Objective global warming

[jeremyhfht]

EDIT: I accidentally placed this in the wrong section. Goddamnit. Can a moderator move this?

 

Recently I began a new inquiry into anthropogenic global warming/climate change unlike my previous ones. This time I had both experience debates provided, and a new perspective to explore that my earlier research queries blessed me with.

 

My original stance was that of some confusion. As I wasn't entirely sure of the whole picture. Debating this on various forums helped substantially, and also aided in the gathering of information required for me to delve deeper into the anthropogenic climate change theory.

 

-

My first links will deal with the history and development of various climate change ideas.

 

The first of which is Global Cooling. During the 1970's, recent increasing awareness about Earths Ice Age's caused a media frenzy. In very short order, people began to hypothesize that the earth was in a cooling trend (based on temperature history from the 1940's to the 1970's). The hypothesis was never accepted by the majority of scientists, but due to intense media popularity it drew a lot of support from the people and a few supporting scientists.

 

Today, scientists believe that the high amount of aerosols did cause the planet to make a short climate shift to slightly cooler weather.

 

-

The Dust Bowl was a more localized event, but still warrants mention due to how it came to pass.

 

If you care to read up on the history, you'll discover that it was originally called the "great American desert". Yet slowly but surely, settlers began to colonize the grassy plain.

 

An important think to point out is that through the 1800's and 1900's there existed a scientifically backed saying. "Rain follows the plow". One of the most politically motivated scientific errors.

 

In an ironic twist of fate, because so many people adhered to this saying and began to mass-colonize/farm the plains with destructive agricultural habits, it caused the dust bowl by removing moisture from the ground. As you should have noticed if you read about the "Great American desert".

 

-

There are two major differences in these events. One was caused by humans (anthropogenic), while the other was caused by variations in sunspots. I've prepared a few graphs and numbers from them. This was to gauge the temperatures and the years so I could properly measure sunspot activity and its effects.

 

I also have a reliable list of sunspot number averages by year. Which I then added and calculated averages from to produce three nine-year averages for various years.

 

The three samples I did were from 1937-46 (beginning of the cold period from 40-70), 1965-74 (end of it), and 1975-84 (start of the warming). The sunspot averages (which you can calculate yourself. I advise using google for adding all the numbers quickly in one string) in order are: 67.82, 75.5, and 91.87. The global mean temperatures (in C) are (two numbers for the start and end year, separated by a comma on the next year): 0.03 -0.1, -0.2 -0.1, -0.1 0.05.

 

I list only two because global temperature appears to lag behind sunspot averages by a few years or so (I know not the exact time. I wish I did). Using the graphs, you can see the temperature fluctuation averages more clearly, and get a better understanding of what the sunspots did during each nine year period.

 

-

The temperature and sunspots which are most noteworthy, however, are 1975-84 (91.87, -0.1 0.05). Global warming theory says that we should be causing global warming, not sunspots. Yet sunspot number averages are far higher in that nine year period than even 40+ years prior. Make your own conclusions.

 

Further averages of sunspots (keeping with the nine year count, so averaging remains the same) of 1985-94, and 1995-04: 87.28, 71.5

 

Temperature averages for those years (by graphs): 0.05 0.1, 0.1 0.4

 

One can also use Nasa http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/.

 

My above calculations do not attempt to disprove anthropogenic global warming. Merely to prove that, up until around 1985-94, temperature averages followed sunspot spikes.

 

Also, these calculations DO NOT prove anthropogenic global warming. What they do prove, is that something other than the sun is causing us to warm up.

[swansont]

My above calculations do not attempt to disprove anthropogenic global warming. Merely to prove that, up until around 1985-94, temperature averages followed sunspot spikes.

 

One problem is that the temperature change leads, not lags, the sunspot activity change earlier in the 20th century, and there is poor correlation for several decades prior to that. As has been pointed out in other threads, the time constant due to the oceans means you aren't going to see short fluctuations like this show up — you have to look at a longer range. Too many factors for a simple correlation to appear, anyway — you have to quantify the effects.

