 370 ppm). A doubling of contemporary atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would generate a few tenths of a degree in terms of a temperature increase - which falls close to the levels of measurement error. Richard Lindzen has published many papers on the forcing effects of carbon dioxide. If interested, I'm sure you should be able to find some posted online.

By using other proxy measures for assessing carbon dioxide before the era of direct measurement (stromatal density in fossil pine needles is one such type of measure), there is reasonable evidence to suggest that atmospheric carbon dioxide has been as high as today - if not even higher - around the year 500.

Also interesting, it has been noted by solar scientists (for example, Scafetta and West) that the sun has been quite active for a number of decades, and that changes in solar output could easily account for a considerable portion of the temperature changes observed over the last number of decades. There is an excellent relationship between temperature records and solar activity. As well, slight changes in low altitude cloud cover also appear to have a very significant role in moderating temperature.

I have also made reference to the fact that there already exists a considerable geological and climatological record for thousand-plus year variations in temperature.

So to me, slight variations in temperature, while interesting at a certain level, are not indicative of what the future will be. As to arguing to the bitter end, that end point is not up to us to decide.

 

[Zephyr]

I was still polishing my post, assuming you had gone for the day, so I apologise for the fact that my latest revisions were not in time to get your latest reaction. Let me look at what you posted with my earlier version and respond asap.

 

[Zephyr]

Try to be a little less sensitive, Zephyr. You sound as if you are taking this all too personally. Believe it or not, it wasn't meant personally. This is a bulletin board, after all. People come here to let their hair down.

Versions of this graph have been published before - if that's what you are making reference to. And I don't really care what Limbaugh and others like him have to say. I don't pay attention to him. And do note that I said that Gavin Schmidt has his biases. I visit the RealClimate site. As for the correction, it has been reported that 1934 was the warmest year in to 20th century. I don't have a link to any of the articles because I don't really archive this stuff.

As I pointed out earlier, considering 1934 and the other warm years in that period, when compared to today, there was just a fraction of the carbon dioxide emissions at that time, yet the temperature peaks are close to what they are today.

The relationship between increasing carbon dioxide and increasing temperature is logarithmic, which would result in a reduction of the forcing effect of each successive increment of C02. This would mean that we have already seen most of the forcing effects of human emissions of C02 (280 ppm to 370 ppm). A doubling of contemporary atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would generate a few tenths of a degree in terms of a temperature increase - which falls close to the levels of measurement error. Richard Lindzen has published many papers on the forcing effects of carbon dioxide. If interested, I'm sure you should be able to find some posted online.

By using other proxy measures for assessing carbon dioxide before the era of direct measurement (stromatal density in fossil pine needles is one such type of measure), there is reasonable evidence to suggest that atmospheric carbon dioxide has been as high as today - if not even higher - around the year 500.

Also interesting, it has been noted by solar scientists (for example, Solanki and Usokin) that the sun has been quite active for a number of decades, and that changes in solar output could easily account for a considerable portion of the temperature changes observed over the last number of decades. There is an excellent relationship between temperature records and solar activity. As well, slight changes in low altitude cloud cover also appear to have a very significant role in moderating temperature.

I have also made reference to the fact that there already exists a considerable geological and climatological record for thousand-plus year variations in temperature.

But I assume you also aware that his work has a great deal of assumptions in it, and he has been challenged by the those in the global warming scientific community as well.

So to me, slight variations in temperature, while interesting at a certain level, are not indicative of what the future will be. As to arguing to the bitter end, that end point is not up to us to decide.

To start where you ended. The ‘bitter end’ to which I was referring, is not when global warming will be proven (I am not so naïve), but rather the end where you truly acknowledge there is a legitimate defence of global warming despite disagreeing with it. That means you would not be so quick to label anything you do not agree with as bias - the other side could play that game as well.

At one point in this post you mention that certain assumptions have been “challenged by … those in the global warming scientific community” I am not certain which person you have identified, due to some confusion I have with your specific reference, but here is what I would broaden this into based on my perspective: all of those you have cited have either been challenged by the identifiable scientific global warming community, and/or scientists you may be hard pressed to identify on either side of that same debate.

