EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:56 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:37 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

It could be the case, especially since there was a move to reduce particulate and other emissions that would offset the GHG forcing.


And it could also be the sun that was causing this lull, since it's activity was relatively constant during this timeframe.

We can keep on going in circles if you would like.


You are the only one going in circles, so when you get tired of trying to come up with any and every possible "could be" to oppose the currently acceoted theory you can stop going around.

Quote:
Quote:
The mid-century problem with emissions could be a significant factor.


And so could the sun, and you would not need to invoke another mechanism to explain this period.


Other than coming up with the mechanism by which it would occur and is supported by the experimentation employed if we choose to accpet this correlation? There is no valid mechanism provided.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:41 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

You are the only one going in circles, so when you get tired of trying to come up with any and every possible "could be" to oppose the currently acceoted theory you can stop going around.


Um, no Wayne, the sun causing climate change on many different timeframes is accepted by MANY scientists.

Quote:
Other than coming up with the mechanism by which it would occur and is supported by the experimentation employed if we choose to accpet this correlation? There is no valid mechanism provided.


Stable Solar activity---------->creates GCRs to stabilize------------>flatline in cloud cover-------->stable temperatures.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:46 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Quote:
Quote:
Which "the" models would those be?


The models the IPCC used in their report. This graphic shows the simulated forcings of TSI, Volcanism, Well mixed GHGs, ozone, aerosol and the sum of all of the forcings combined. Note that the Greenhouse Signature as PREDICTED by the models looks TOTALLY different than if it were forced by the sun.

Image

Quote:
Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, © well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).


So the Greenhouse signature is UNIQUE according to this IPCC graphic, and we SHOULD see more warming occur in the mid to upper troposphere than at the surface.

Other models have the SAME exact signature for GHG warming, with an area in the mid to upper troposphere in the Tropics warming faster than everywhere else.

Image

Unfortunately for the GHG theory, temperatures in this area in the mid to upper troposphere in the Tropics have remained relatively constant as surface temepratures increased.

Image

This means GHGs are not the cause of the recent warming, since the Greenhouse signature portrayed in the IPCC models is not present in reality.


So you are telling us that the predicted mean forcing over a century level is refuted because you do not see a continuing increase in the final 20 year period temperature?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:50 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

You are the only one going in circles, so when you get tired of trying to come up with any and every possible "could be" to oppose the currently accepted theory you can stop going around.


Um, no Wayne, the sun causing climate change on many different timeframes is accepted by MANY scientists.



Many is far from MOST and that is what determines the accpetance criteria once the evidence is reviewed.

Quote:
Quote:
Other than coming up with the mechanism by which it would occur and is supported by the experimentation employed if we choose to accpet this correlation? There is no valid mechanism provided.


Stable Solar activity---------->creates GCRs to stabilize------------>flatline in cloud cover-------->stable temperatures.


Ignoring the disconnect between GCR and cloud nucliation shown by CERN experiments.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:54 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
So you are telling us that the predicted mean forcing over a century level is refuted because you do not see a continuing increase in the final 20 year period temperature?


Anthropogenic forcings were not dominant at all in the early 20th Century warming, CO2 was barely increasing during this timeframe. The question is for the late-20th Century, is if the warming was forced by mostly natural or anthropogenic sources.

The temperature flatline at 200 hPa covers just about the entire late-20th Century warming timeframe. This is the timeframe where it is under question whether it was forced by mostly human activity or natural causes.

Since there was not a greater warming in the mid to upper troposphere during this timeframe, GHGs could not have been the cause of the recent warming, since this is the unique Greenhouse signature, as predicted by the models.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:57 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Quote:
Quote:
If memory serves on one of your new favorite authors papers the correlation was tweaked to make the match up fit.


Which paper?



http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... zer-03.pdf

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:00 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
So you are telling us that the predicted mean forcing over a century level is refuted because you do not see a continuing increase in the final 20 year period temperature?


Anthropogenic forcings were not dominant at all in the early 20th Century warming, CO2 was barely increasing during this timeframe. The question is for the late-20th Century, is if the warming was forced by mostly natural or anthropogenic sources.

The temperature flatline at 200 hPa covers just about the entire late-20th Century warming timeframe. This is the timeframe where it is under question whether it was forced by mostly human activity or natural causes.

Since there was not a greater warming in the mid to upper troposphere during this timeframe, GHGs could not have been the cause of the recent warming, since this is the unique Greenhouse signature, as predicted by the models.


You did read the information on the modle that showed the temperature change per the modle form 1890 to 1999? How do you then claim the model is incorrect when you assume other time periods and also that the total forcings would not have changed?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:05 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Many is far from MOST and that is what determines the accpetance criteria once the evidence is reviewed.



