Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Well, while I found the testosterone level mildly suffocating during the contest of the graphs, I think I would like to know the source of a graph that was lifted from Wikipedia before accepting it as scientific data.

Data sources

1. Irradiance: http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
2. International sunspot number: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/ftpsunspotnumber.html
3. Flare index: http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/astronomy/readme.html
4. 10.7cm radio flux: http://www.drao-ofr.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/icarus/www/sol_home.shtml

ican711nm wrote:

Figure 1 covers 1978 - 2007, and is divided into 4 sections: a) Original Data, b) PMOD Composite, c) ACRIM Composite, and d) IRMB Composite. You neglected to describe or post the ACRIM Composite which shows an increasing TSI trend.

Yes, the ACRIM Composite shows an increasing TSI trend.

Oh, and here's 'Figure 1' from the other link:




Again, ican: can you point out how the ACRIM Composite shows an increasing TSI trend?
Yes, I can do that!

First let's focus on the two sets of minima in each of the three curves. For the first set of minima (approximately 1984 to 1988), each of the three curves is less than 1366 W/m^2. However, for the second set of minima (approximately 1994 to 1997) only two of the minima are below 1366 W/m^2. The one at or above 1366 W/m^2 is curve c) ACRIM Composite.

Now focus on the period approximately 2003 to 2004. For this period the curve c) ACRIM Composite is 1366 W/m^2 while the other curves are less than 1366 W/m^2. In this figure, curve c) ACRIM Composite does not extend beyond 2004, so we do not yet know what it will show for subsequent years.

My claim has been that in the interval 1975 to 2005, TSI (i.e., Total Solar Irradiance) increased 1.0 W/m^2 and AGT (i.e., Average Global Temperature) increased 0.6365°K. I have further claimed TSI has been decreasing after 2005, since AGT after 2005 seems to be decreasing.

I might be wrong! Then again I might be right!

The numbers for ACRIMIII are in red in the upper part of the graphic and closely track the PMOD.

The way I read the story, it only relates to how the sun's cosmic rays may exaggerate the sun's effect upon climate by increasing cloud cover, etc., but it does not relate to the direct effect, which obviously does exist and has been proven. On top of that, the Lancaster research only covers a very short span of time, not enough to prove anything in my opinion, and the research has been questioned by others, namely Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), that came up with the cosmic ray link to cloud cover.

Most importantly, if I read it right, the BBC headline is wrong to begin with, the research has nothing to do with the direct solar link to the climate, but instead it has to do with the cosmic ray link to clouds. The headline and sub-headline are total embarrassments to journalism.

Further, there is an admission that cosmic rays may have at least a weak correlation to cloud cover, so while the headline claims no link, the research may actually be confirming the link. The disagreement is in the amplitude of the effect.

Abstract. A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays.

Received 31 January 2008, accepted for publication 14 March 2008
Published 3 April 2008

So picking the first two minima of the ACRIM Composite and extrapolating a "trend" from that shows an increasing TSI.

However, picking the first two maxima of the ACRIM Composite and extrapolating a "trend" from that shows a decreasing TSI.


So: why do you pick the first two minima? Why not the first two maxima?


Also: when your 'methodology' is used with 5,5 year offset and renders the exact opposite result - do you think your 'methodology' might be faulty?

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html
3. The methodology used by Lockwood and Frölish to smooth the lines was applied only to maxima of R (sunspot number), dismissing the TSI. This practice hides the minima, which for the issue are more important than the maxima.

We interrupt this exchange for a news flash:

Barack Obama will make Al Gore an important part of his administration in order to deal with global warming issues.

We return to the regularly scheduled programming.

One of my sources, http://www.biocab.org/ , recommended focusing on minima more than maxima for the purpose of detecting actual TSI trends. I think he's probably right.

ican711nm wrote:

One of my sources, http://www.biocab.org/ , recommended focusing on minima more than maxima for the purpose of detecting actual TSI trends. I think he's probably right.