Thank you for your interpretation of Professor Richard Lindzen, a man whom I have known of for sometime, but normally only in his public forums of legislative testimonies and the occasional talk show appearance. He has become a conroversial figure, who is known for his label of “alarmists” pinned on global warming proponents highly politicised or not, but he is equally known for what some say is the axiomatic way he deals with certain global warming questions in the past. Not surprisingly, the person who specifically has assumed an active role in questioning Mr. Lentsen's theories and research, for its perceived biases on RealClimate is your favourite whipping boy for biases of his own, the global warming proponent gavin - as in Gavin Schmidt.

Sami Solanki and Ilya Usoskin, apparently have a different set of critics. Unidentifiable scientists in many cases regarding the global warming divide. Their isotope studies have been questioned due to the slimness of sampling, and the inconsistent results that are sometimes generalised into consistency. This has happened a few times, but especially for their most widely discussed research on the 10Be isotope.

But where will all that go to if we really got into it. The critics I guess will be biased and unfair, even if they are not really in this global warming debate, and how can gavin be fair, he has already taken a position, and even though the notes to his article on Lentzen demonstrate that his article was viewed by defenders of Lentzen, his efforts to correct any math or mistatement will not be forgiven. .

By the way, you wondered why I am taking this so personally. Let us just say I didn’t like how the information I brought initially on the Gore thread was curiously treated here. But that was merely irritating. It was when you added that aside about Limbaugh which was relevant to the original post but had no relevency here, that it all got personal. You must know by now that the post was transported in its entirety without alteration, because I did not want to be accused of changing or manipulating it, I believed this was clear, but in retrospect maybe it wasn't to you. So I shall put the personal aside and return to the final inquiry on this post.

You have to tell me where you want to go with this, because you say it is “interesting on a certain level” but I noticed you haven’t begun to get back to me on the NASA charts. How else are we to discuss this if all else is biased? If you want to keep the discussion more traditional, I would hope that we could do that with mutual respect - because I am not trying to convert you. I want to hear what you have to say and I want you to listen to the global warming side, but in no case do I want to be a second-class citizen in this discussion. It is really up to you.

 

[299 bloor call control.]

Why Harper continues to pander to Bush is beyond me.. the guy is gone in a year.

Harper's priorities out of step with voters
Dec 13, 2007 04:30 AM
HAROON SIDDIQUI
Democratic deficit. It conjures up images of low voter turnout and the estrangement of the young from our political process. But a bigger deficit is the wide gap between what Canadians believe and what Stephen Harper does on a host of international issues, especially those involving George W. Bush.

Take climate change. Canadians give it top priority. Yet Environment Minister John Baird has been busy at the Bali conference siding with the U.S. in dodging European goals for cutting greenhouse gases.

A tight embrace of Bush's policies, particularly on the seminal issue of Iraq, has caused much alienation between the electors and the elected in several Western nations.

It forced Tony Blair out of office, and caused the defeat of Jose Maria Aznar of Spain, Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, John Howard of Australia and the leaders of Hungary, Ukraine, Norway, Slovakia and Poland.

A poll by Strategic Counsel of Toronto for CTV and The Globe and Mail, released this week, shows how much Harper is out of step with Canadians' thinking: Canada's greatest achievements on the international scene have been its refusal to go to war on Iraq (33 per cent), pioneering the international treaty banning land mines (15 per cent) and signing the Kyoto accord (13 per cent). The biggest threat to the world is climate change (36 per cent), the rich-poor gap (14 per cent), terrorism (11 per cent) and weapons of mass destruction (4 per cent). Ottawa is too influenced by the U.S. (25 per cent), whereas only a handful of Canadians want Canada to be (5 per cent). They want Canada to advance democracy and human rights abroad (23 per cent), and promote development to reduce poverty (20 per cent).

On most of those issues, Harper is more on side with Bush than with Canadians. As opposition leader in 2003, he favoured the Iraq war. And of the foreign leaders who've since paid the ultimate political price for being "Bush's poodles," Harper was particularly close to Howard, the most bellicose of Bush's allies.

Howard, too, opposed Kyoto and was gung-ho about Iraq despite widespread public opposition. Pulling Australian troops out of Iraq, he said, would mean accepting defeat; he wouldn't cut and run.

Both Kyoto and Iraq were big issues in the Nov. 24 election and helped Labor Leader Kevin Rudd win. True to his campaign pledge, he will sign Kyoto and pull 500 troops out of Iraq.