This theory of the sun causing climate change is not on the fringe.

Quote:
Ignoring the disconnect between GCR and cloud nucliation shown by CERN experiments.


Umm, the CERN paper was not to determine whether GCRs can influence Clouds, which you have repeatedly and mistakenly misrepresented in the paper.

It was to determine if GCRs could influence the nucleation rate, and the CERN study suggests it does, which is the first step of the theory.

It says nothing more.

Nor does it discredit the GCR-Cloud hypothesis, as much as you would like it to.

http://www.leif.org/EOS/nature10343Kirkby.pdf

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:09 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

You did read the information on the modle that showed the temperature change per the modle form 1890 to 1999? How do you then claim the model is incorrect when you assume other time periods and also that the total forcings would not have changed?


A large part of the change in the concentration of the GHGs came over the last 50 years, so therefore, we should expect to see the strongest GHG warming pattern over the last warm period.

There has been no GHG warming pattern observed over the last 30 years when we warmed, and greenhouse gas concentrations rapidly rose.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:27 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Many is far from MOST and that is what determines the accpetance criteria once the evidence is reviewed.



This theory of the sun causing climate change is not on the fringe.


So you say.

Quote:
Quote:
Ignoring the disconnect between GCR and cloud nucliation shown by CERN experiments.


Umm, the CERN paper was not to determine whether GCRs can influence Clouds, which you have repeatedly and mistakenly misrepresented in the paper.


No, I have not.

Quote:
It was to determine if GCRs could influence the nucleation rate, and the CERN study suggests it does, which is the first step of the theory.


Yes, and the first step in the theory as to the impact on clouds would not be connected to the rest of the theory at all?

Quote:
It says nothing more.

Nor does it discredit the GCR-Cloud hypothesis, as much as you would like it to.

http://www.leif.org/EOS/nature10343Kirkby.pdf


Actually, it does when the rates of nucliation are reviewed. The rates even with the multiplication by the various additions do not show a sufficient capacity for even the smaller nuceli.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:28 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

You did read the information on the modle that showed the temperature change per the modle form 1890 to 1999? How do you then claim the model is incorrect when you assume other time periods and also that the total forcings would not have changed?


A large part of the change in the concentration of the GHGs came over the last 50 years, so therefore, we should expect to see the strongest GHG warming pattern over the last warm period.

There has been no GHG warming pattern observed over the last 30 years when we warmed, and greenhouse gas concentrations rapidly rose.


But that ignores the other factors the model used, doesn't it? It appears to be more of a strawman than not.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:02 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
So you say.


Yes.

Quote:
No, I have not.


The experiment was to see if GCRs can impact the nucleation rate, not to see if the CCNs are large or small enough to support clouds.

Quote:
Actually, it does when the rates of nucliation are reviewed. The rates even with the multiplication by the various additions do not show a sufficient capacity for even the smaller nuceli.


Where does it say that in the paper?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:06 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
But that ignores the other factors the model used, doesn't it? It appears to be more of a strawman than not.


If GHGs were the dominant forcing, the signature would still be evident even with the contamination of some other forcings, as it is seen with the bottom right hand corner of the IPCC graphic. We should still see the highest warming rates in the middle to upper part of the troposphere in the Tropics.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:13 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
So you say.


Yes.

Quote:
No, I have not.


The experiment was to see if GCRs can impact the nucleation rate, not to see if the CCNs are large or small enough to support clouds.


And the observed rate was far less than would be required for the climate impact, thus it does throw wrench into that hypothesis.

Quote:
Quote:
Actually, it does when the rates of nucliation are reviewed. The rates even with the multiplication by the various additions do not show a sufficient capacity for even the smaller nuceli.


Where does it say that in the paper?


It is inferred in the data, but the authors made the clear statement to the media.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:18 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
But that ignores the other factors the model used, doesn't it? It appears to be more of a strawman than not.


If GHGs were the dominant forcing, the signature would still be evident even with the contamination of some other forcings, as it is seen with the bottom right hand corner of the IPCC graphic. We should still see the highest warming rates in the middle to upper part of the troposphere in the Tropics.


That shows a total ignorance of the information presented. It is commonly called a strawman fallacy. It is when you take data and claim it represents something else slightly different, attempt to disprove this new claim and then claim the original statement was thus refuted.

The illustrations were for the temperature change for over a century, and for ALL of the five forcings during that period. You take the information and claim it should be the same for a different period of time without any evidence of the forcings included being the same and try to say the original representation is wrong because it does not show what you claim it should in this new period.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group