My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[modest]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

Based on data from NASA's Goddard institute, the sun is currently putting out more energy than it has in the past 2000 years. In the year 2000, the last year I can find NASA Goddard data, the earth was receiving daily solar irradiance of 1367.5 W/m2. In 1800, the sun was sending us 1365.5 W/m2, and the amount of energy reaching earth steadily increased over the next 200 years to our current extremely high amounts of sunlight.

A link to charts showing this information is here, on page 24 of the document:
http://www.yale.edu/yibs/Solar%20Var...r_Shindell.pdf

This is the information that is not reflected in the climate models - the fact that we are simply getting more energy sent to the surface of our planet than ever before.

This is starting to get ridiculous. You've been pointed repeatedly to information from NASA's GISS that settles this question. I know you're capable of understanding it.

GISS Climate Model: Changes in Climate "Forcings"


Source: Forcings in GISS Climate Model: Solar Irradiance - GISS

2.3. Solar Irradiance
[24] The total solar irradiance has been measured to a useful accuracy since 1979 Willson and Hudson, 1991]. For earlier times we must rely on solar irradiance reconstructed from proxy measures of solar variability. Analysis of historical change of the total solar irradiance and its spectrum are described by Lean et al. [1995, 1997]. We use the solar spectral radiance reconstruction provided by J. Lean in 1999 (private communication). The data that we employ in our present total and spectral irradiance scenarios are available from our web site Data @ NASA GISS: Forcings in GISS Climate Model) or from J. Lean.

Hansen et al. 2002 section 2.2 (description of solar forcing in GISS climate model

Of course, this means the following 2 statements are completely in error,

Originally Posted by engineerdude

Oh, my God. The NASA Goddard people are really off base.

As a result of the quoted post I decided to actually look at the climate models the NASA Goddard people are using. An extensive description of their models can be found here:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Bader_etal.pdf

THESE MODELS IGNORE OVERALL CHANGES IN SUNLIGHT

These models assume that the amount of energy zooming to us through space never ever changes. For this assumption to be valid Earth's orbit would have to be perfectly symmetrical, and the sun could never be a little brighter or dimmer.

Originally Posted by engineerdude

This is the information that is not reflected in the climate models - the fact that we are simply getting more energy sent to the surface of our planet than ever before.

Big deal, you've said something that turned out not to be true—it happens to all of us. Can you not just say "Darn, it looks like I was wrong" and move on? If, for whatever reason, you cannot then you need to present some information agreeing with your statements above.

~modest

[engineerdude]

Originally Posted by modest

This is starting to get ridiculous. You've been pointed repeatedly to information from NASA's GISS that settles this question. I know you're capable of understanding it.

GISS Climate Model: Changes in Climate "Forcings"


Source: Forcings in GISS Climate Model: Solar Irradiance - GISSOf course, this means the following 2 statements are completely in error,

Big deal, you've said something that turned out not to be true—it happens to all of us. Can you not just say "Darn, it looks like I was wrong" and move on? If, for whatever reason, you cannot then you need to present some information agreeing with your statements above.

~modest

The data you are linking to is quite different than the data I am referring to. They are both from the same institute, but by different people. The information you present supports your argument - but the NASA Goddard data I am using illustrates potentially severe problems in the GISS climate models. The solar irradiation data I refer to shows that current levels are the highest in 2000 years, and this is not reflected in the models.

So, which person at NASA Goddard is correct? Judith Lean (your person) or Drew Shindell (my guy)?

P.S. I don't appreciate the nasty tone in your previous post.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

As a result of the quoted post I decided to actually look at the climate models the NASA Goddard people are using. An extensive description of their models can be found here:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Bader_etal.pdf

THESE MODELS IGNORE OVERALL CHANGES IN SUNLIGHT

These models assume that the amount of energy zooming to us through space never ever changes. For this assumption to be valid Earth's orbit would have to be perfectly symmetrical, and the sun could never be a little brighter or dimmer.