On Iraq, he's doing what Spain, Italy and others did following changes in government, and what Poland and Britain are planning to.

Rudd opposes yet another of Bush's initiatives – selling nuclear technology and fuel to India, something Howard was keen on, Australia being a major exporter of uranium. Rudd has said he won't sell uranium to any nation that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which India hasn't.

Canada, the biggest exporter of uranium, backs Bush's India plan. But it's not yet clear where Harper stands on the Rudd initiative.

Harper has been even more slavish in following Bush than Howard, who successfully lobbied the president to have the two Australian captives of Guantanamo Bay return home. Harper has refused to intervene on behalf of Omar Khadr.

Leaders out of tune with their voters tend to say they are providing courageous leadership. Blair, Berlusconi, Howard and the others claimed that as well – to no avail.



Haroon Siddiqui, the Star's editorial page editor emeritus, appears Thursday and Sunday. Email: hsiddiq@thestar.ca

 

[unimaginative2]

Why Harper continues to pander to Bush is beyond me.. the guy is gone in a year.

Because he genuinely loves the guy and believes in his policies. It's not pandering to Harper. Harper believes that Bush is right and Canada (and the rest of the world, and most of the American people) are wrong. Remember the story of people looking in the window of the Prime Minister's Office at the Langevin Block and seeing a huge Bush/Cheney '04 poster.

 

[Zephyr]

Also interesting, it has been noted by solar scientists (for example, Scafetta and West) that the sun has been quite active for a number of decades, and that changes in solar output could easily account for a considerable portion of the temperature changes observed over the last number of decades. There is an excellent relationship between temperature records and solar activity. As well, slight changes in low altitude cloud cover also appear to have a very significant role in moderating temperature.

I am delighted to see you have removed Solanki and Usoskin (S&U) from your last post, via revision. As I have stated before, scientists have already questioned S&U's methods, their data, and the way they have drawn their conclusions in recent times. The erosion in their once lofty status in that community is evident, and one can date that as starting somewhere back in 2004.

But after applauding you on the one hand for your removal of their names, I now have to ask why you have substituted Scarfetta and West (S&W)? In my opinion, they are as controversial as they come, and with far less gravitas. I assume you are aware that there have been questions surrounding their research also? Maybe you just don't think this questioning is legitimate, or fair, or whatever. And if so, I wonder how you would make your case for defending them, especially in view of the criticisms I have seen. It only takes a small measure of investigation to see the problems that keep cropping up with their work.

At the close of this post I shall only cite the second of two articles from RealClimate. That should give you some impression of what many think is wrong about S&W's research. It is no more than a glimpse, because they are 'getting their heads handed to them' in other venues as well. I'd like to think, however, that you already know this. And if that is so, I am as to why this is better than the global warming research, and their particular brand of testing and extrapolating. As always I am not referring to the politicos or the uninformed - totally excluded - I am referring to the otherwise reputable people producing reputable work. If these two and/or the previous two are what you are telling me is part of the scientific advancements that are being ignored or given short shrift, then I am very troubled about the rest of what you are looking at.

I have been looking at statistics, and articles, and discussing these things with people for some time now - although I am probably not as well versed in this as you are. I am just trying to stay informed and to challenge myself, which I do all the time, its a family trait I guess. I still ask myself daily, do I believe that global warming is a legitimate area to investigate further. I got to tell you, the answer seems to be a relentless affirmation that this is worth investigating, and I leave it there until the next time.

As promised, here are excerpts from the second RealClimate response to S&W, with links to the entire article, What you see here is my online version of underlining. If you don't want to look at it, by all means go directly to the source - that might be the better recourse anyway, because the figures relevant to this article are there and not here. Perhaps you don't need to because you have already read this and any related article. Just like I am awaiting your response to my last post, I shall wait to see your defence of S&W.

Emphases Added in Red - Zephyr

Another study on solar influence

31 March 2006

Filed under: Sun-earth connections; Climate Science

In a recent paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Scafetta & West (S&W) estimate that as much as 25-35% of the global warming in the 1980-2000 period can be attributed changes in the solar output. They used some crude estimates of 'climate sensitivity' and estimates of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) to calculate temperature signal (in form of anomalies). They also argue that their estimate, which is based on statistical models only, has a major advantage over physically based considerations (theoretical models), because the latter would require a perfect knowledge about the underlying physical and chemical mechanisms.