 

 

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

 

 

"Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. "

 

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

[jeremyhfht]

One problem is that the temperature change leads, not lags, the sunspot activity change earlier in the 20th century, and there is poor correlation for several decades prior to that.

 

I'm afraid the graph you used isn't very truthful. If you do some math from the websites I provided, then measure it against the sunspot averages shown in that graph, you'll find they're not accurate.

 

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

 

As you see in the more trustworthy graph (this is one of the ones I based my research on), and if you follow my nine year averages. I did my own research because of graphs just like that one, which appeared to lie.

 

As has been pointed out in other threads, the time constant due to the oceans means you aren't going to see short fluctuations like this show up — you have to look at a longer range. Too many factors for a simple correlation to appear, anyway — you have to quantify the effects.

 

Excuse me? Sir? I dealt with the time lag by using averages from nine year lengths. They match with the graphs perfectly until about 20 years ago. In fact I mentioned in my post that I wish I knew the exact amount of time lag.

 

I'm going to sound rude here, but did you even read the post?

[swansont]

I did read your post.

 

Why would you use nine-year averages? Sunspot cycles are ~11 years, so use of other periods will give you a sampling bias. And a rolling average lets you do a more continuous comparison with temperature than "binning" the data.

 

What, precisely, is wrong with the Stanford graph? Other than the smoothing, it doesn't seem to be any different from the nasa graph here:

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/images/zurich.gif

 

We don't see the 11-year solar fluctuations reflected in temperature. One obvious conclusion from that is that the response of the earth (from the oceans) acts as a low-pass filter. I imagine one could do a Fourier transform on the temperature plot and see how much of a contribution there is at 11 years, just to be sure.

[bascule]

It's time for my favorite graph again:

 

 

Merely to prove that, up until around 1985-94, temperature averages followed sunspot spikes.

 

Attribution of climate change is a difficult subject best left to climate scientists. There's a combination of forcings at play, and if your analysis is simply looking at a graph and going "that bump kinda looks like that one" you're conclusions are likely to be flawed.

[SkepticLance]

Bascule

 

As I have pointed out before, the solar forcings from you 'favourite' graph are calculated, and do not correlate with sunspot numbers.

 

The hypothesis here is that sunspot numbers correlate with temperature change. Your graph is irrelevent to this.

[Cerran]

The graph is also a variant of the Mann "Hockey Stick" graph which has been discredited.

 

Here are those papers that show that the graph is based on flimsy methodology:

 

Von Storch, Science, 2004

McIntyre & McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, 2005

Mangini et al, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2005.

 

Plus there are two other reports that vastly condemn the graph, commonly known as the “North” report, and the Wegman report. The first was done by an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, the second was done by a panel of statisticians and others for a Congressional committee.

[iNow]

For the love of god... Here we go again...

 

The graph is also a variant of the Mann "Hockey Stick" graph which has been discredited.

 

Here are those papers that show that the graph is based on flimsy methodology:

 

Von Storch, Science, 2004

McIntyre & McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, 2005

Mangini et al, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2005.

 

 

Check your sources, friend.

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_McIntyre

 

McIntyre does not have an advanced degree and has published two articles in the journal Energy and Environment which has become a venue for skeptics and is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor.

 

 

 

http://info-pollution.com/mandm.htm

 

Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have become famous (or infamous) for claiming to have found major problems with a recent reconstruction of the past climate (called the Hockey Stick because of the shape). Even though major and glaring errors have been found in their writings, they continue to be favorites with the global warming "skeptics."

 

 

 

For rebuttals to the 2005 paper you referenced, look here:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/RuthetalJClim2004.pdf

http://web.mit.edu/~phuybers/www/Hockey/Huybers_Comment.pdf

 

 

 

McIntyre had one positive outcome of his work where he discovered an error in an early 1900s temperature data point from NASA, and he contacted them to have it corrected. That's about the extent of his positive contributions to the field.

[jeremyhfht]

Attribution of climate change is a difficult subject best left to climate scientists. There's a combination of forcings at play, and if your analysis is simply looking at a graph and going "that bump kinda looks like that one" you're conclusions are likely to be flawed.