The linked report is pretty big – 100+ pages. Searching it for “sunlight” and “orbit”, all I could find relating to your claim, engineerdude, was

For the limited purpose of constraining climate sensitivity, we need not understand how glacial-interglacial variations of ice sheets and of carbon dioxide are forced by changes in the Earth’s orbit.

and

In addition, among other forcings are changes in land use that alter the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface, as well as variations in sunlight impinging on the Earth.

The latter suggest that the climate models discussed in the report ignore do not ignore overall changes in sunlight.

Specifically, what parts of the report do you mean to cite in support of your claim?

[modest]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

The data you are linking to is quite different than the data I am referring to.

Yep. I am referring to solar irradiance changes as measured by satellite in the past 30 years and as reconstructed by sunspot "wolf number" for the past 300 years. That data is used in the GISS models for as far back as the model projects past climate.

Originally Posted by engineerdude

They are both from the same institute, but by different people.

They are two different things entirely. As far as I know, the models don't project 2,000 years into the past making such data impossible to use in the model.

Originally Posted by engineerdude

The information you present supports your argument

I'm not making any kind of argument. I'm correcting your posts which claim that GISS models do not account for changes in solar irradiance.

Originally Posted by engineerdude

The solar irradiation data I refer to shows that current levels are the highest in 2000 years, and this is not reflected in the models.

Climate models/simulations start in the current year. They attempt to create a realistic facsimile of Earth's upper surface, its atmosphere, and its interaction with the sun. Using known laws of kinematics and fluid dynamics and thermodynamics, the model changes as the simulation moves forward. Forcings such as greenhouse gas and solar irradiance are changed instantaneously in the model and the earth responds to those changes.

Modeling past climate starts in the current year and the simulation runs as if it were moving forward in time, but the forcings chosen are the ones measured and reconstructed from the past. As the model moves backwards from 2000, 1999, 1998... the CO2 level is lowered and the albedo and aresol and other factors are changed to reflect data measured in those years. The same is ture of solar irradiance.

If the model works (if it models Earth's climate well) then it will correctly predict past temperatures. In other words, the past temperatures projected by the model will agree with temperatures we actually measured in the past.

The GISS model then cannot sensibly use a reconstruction of solar irradiance from 1,000 years ago if the model ends in 1850 (or 1750 depending on the particular GISS model). The forcing can only go back as far as the model. So, what you're saying doesn't make sense to me.

Originally Posted by engineerdude

So, which person at NASA Goddard is correct?

They are both correct. In no way do the two data sets disagree in any significant way with one another.

~modest

[REASON]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

The data you are linking to is quite different than the data I am referring to. They are both from the same institute, but by different people. The information you present supports your argument - but the NASA Goddard data I am using illustrates potentially severe problems in the GISS climate models. The solar irradiation data I refer to shows that current levels are the highest in 2000 years, and this is not reflected in the models.

So, which person at NASA Goddard is correct? Judith Lean (your person) or Drew Shindell (my guy)?

P.S. I don't appreciate the nasty tone in your previous post.

Here's a quote from one of the links you provided relating to climate modeling:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Bader_etal.pdf

4.3.2.2 VARIABILITY OF SOLAR IRRADIANCE AND
VOLCANIC AEROSOLS

Other climate forcings include variability of
solar irradiance and volcanic aerosols. Satellites
provide the only direct measurements of these
quantities at the top of the atmosphere. Satellite
measurements of solar irradiance are available
from the late 1970s and now span about 3 of the
sun’s 11-year magnetic or sunspot cycles. Extracting
a long-term trend from this relatively
brief record (Wilson et al. 2003) is difficult.
Prior to the satellite era, solar variations are inferred
using records of sunspot area and number
and cosmic ray–generated isotopes in ice cores
(Foukal et al. 2006), which are converted into
irradiance variations using empirical relations
The U.S. CMIP3 models all use the solar reconstruction
by Lean, Beer, and Bradley (1995)
with subsequent updates.

Also, you provided a link to a study (The one you mention in the above post) by Drew Shindell of the NASA GISS called Effects of solar variability on regional climate: Models and proxies, and then make statements like, "And I cannot find anywhere that NASA Goddard models are taking into account the fact that the sun is brighter than ever before in recorded history."