In their paper, they combine Lean et al (1995) proxy data for the TSI with recent satellite TSI composites from either Willson & Mordvinov (2003) [which contains a trend] and of Fr̦hlich & Lean (1998) [data from the same source, but the analysis doesn't contain a trend, henceforth referred to as 'FL98_]. From 1980 and afterwards, they see a warming associated with solar forcing, even when basing their calculations on the FL98 data. The fact that the FL98 data doesn't contain any trend makes this finding seem a bit odd. Several independent indices on solar activity Рwhich are direct modern measurement rather than estimations - indicate that there has been no trend in the level of solar activity since 1950s.

But, S&W have assumed a lagged response (which they state is tS4~4.3 years), so that the increase prior to 1980 seems to have a delayed effect on the temperature. The delayed action is a property of the climate system, which also affects greenhouse gases, and is caused by the oceans which act as a flywheel due to their great heat capacity and thermal inertia. The oceans thus cause a planetary imbalance. When the forcing levels off, the additional response is expected to taper off as a decaying function of time. In contrast, the global mean temperature, however, has increased at a fairly steady rate (Fig. 1). The big problem is to explain a lag of more than 30 years when direct measurements of quantities (galactic cosmic rays, 10.7 cm solar radio, magnetic index, level of sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths) do not indicate any trend in the solar activity since the 1950s.


Fig. 1. Global mean temperature from GISS.


In order to shed light on these inconsistencies, we need to look more closely at the methods and results in the GRL paper. The S&W temperature signal, when closely scrutinised (their Fig. 3), starts at the 0K anomaly-level in 1900, well above the level of the observed 1900 temperature anomalies, which lie in the range -3K < T < -1K in Fig. 1. In 1940, their temperature [anomaly] reconstruction intercepts the temperature axis near 0.12K, which is slightly higher than the GISS-curve in Fig. 1 suggests. The S&W temperature peaks at 0.3K in 1960, and diverge significantly from the observations. By not plotting the curves on the same graph, the reader may easily get the wrong impression that the construction follows the observations fairly closely. The differences between the curves have not been discussed in the paper, nor the time difference for when the curves indicate maxima (global mean temperature peaks in 1945, while the estimated solar temperature signal peaks in 1960). Hence, the decrease in global temperature in the period 1945 - 1960 is inconsistent with the continued rise in the calculated solar temperature signal.

Another more serious weakness is a flawed approach to obtain their 'climate sensitivity', and especially so for 'Zeq' in their Equation 4. They assume a linear relationship between the response and the forcing Zeq=288K/1365Wm-2. For one thing, the energy balance between radiative forcing and temperature response gives a non-linear relation between the forcing, F, and temperature to the fourth power, T4 (the Stefan-Boltzmann law). This is standard textbook climate physics as well as well-known physics. However, there is an additional shortcoming due to the fact that the equilibrium temperature is also affected by the ratio of the Earth's geometrical cross-section to its surface area as well as how much is reflected, the planetary albedo (A). The textbook formulae for a simple radiative balance model is:

F (1-A)/4 = s T4, where 's' here is the Boltzmann constant (~5.67 x 10-8 J/s m2K4).

('=' moved after Scafetta pointed out this error. )

S&W's sun-climate sensitivity (Zeq =0.21K/Wm-2), on which the given solar influence estimates predominantly depend, is thus based solely on a very crude calculation that contradicts the knowledge of climate physics. The "equilibrium" sensitivity of the global surface temperature to solar irradiance variations, which is calculated simply by dividing the absolute temperature on the earth's surface (288K) by the solar constant (1365Wm-2), is based on the assumption that the climate response is linear in the whole temperature band starting at the zero point. This assumption is far from being true. S&W argue further that this sensitivity does not only represent the direct solar forcing, but includes all the feedback mechanisms. It is well known, that these feedbacks are highly non-linear. Let's just mention the ice-albedo feedback, which is very different at (hypothetically) e.g. 100K surface temperature with probably 'snowball earth' and at 300K with no ice at all. In their formula for the calculation of the sun-related temperature change, the long-term changes are determined by Zeq, while their 'climate transfer sensitivity to slow secular solar variations' (ZS4) is only used to correct for a time-lag. The reason for this remains unclear.