 

I take umbrage. I'm well aware of how many factors are at work when it comes to global climate change. My research currently is focused on when sunspots have a strong influence and when they don't. Not generally focused on anthropogenic warming.

 

Need I also mention the appeal to authority you made? I don't think many of the famous autodidacts would enjoy your point of view.

 

As for the rest of the discussion, it appears you all decided to hijack my attempt at scientific results with your beliefs and political stances. If you so desire, I'll make that "hocky stick graph" my first research target. But this thread is NOT where you should discuss it.

 

---

Work so far:

 

While attempting to produce similar results as the nine year average, I did come upon a problem. They didn't add up, for obvious reasons I was too busy to pay attention to.

 

Lance did have an important point. A nine year average wouldn't make sense when a solar cycle lasts for eleven years. Using nine years would produce a biased result because it would end up getting the lower/higher ends of a cycle, and not the higher/lower to balance it out into a true average. This was my err, and one I quickly corrected.

 

During my correction, and further review of the massive amount of numbers, I discovered that most of the time sunspot averages don't make sense at all. Excepting events where sunspots are so low they cause miniature ice ages, the temperature average doesn't always like to follow.

 

The reasons should have been obvious from the start. Sunspots are not the only thing that control the earths temperature. Earths core can even have an effect on global temperature, after all. As can global rainfall/snowfall averages, and cloud cover, as well as other factors.

 

Which leads me to an important point. Averaging sunspots and comparing it to the temperature averages will almost always produce a mismatch result. Granted, not as much of a mismatch as we've seen since the late 80's-present. Comparing them on the basis of averages serves no scientific purpose in this discussion.

 

To prove this, I was going to prepare a number of graphs to show both 11 year averages and year averages up close. In more detail than most shoddy graphs allow, and they include numbers for better calculations (as opposed to "measuring the bumps to see if they match").

 

Unfortunately all of the free graph software proved inadequate. So I'll need a bit of time to purchase Microsoft Office (for Excel). Unless someone can provide a free/nonfree alternative that's better. In PM's, preferably.

[swansont]

Lance did have an important point. A nine year average wouldn't make sense when a solar cycle lasts for eleven years. Using nine years would produce a biased result because it would end up getting the lower/higher ends of a cycle, and not the higher/lower to balance it out into a true average. This was my err, and one I quickly corrected.

 

It wasn't Lance who pointed that out.

 

Need I also mention the appeal to authority you made? I don't think many of the famous autodidacts would enjoy your point of view.

 

No, since it wasn't appeal to authority.

 

 

As for the rest of the discussion, it appears you all decided to hijack my attempt at scientific results with your beliefs and political stances. If you so desire, I'll make that "hocky stick graph" my first research target. But this thread is NOT where you should discuss it.

 

Yes, you are correct. This is not where that should be discussed. However, Cerran brought it up in rebuttal to bascule's response to you. iNow responded to that. If you want to blame anyone, blame Cerran. Not "you all."

[iNow]

To prove this, I was going to prepare a number of graphs to show both 11 year averages and year averages up close.

 

It's generally in poor taste to begin research knowing what you're going to show. Research should be approached in the form of a well defined question waiting to be answered, not a preformed conclusion looking to be supported.

 

 

Need I also mention the appeal to authority you made?

 

As swansont already mentioned, it was not an appeal to authority. However, what you've done by suggesting that it was is known as equivocation.

[Chris C]

Hey, for those who found interest in my blog in the past, it got enough attention for Dr. Roger Pielke to comment on one of my pieces. We are having an exchange, although in my blog (Which is linked inside there)

http://climatesci.org/2008/01/26/963/

 

As for this post (just so it wasn't all for self-advertisement), I'm a bit too impatient to keep providing references and elaborate on well discussed topics, but the fact is that there is no secular trend in solar activity (including sunspots which do in fact relate to TSI) since around 1950, nor does that explain 1) why greenhouse fingerprints like stratosphere cooling are showing up all over the place 2) why the CO2 physics is wrong. This is a topic which falls apart before it even gets on the scene.