First of all, your claim about the brightness of the sun is taken directly from a climate modeling source for which you then claim doesn't provide any information about this supposed aspect of solar irradiation, or include it in their climate models.

Secondly, where exactly does it make such a claim? Have you considered that you may be misinterpreting the graph you reference on page 24 - the one you claim provides proof that the "Sun is putting out more energy than it has in the past 2,000 years?"

You're making false assertions about NASA GISS reports you pointed to that actually support the usefullness of climate modeling and how much it has improved over the years with advancements in computer technology.

Considering the way you are interpreting climate data, you might as well be telling your Orthopedic Surgeon that you know better than he does how to reconstruct the ruptured ligaments in your knee. Or maybe you should be the one to jump on the flight deck, take control of the plane, and safely land it in the East River. What the hell does the pilot know?

Why don't you stop trying to interpret climate data as your excuse for not believing in global warming, and just admit that the reason you don't is because you're affaid that if we get caught up in this whirlwind, it will lead to greater government controls and more taxation. Isn't that what you really fear? Isn't that the source of your shakiness when it comes to your disbelief in global warming or climate change? It isn't about the vast amount of research you've conducted in which you've arrived at a conclusion that is more reliable than what has been produced by a concensus of the world's top climatologists. You don't like feeling like you're being duped into some crisis that you think is going to end up costing you money. Isn't that the truth in regard to your beliefs, or lack thereof, when it comes to AGW?

If so, why don't you spend your time trying to support what it is that's really driving your skepticism. Maybe instead of making a fool out of yourself by running around in your Climatologist costume, you should focus on how we should be reasonable in the way we react and develop public policy. I felt your comments about the wasteful way the University of Hawaii was budgeting their energy consumption was very insightful. I do believe we need to be sensible as we begin to change the way we use energy.

A change in the way we utilize energy is inevitable. Do you agree with that?

Why not start now! Why not do it in a way that is considerate of and compatible with the environment we live in? Doesn't that just make sense?

[modest]

Originally Posted by Cedars

So wheres your link showing me how the UHI is accounted for (see below CRI references)?

Check out post #1221.

I think the subject of urban heat index is a good one and there are also good questions about how any such effect plays out in temperature monitoring stations. The wikipedia page on UHI has a global warming section which is pretty good:

Urban heat island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is an IPCC report saying,

The SAR reviewed the three databases of land-surface air temperature due to Jones (1994), Hansen and Lebedeff (1988) and Vinnikov et al. (1990). The first and second databases have been updated by Jones et al. (2001) and Hansen et al. (1999), respectively, and a further analysis has become available (Peterson and Vose, 1997; Peterson et al., 1998a, 1999). The last paper also separates rural temperature stations in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) (Peterson and Vose, 1997) from the full set of stations which, in common with the other three analyses, have been screened for urbanisation effects. While there is little difference in the long-term (1880 to 1998) rural (0.70°C/century) and full set of station temperature trends (actually less at 0.65°C/century), more recent data (1951 to 1989), as cited in Peterson et al. (1999), do suggest a slight divergence in the rural (0.80°C/century) and full set of station trends (0.92°C/century). However, neither pair of differences is statistically significant. In addition, while not reported in Peterson et al., the 1951 to 1989 trend for urban stations alone was 0.10°C/decade. We conclude that estimates of long-term (1880 to 1998) global land-surface air temperature variations and trends are relatively little affected by whether the station distribution typically used by the four global analyses is used, or whether a special effort is made to concentrate on rural stations using elaborate criteria to identify them. Part of the reason for this lack of sensitivity is that the average trends in available worldwide urban stations for 1951 to 1989 are not greatly more than those for all land stations (0.09°C/decade). The differences in trend between rural and all stations are also virtually unaffected by elimination of areas of largest temperature change, like Siberia, because such areas are well represented in both sets of stations.