In order to calculate the terrestrial response to more ephemeral solar variations, S&W introduce another type of 'climate sensitivity' which they calculate separately for each of two components representing frequency ranges 7.3-14.7 and 14.7-29.3 year ranges respectively. They take the ratios of the amplitude of band-passed filtered global temperatures to similarly band-passed filtered solar signal as the estimate for the 'climate sensitivity'. This is a very unusual way of doing it, but S&W argue that similar approach has been used in another study. However, it's not as simple as that calculating the climate senstivity (see here, here, here, and here). Hence, there are serious weaknesses regarding how the 'climate sensitivities' for the 11-year and the 22-year signals were estimated. For linear systems, different frequency bands may be associated with different forcings having different time scales, but chaotic systems and systems with convoluted response are usually characterised with broad power spectra. Furthermore, it's easy to show that band-pass filtering of two unrelated series of random values can produce a range of different values for the ratio of their amplitudes just by chance (Fig. 2). As an aside, it is also easy to get an apparent coherence between two band-pass filtered stochastic series of finite extent which are unrelated by definition - a common weakness in many studies on solar-terrestrial climate connection. There is little doubt that the analysis involved noisy data.

Fig. 2 showing band-passed random data. A range of 0.5 – 2.0 suggests that there is a risk that one of the amplitudes in two noisy series is twice the value of the other.

The fact that there is poor correspondence between the individual amplitudes of the band-passed filtered signals (Fig. 4 in Scafetta & West, 2005) is another sign indicating that the fluctuations associated with a frequency band in temperature is not necessarily related to solar variability. In fact, the 7.3-14.7 and 14.7-29.3 frequency bands may contain contributions from El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), although the time scale of ENSO is from 3-8 years. The fact that the amplitude of the events vary from time to time implies slower variations, just like modulations of the sunspot number has led to the proposition of the Gleissberg cycles (80-90 years). There is also volcanic activity, and the last major eruption in 1982 and 1991 are almost 10 years apart, and may contribute to the variance in the 7.3-14.7 year frequency range. S&W argue that their method eliminates influences of ENSO and volcanoes because their calculated sensitivity in the higher frequency band is similar to the one derived by Douglass and Clader (2002) by regression analysis (0.11 K/Wm-2). This conclusion is not valid. Having signals of different frequencies in the 7-15 years band, the amplitude of the signal in the higher band may correspond roughly to the 11-year signal by accident, but that doesn't mean that there are no other influences.

S&W combined two different types of data, and it is well-known that such combinations in themselves may introduces spurious trends. The paper does not address this question.

From regression analysis cited by the authors (Douglass and Clader 2002, White et al. 1997), it seems possible that the sensitivity of global surface temperature to variations of total solar irradiance might be about 0.1K/Wm-2. S&W do not present any convincing result that would point to noticeably higher sensitivities to long-term variations. Their higher values are based on unrealistic assumptions. If they would use a more realistic climate transfer sensitivity of 0.11K/Wm-2, or even somewhat higher (0.12 or 0.13) for the long-term, and use trends instead of smooth curve points, they would end up with solar contributions of 10% or less for 1950-2000 and near 0% and about 10% in 1980-2000 using the PMOD and ACRIM data, respectively.

We have already discussed the connection between solar activity (here , here, here, and here), and this new analysis does not alter our previous conclusions: that there is not much evidence pointing to the sun being responsible for the warming since the 1950s.


SOURCE​

 

[billonlogan]

Interesting all this 'global warming' stuff was made more prominent last year during an unusual warm and green Christmas. Most media outlets kept lamenting about 'global warming' and the end to 'White Christmas' in Canada as we know it. As I look out my window, it's snowing again and more coming this weekend. I would hazard to guess most Canadians will see snow on the ground on Christmas morning. Harper can be thankful for that, if he was in Bali last year at this time, he would have had a gun pointed to his head and agree on limits that are unattainable but looks good to the public that we're doing something to bring back 'White Christmas'. This conference and others like it point to the fact you need Canada, USA, Japan, et al to come aboard. Just bashing them constantly to accept targets that are unattainable with economic consequences (that's the Liberal way of doing things) does not work and very devisive. Lets follow Harper's lead and set attainable goals and at least diminish the intensity of global warming. This is a long term project, lasting 50 to 75 years and beyond.