[jeremyhfht]

It's generally in poor taste to begin research knowing what you're going to show. Research should be approached in the form of a well defined question waiting to be answered, not a preformed conclusion looking to be supported.

 

Who says I have? I merely posted the results of my various inquries. It's not like I need to provide you with the whole story. I came to that conclusion by making various graphs and comparisons. I merely want a better program to provide everyone else with those graphs (my current online graph maker doesn't make averages properly).

 

As swansont already mentioned, it was not an appeal to authority. However, what you've done by suggesting that it was is known as equivocation.

 

Yes, yes it was an appeal to authority. In suggesting I leave this to climatologists you suggest that only they can do a proper job. Thus, their status as a climatologist automatically makes them accurate. Hardly an equivocation, since by definition that's appealing to their authority.

 

And swan: Sorry, I forgot.

[Chris C]

Who says I have? I merely posted the results of my various inquries. It's not like I need to provide you with the whole story. I came to that conclusion by making various graphs and comparisons. I merely want a better program to provide everyone else with those graphs (my current online graph maker doesn't make averages properly).

 

 

 

Yes, yes it was an appeal to authority. In suggesting I leave this to climatologists you suggest that only they can do a proper job. Thus, their status as a climatologist automatically makes them accurate. Hardly an equivocation, since by definition that's appealing to their authority.

 

And swan: Sorry, I forgot.

 

What exactly are you looking at when you compare graphs? I see a lot of lines going up in directions when I see "CO2 vs. temp" or "sun vs. temp" or "cosmic rays vs. temp" or "number of pirates vs. temp," and looking like they "fit together" or "don't fit together." But you need to quantify it; find me a graph that shows a 1-2 W/m^2 of radiative forcing from solar since pre-industrial time, and then we can talk.

[swansont]

Yes, yes it was an appeal to authority. In suggesting I leave this to climatologists you suggest that only they can do a proper job. Thus, their status as a climatologist automatically makes them accurate. Hardly an equivocation, since by definition that's appealing to their authority.

 

No, it was an explanation that people trained in the subject do a more thorough analysis than a simple graphical comparison looking for correlations. It is because the analysis is more stringent that the conclusions will carry more weight, not simply because they are climatologists.

 

Appeal to authority removes the "analysis" middleman from the equation, and bascule did not do that, since the comment was directly about the quality of the analysis.

[jeremyhfht]

But you need to quantify it; find me a graph that shows a 1-2 W/m^2 of radiative forcing from solar since pre-industrial time, and then we can talk.

 

I'm sorry, but what? I'm not fluent in measurement jargon, so what do you mean by "W/m^2"?

 

No, it was an explanation that people trained in the subject do a more thorough analysis than a simple graphical comparison looking for correlations. It is because the analysis is more stringent that the conclusions will carry more weight, not simply because they are climatologists.

 

I'd love to continue our semantics debate, but it's obvious it'll go nowhere (they seldom do). It too strays from the topic at hand. Which nobody seems interested in anymore. Lets just leave it at "I disagree". Unless you wish to make a new thread about it.

[timo]

..., so what do you mean by "W/m^2"?

Watt per square meter.

[iNow]

It's generally in poor taste to begin research knowing what you're going to show. Research should be approached in the form of a well defined question waiting to be answered, not a preformed conclusion looking to be supported.

 

Who says I have? I merely posted the results of my various inquries.

 

 

You did yourself. In the text I quoted in that post (emphasis mine):

 

Which leads me to an important point. Averaging sunspots and comparing it to the temperature averages will almost always produce a mismatch result. Granted, not as much of a mismatch as we've seen since the late 80's-present. Comparing them on the basis of averages serves no scientific purpose in this discussion.

 

To prove this, I was going to prepare a number of graphs to show both 11 year averages and year averages up close.

 

 

And no offense, but if you don't know what "W/m^2" means, and you don't have excel, and you call a graph with accurate and well quantified labels "measurement jargon," I really am not prepared to give your input much consideration... Additionally, you seem ill-prepared to demonstrate faults in global climate research if you don't even understand it's most basic components.