-source

I would tend to agree with this. UHI can be mitigated in these models in particular because we have satellite readings to fall back on and also because we have an abundance of long-term data that comes from rural areas. This kind of mitigation is exactly what's done here.

For a less technical (and probably more biased) comment on UHI/global warming, there is the following article by the Brookings Institution

Crichton makes several attempts to cast doubt on scientific evidence regarding global warming.

First, he highlights the “urban heat island effect.” Crichton explains that cities are often warmer thanthe surrounding countryside and implies that observed temperature increases during the past century are the result of urban growth, not rising greenhouse gas concentrations. This issue has been examined extensively in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and dismissed by the vast majority of earth scientists as an inadequate explanation of observed temperature rise. Ocean temperatures have climbed steadily during the past century, for example — yet this data is notaffected by “urban heat islands.” Most land glaciers around the world are melting, far away from urban centers. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, using only peer-reviewed data, concluded that urban heat islands caused “at most” 0.05°C of the increase in global average temperatures during the period 1900-1990 — roughly one-tenth of the increase during this period. In contrast, as one source reports, “there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers” to support the view that “the heat island effect accounts for much or nearly all warming recorded by land-based thermometers.”

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed...ow20050128.pdf

~modest

[Flying Binghi]

Is Wikipedia a credible reference ?

Via - Encyclopaedia Britannica to let readers edit content

"Wikipedia contributes to the spread of information and many people are happy with it as their only source of reference, as are many people happy to eat McDonalds every day."

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by modest

Check out post #1221.
There is an IPCC report saying,
~modest

hmmm.

There is GISS data for Jerome Idaho. Called Rural in Giss.

Data @ NASA GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis - Station Data

Google View of above station:
Jerome

GISS data for Hazelton Idaho. Called Rural in Giss.
Data @ NASA GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis - Station Data

Picture of above station:
hazelton_ID_Overview

GISS data for Hollister Idaho. I do not know why the data ends where it does.

Data @ NASA GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis - Station Data

Heres a picture of it taken in 2007:
Hollister_south

I only picked Idaho because its not generally thought of as being influenced by UHI.

I am begining to think the IPCC people really do believe their position absolute (AGW). But then, so does Pat Robertson and Billy Graham (IPU).

Whoops! Edit #2:

Forgot this link:
http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/~.../uhi-melb.html

"The problem with the temperature records from small towns is if climatologists use these records to examine climate change then what they may actually be seeing is how the urban area has warmed as the town has grown, rather than how the larger scale climate has changed."

Edit:
Check out this experiment. Maybe not NOAA quality, but as noted, a better school science project than the baking soda spewing volcano.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/...reing-the.html

[modest]

Originally Posted by Cedars

hmmm.

There is GISS data for Jerome Idaho. Called Rural in Giss.

Data @ NASA GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis - Station Data

Google View of above station:
Jerome

GISS data for Hazelton Idaho. Called Rural in Giss.
Data @ NASA GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis - Station Data

Picture of above station:
hazelton_ID_Overview

GISS data for Hollister Idaho. I do not know why the data ends where it does.

Data @ NASA GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis - Station Data

Heres a picture of it taken in 2007:
Hollister_south

I only picked Idaho because its not generally thought of as being influenced by UHI.

Those places are all extremely rural and none would be affected by an "Urban Heat Island" effect. I looked up two that you listed in google earth and they were literally nothing more than a few buildings surrounded by a hundred miles of farm land.

I can recommend you read the wikipedia page for UHI:

Urban heat island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, also, the wikipedia page for global warming:

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~modest

[Flying Binghi]

Something to keep in mind with the rural WX stations, is if there has been any agricultural spraying nearby.

In years past, Ag spraying via ground or air units was'nt as tightly controled as today. Used to be a fair bit of spray drift about.

Some farm spray chemicals can leave an almost glossy coat on surfaces until rain washs it off. Some sprays leave a salty cristaline sort of a finnish.

I car'nt remember what the names of the chemicals were, its near 30 years ago now.

I guess somebody has done tests of the effects of farm chemicals and fertilizers on the WX units ?