 

[299 bloor call control.]

bill - most Canadians aren't that stupid to link one or two days of "cold" weather or heavy snow with the ill conceived notion that climate change doesn't exist. most people i talk to remember the days where a white christmas was a guarantee not a huge questionmark (it still is for this year, though the 14-day looks like it may be) and we wouldn't complain about it being "cold" in November or December.

IMO, climate change has just made us Canadians wimps to cold and snow over the past decade.

 

[Hydrogen]

You have to tell me where you want to go with this, because you say it is “interesting on a certain level” but I noticed you haven’t begun to get back to me on the NASA charts. How else are we to discuss this if all else is biased?

I haven't responded because I've been working. Here's how I will answer:

Thank you for your interpretation of Professor Richard Lindzen, a man whom I have known of for sometime, but normally only in his public forums of legislative testimonies and the occasional talk show appearance. He has become a conroversial figure, who is known for his label of “alarmists” pinned on global warming proponents highly politicised or not, but he is equally known for what some say is the axiomatic way he deals with certain global warming questions in the past. Not surprisingly, the person who specifically has assumed an active role in questioning Mr. Lentsen's theories and research, for its perceived biases on RealClimate is your favourite whipping boy for biases of his own, the global warming proponent gavin - as in Gavin Schmidt.

Concerning Lindzen, I suppose that maybe you would consider him biased on the basis of the opinions Gavin Schmidt. Fine if you do. You clearly have taken some umbrage to the use of the word. call me biased if you wish. I have taken a position. If you want me to try to be objective, then my answer would be that there is no conclusive proof that human emissions have caused the slight shift in temperature this century; there is no conclusive proof that the temperatures of today are unusual from other warm periods throughout the holocene; and there is no proof that temperatures will continue to rise in the extreme manner predicted by the IPCC.

I'll let the IPCC document speak for itself:

The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate system has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural. A more detailed analysis is required to provide evidence of a human impact.

IPCC TAR, 2001; p. 97

I have to assume my last post must have had some impact on you, since you have now removed Solanki and Usoskin (S&U) from your last post, via revision, and replaced it with the above.

You assume incorrectly. I edited my post to add Scarfetta and West and inadevertently removed Solanaki and Usokin. This was one edit. I note that you back-edit considerably. Such as changing childish to churlish - one among many alterations.

Scientists have lined up to question their methods, and the conclusions they have drawn from their research, since 2004 and going forward. But why substitute Scarfetta and West (S&W)? That is not a great improvement. I assume you are aware there are questions surrounding their research as well? Maybe you do not think those questions are legitimate or fair or whatever.

Scientists have lined up against to question methods? Imagine that! Just like scientists have lined up to question the conclusions that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing catastrophic climate change. Isn't an essential part of science skepticism? That would mean that there still is a debate on what has caused less than one degree of measured warming since the start of the 20th century. Nevertheless, there are many other papers on the importance of the sun-climate connection - being that the sun is the primary driver of climate.

for its perceived biases on RealClimate is your favourite whipping boy for biases of his own, the global warming proponent gavin - as in Gavin Schmidt.

Whipping boy? You raised his name, remember? Read some of his archived responses on RealClimate. Schmidt definitely has a bias in his beliefs, and it is often reflected in his approach to how he responds. I suppose if someone agrees with him, he would not appear to be biased. So be it. RealClimate is a blog site, with strong emphasis that contends that climate change is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. That is the favoured position on that site, and, as such, all other positions, points of view and research countering that view are, of course, criticized in order to defend that position.


So, back to your demands for a response about the graphs - 1880 to 2005.

From 1880 to 1980 the primary source of collecting temperature data was from surface measurement sites. Before 1880, there is no data with which to attempt the construction of a useful temperature history based on thermometric readings.

Over this time period the number of these measurement sites has varied considerably. Starting with just over 200 sites in the 1860's to over 14,000 in 1965. This number has declined to about 5,000 by the last year of the twentieth century.

These measurement sites are situated in a non-random fashion, with more than ninety percent being located on land - despite the fact that that seventy percent of the of the earth's surface is ocean. The preponderance of these sites are - and have been - located in the northern hemisphere. Arctic and Antarctic surface sites were only established in the 1930's, and the distribution of these sites was rather thinly dispersed, to say the least.