 

 

In other words, I can't take you seriously if you don't at least take yourself seriously first.

[jeremyhfht]

Let me tackle your quote first. That quote was not "beginning research knowing what I'm going to show". I had initially done a number of graphs using an online tool. I didn't post this graphs because they were sub-par and didn't let me do everything I wanted. The statements I made are in conclusion to some of my research. Not pre-emptive conclusions without any.

 

Your "emphasis" is from a conclusion of those graphs. So far Excel doesn't disagree. It's also laughable because a large number of other graphs including ones supporting global warming show that sunspot number doesn't match with current temperature, and at about the same time (my aim was to provide better looking graphs with more detail).

 

If you continue inaccurate accusations such as this one, my opinion of your intelligence might be dwindled by your unreasonable nature. I hope this explanation is enough to dissuade further problems. Though, perhaps it is my fault, as I probably wasn't totally clear on my intentions. In fact, scratch that, I definitely was not.

 

And no offense, but if you don't know what "W/m^2" means, and you don't have excel, and you call a graph with accurate and well quantified labels "measurement jargon," I really am not prepared to give your input much consideration... Additionally, you seem ill-prepared to demonstrate faults in global climate research if you don't even understand it's most basic components.

 

 

In other words, I can't take you seriously if you don't at least take yourself seriously first.

 

One purpose of this post was a learning exercise. I've never done anything like this before. Also, I do have excel (I apparently had an old microsoft office 2000 CD). Although I fail to see how that could effect accuracy of a simple graph, since the same data is being used.

 

All I'm doing is turning data from reliable sources (such as Nasa) into graphs. As well as providing some extra-graph comparisons and possible correlations derived from said data. Nothing could be wrong with my graphs if they were based on accurate data. And graphing isn't exactly hard work.

 

The only part that could be argued against would be the correlations. Which I obviously can't make since the graphing isn't done yet.

 

And, no offense, but suggesting my work can't be taken serious because I've never had the expression "w/m^2" explained before is both arrogant and elitist. Also wrong, since it has dick all to do with a large portion of the graphs and data. If you're done looking for excuses to ignore me, perhaps you can go on to provide suggestions?

[timo]

And, no offense, but suggesting my work can't be taken serious because I've never had the expression "w/m^2" explained before is both arrogant and elitist.

Yes, it's arrogant and elitist (except if iNow is a climate scientist in which case it's only elitist). But to be realisitc, most people in the world are much more elitist than only demanding someone to know basic school physics before taking their contributions to modern research seriously. It's a capital W, btw.

[bascule]

I'm sorry, but what? I'm not fluent in measurement jargon, so what do you mean by "W/m^2"?

 

You know, one may end up thinking you're not competent to discuss the physics of solar irradiance if you don't understand the units in which it is measured...

[jeremyhfht]

Here's the thing. I'M NOT DISCUSSING THE PHYSICS OF IT.

 

Is that clear enough for you all? It's like there's a gigantic strawman conspiracy. Either that or I'm just not making enough sense here. It's probably the latter, but for christ SAKES people.

[Chris C]

Jeremy, see this thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30936

[bascule]

Here's the thing. I'M NOT DISCUSSING THE PHYSICS OF IT.

 

Is that clear enough for you all? It's like there's a gigantic strawman conspiracy. Either that or I'm just not making enough sense here. It's probably the latter, but for christ SAKES people.

 

So what exactly is it you're doing? Alleging a correlation and implying causation?

[jeremyhfht]

Was there a point to all of that work you just did?

 

Bascule: No. My main attempt was to imply nothing. Hence why my original post has a note that it proves nothing. As I've explained, this was supposed to be a learning exercise. I posted this on a forum for that purpose. To receive corrections and get a better understanding of what I was doing.

 

Instead I find my topic hijacked while at the same time I'm attacked for supposedly making errors that I did not. Frustrating, to say the least. Also straying from the topic further. Argh.