Reply to: Berkley Earth Project - urgent rebuttal needed from resident climate science experts

[BlasterBates]

The sun has been going through a phase known as the solar maximum:



So if the sun does have an affect on the climate, one would expect higher than average temperatures during this maximum, i.e. the last few decades.

There's a new paper that demonstrates a link between solar activity and temperature.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.co...scafetta-2011/

A key conclusion:

In particular, a quasi-60-year large cycle is quite evident since 1650 in all climate and astronomical records herein studied, which also include a historical record of meteorite fall in China from 619 to 1943. These findings support the thesis that climate oscillations have an astronomical origin.

[pjclarke]

Indeed, historically, changes in solar activity have been the largest, if slow-acting natural climate forcing . Also there is a multi-million Euro project going on at CERN into the possible cosmic-ray/cloud linkage, which kinda falsifies the assertion that only 'pro-AGW' scientists (whatever they might be) can get funding.

The problem with the 'It's the sun!' alternative explanations is that over the recent warming period, all the metrics of solar activity, including cosmic ray flux, have flatlined or gone the opposite way to that required for a solar-driven warming. Cosmic rays have flatlined (once the regular solar cycle is subtracted) since they started being directly observed in the fifties. Meanwhile the planet is over half a degree warmer.

[EternalOptimist]

Is any of the solar science and data being taken into consideration by any party?

Am I correct in thinking that all previous global temperature changes throughout the planet's existence have been heavily influenced by changes in solar output and by secondary effect climate?

Yes. The sun has several intensity cycles, plus sunspots which can be erratic. In addition certain frequencies have differing effects on different particles or aerosols or layers.

There is even a strong theory that cosmic radiation has an effect

So, yes. It is definately being considered.

[Cliphead]

Is any of the solar science and data being taken into consideration by any party?

Am I correct in thinking that all previous global temperature changes throughout the planet's existence have been heavily influenced by changes in solar output and by secondary effect climate?

[pjclarke]

Did you miss Tol's response to the response Whatever. I love a good fight, me. My prediction is that Tol or a.n. other will submit a comment to the journal laying out the flaws in the work. Meanwhile I liked this pithy comment:-

The rise since 1975 is more clear, but no so much stronger that such trends would be rare in random time series. This superficial observation alone can tell that it’s impossible to conclude from that data alone, whether there’s any real linear or nonlinear trend in that temperature history. It’s absolutely non-surprising that a purely statistical model gives the result that the whole change can be due to some internal variability that hasn’t changed during that period ... The LL paper presents a statistical analysis that gives basically the result that I stated as obvious at the beginning of this comment, but it formulates the conclusion in a seriously misleading way. They find no proof on the role of the natural variability in the overall warming. The natural variability might equally well have gone in the opposite direction meaning that the AGW should be much stronger that generally thought. The paper is just a complex way of obtaining an intuitively obvious result combined with a seriously misleading way of drawing conclusions of these well known facts.

[BlasterBates]

Fair point. However Professor Richard Tol is now not so much picking the paper apart as demolishing it in an invited guest post.

Oh dear good ol' Richard gets a right drubbing on Judith Curry's website

Ludecke et al. respond | Climate Etc.

Looks like he made some absurd allegations, and that he didn't really understand what they'd done.

Rather pathetic rebuttal all in all.

[EternalOptimist]

Interesting, still a blog post, he's not published that has he?

Are you aware of the problems on data quality in the BEST project:

BEST Data “Quality” « Climate Audit

Those values are way off, goes to show that there is still a hell of a lot of work to be done before we can really trust the accuracy of the land temps.

why the interest in the land temps anyway ?
Most of the air is over water, and we should be measuring the water instead anyway.

If you want to know how much heat is in your bathroom, you measure the water temp in the bath

[BlasterBates]

Fair point. However Professor Richard Tol is now not so much picking the paper apart as demolishing it in an invited guest post.

Interesting, still a blog post, he's not published that has he?

Are you aware of the problems on data quality in the BEST project:

BEST Data “Quality” « Climate Audit

Those values are way off, goes to show that there is still a hell of a lot of work to be done before we can really trust the accuracy of the land temps.

[ThomasSoerensen]

It's not YOUR planet

And it will be fine. Even if a few destrucive species are eliminated.

[BlasterBates]

It's being picked apart on Judith Curry's website, if you're really interested.

Anyone can post a comment on Judith Curry's website.

You could post any old garbage on her blog as a comment, and then come on here and say it's being picked apart on her website.


and presumably this scientific paper is what you would classify as

latest piece of tabloid/blog denier BS

I think those following the debate will come to their own conclusions as to whether this was just propoganda.

[EternalOptimist]

It's not YOUR planet

[BlasterBates]

New paper published in a reputable journal (International journal of modern Physics). Conclusions are that temperature increases are natural:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/upl...ow_natural.pdf

This paper examines the UHI effect,and they conclude it's real, i.e. urbanisation exaggerates the warming trend. The global warming and it's rate of increase is within the natural variation of global temps.

[pjclarke]

Fair Point. In no particular order

- It's fun.

- It's an important topic, laying out the arguments for scrutiny is arguably of benefit (though I'm not under any illusions that any minds will be changed from the General board of an IT forum, still nonsense should be rebutted. DYOR) This thread is unusual, most of the AGW threads are started with one of the usual suspects posting the latest piece of tabloid/blog denier BS, and me or A. N Other protest that its BS and it goes from there. If the re-posting of WattsUpWithThat BS were to stop ....



- Apparently it's of some interest - despite the complaints of boredom, this thread has 788 hits.

- Displacement activity.

- I'm obsessed with the future of my planet.

[d000hg]

Why - which post did you find particularly pursuasive?

I see just tired talking-points (Short trends, tabloid quotes, its the sun, its cosmic rays, its ocean currents) and fake experts (Morner, Easterbrook).

What am I missing?

If you were responding to me then the question being asked, apparently.

[pjclarke]

Why - which post did you find particularly pursuasive?

I see just tired talking-points (Short trends, tabloid quotes, its the sun, its cosmic rays, its ocean currents) and fake experts (Morner, Easterbrook).

What am I missing?