Over time, many of these land measurement sites have been situated in places where their local surroundings were altered by such things as the appearance of buildings, pavement, suburbs, and the removal of trees. Since the end of the Second World War, there have been equipment changes. Stations were moved, and the time of day when data were collected also changed.

Many poor countries have sparse weather station coverage, with records that do not go back anywhere near to 1880. In many poor nations, there have often been few resources to ensure quality in record keeping. Even in Canada, a truly national distribution of such stations was only established in the late 1940's - with the density being nowhere near that of the United States. In short, the coverage of such stations has not ever been distributed equally.

The methods of then constructing the average temperature from every site, and combining these averaged measurements into a global average, and then assembling an historical average, has been the subject of scientific criticism dating back to the 1950's. A number of statistical adjustments, the introduction of proxy data, and the addition of satellite data available only since 1980, have been introduced, with no real way of knowing if these adjustments are adequate in actually depicting an accurate record of national temperature history, or more importantly, global records of average surface temperatures.

So what is the average global temperature record since 1880? How complete is the data? How accurate are the statistical methods for obtaining both the land-sea and national averages? How significant could the statistical errors be? A tenth of a degree? Half a degree?

 

[TrickyRicky]

To be honest why keep feeding Hydrogen? I mean on some subjects everyone has their own position and will remain unconvinced regardless.

If the skeptic position is so important to you Hydrogen why don't we just all agree that the release of mass quantities of industrial pollutants into the environment is undesirable and should be mitigated instead of endlessly rehashing page after page of useless arguments between to immutable positions? The issue at hand is our government's position on a global effort to curb pollutants, this is important regardless of your position on climate change specifics. If the concept of CO2 related warming is not of concern to you than focus on the tertiary benefits we will realize in terms of improvements in energy efficiency and the quality and accountability of our production processes and the shift towards a more sustainable harnessing of the earth's resources.

 

[Zephyr]

Bush is guilty of nothing more than being honest. There's no current Western leader who's as well informed on the issue as Bush, as strange as that may seem. European politicians are just using Kyoto for cheap virtue.


- Richard Lindzen as quoted in Newsweek

THE HEAT IS ON:
The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial
by Ross Gelbspan.

HARPER'S MAGAZINE

December, 1995

...
But while the skeptics portray themselves as besieged truth-seekers fending off irresponsible environmental doomsayers, their testimony in St. Paul and elsewhere revealed the source and scope of their funding for the first time. Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels. Over the last six years, either alone or with colleagues, Balling has received more than $200,000 from coal and oil interests in Great Britain, Germany, and elsewhere. Balling (along with Sherwood Idso) has also taken money from Cyprus Minerals, a mining company that has been a major funder of People for the West—a militantly anti-environmental "Wise Use" group. [Richard] Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC. Singer, who last winter proposed a $95,000 publicity project to "stem the tide towards ever more onerous controls on energy use," has received consulting fees from Exxon, Shell, Unocal, ARCO, and Sun Oil, and has warned them that they face the same threat as the chemical firms that produced chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a class of chemicals found to be depleting atmospheric ozone. "It took only five years to go from... a simple freeze of production [of CFCs]," Singer has written, ". . . to the 1992 decision of a complete production phase-out—all on the basis of quite insubstantial science." ...

Article Archived – Alternate Source ​

 

[Hydrogen]

Ah, attack the man, not his arguments.

And coming from Ross Gelbspan no less, a man who's work is often associated with a Pulitzer Prize that he has never won. Gelpspan has written numerous alarmist articles, such as those stating that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming. He never provided any evidence to support this view (because there is none). But he's not a scientists, so he does not have to produce evidence, does he?


Zephyr, you are suggesting something with this highlight? Is this an attempt to imply that scientists, like Lindzen, who received money from oil companies somewhere along the way in their careers are automatically liars? Does this mean that, forthwith, his work as a scientist is to be automatically repudiated?

Is this a case of "are you, or have you ever been a member of the..."?

People should be careful with taking such an approach. Science is about hypothesis, gathering evidence and testing, not about political membership or pay cheques from legal corporations that carry out considerable scientific research. There is a rather large gulf between impugning someone, and actually providing specific evidence that can show that a person acted in a certain way due to certain causes.