If you want to USE the minuma then you need to USE the minima. 2005 is not a minimum year. 2000 is not a minimum year. As OE has pointed out along with myself and others 2007 is LOWER than 2000 and 2005 so would be the minima required if you are really using the minima.

Then when you compare 2007 to 1975, we see a decrease. So comparing the minima to the minima also leads to what you say isn't happening.

You appear to misunderstand the objective for comparing minimum years from the ACRIM composite graph.

The objective of comparing minimum years for that graph is to detect whether its oscillating graph is generally increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. Once we know that an oscillating TSA graph is increasing over some period of interest, say 1975 to 2005, we can conclude that the intensity of what that graph is plotting is increasing over that same period. It appears from the minima in the ACRIM Composite graph that TSA has been increasing over the period 1985 to 2000. Once we know the minimums for the ACRIM composite for say 2000 to 2010 we can determine how TSA is changing between 2000 and 2005. Also if we were to determine the minimum TSA for ACRIM say1968 to 1978, we could determine how TSA was changing during that period.

My particular interest in the period 1975 to 2005 is based on the fact that during that period we observed a 0.6365°K AGT (i.e., Average Global Temperature) increase and here we are debating the primary cause of that temperature increase. Some say the primary cause is the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Others like me say the primary cause is the increase in TSA during that period. Others attribute the primary cause to other things or haven't yet decided what to attribute it to.

You appear to misunderstand the objective for comparing minimum years from the ACRIM composite graph.

The objective of comparing minimum years for that graph is to detect whether its oscillating graph is generally increasing, decreasing, or staying the same.

ican711nm wrote:

You appear to misunderstand the objective for comparing minimum years from the ACRIM composite graph.

The objective of comparing minimum years for that graph is to detect whether its oscillating graph is generally increasing, decreasing, or staying the same.

Well, that's kind of a point. But if you want to compare minimum years (and, arguably, comparing just two isolated data points in order to find a 'trend' is quite a bit, err, risky to start with), why then did you earlier compare a local minimum (1975.5 - 1365.5466 1365.5020) to a maximum (2000.5 - 1366.6620 1366.6744)?


I used the tabulations that were available to me then. At the time I did that, I estimated both the average TSI during the 11 year period period 1975.5 to 1985.5 and the average TSI during the 11 year period 1990.5 and 2000.5. I then compared my estimates. Later I computed those averages. Here are my computed AVERAGES for those periods:

1975.5 to 1985.5 = 1366.0855

1990.5 to 2000.5 = 1366.1176

I noted the AVERAGE TSI had increased and started looking for additional sources that would support or refute my conclusions.

I mean, we all can see that the graph is, in fact, oscillating. Now, it's a separate question whether a methodology that yields a decreasing trend when comparing maxima and an increasing trend when comparing minima is a valid method at all.

Yes, it is a separate question "whether a methodology that yields a decreasing trend when comparing maxima and an increasing trend when comparing minima is a valid method at all."

However, I was interested only in comparing minima: minima for increasing trend; and minima for decreasing trend.

But picking a random minimum point and comparing that to a random maximum point will definitely lead you to drawing the wrong conclusions, wouldn't it?

It may or may not. Depends on the actual point picked at random.

However, I didn't pick the years 1975, 2000, and 2005 at random. I picked 1975 because it was the year the AGT began its attention getting increase. I picked 2005 because it was the year the AGT appeared to level off. I picked 2000, because it was the last year for which I could find tabulated TSI data.

Since ican cites Tamino on the PMOD vs. ACRIM question, one might assume he considers him reputable. Let's see what he has to say on the subject:

"But my examination of the published reports gives me far greater confidence in the correctness of the PMOD composite, than ACRIM."

Thank you, ican. Thank you, Tamino.

Goin' down.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
[...]
A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.

But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 2008 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.

"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.

"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."