Comments on: Day1 of the International Climate Change Conference

By: Win

Win — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 01:43:58 +0000

8 years as VP and all Gore did was loosen tailpipe emissions standards.

By: Loren Jones

Loren Jones — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:50:25 +0000

The TED conference blurb detailing Al Gore’s views is very telling: He essentially says that eventually we’ll be as hot as Venus once we’ve dumped all our carbon into the atmosphere. Completely lost on Nobel Al is the fact that Venus is 42M miles CLOSER to our primary source of heat energy, the Sun! Clearly another prime example of his cluelessness on science topics. What a putz.

By: Bruce Cobb

Bruce Cobb — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:13:12 +0000

“They didnt answer”. Proving they’re not only hypocrites and moral cowards, but rude as well.

By: aaron

aaron — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:10:35 +0000

42. M. R. Allen, P. A. Stott, J. F. B. Mitchell, R. Schnur, T. L. Delworth, Nature 407, 617 (2000) . 43 J. U. Beer et al., in The Sun as a Variable Star: Solar and Stellar Irradiance Variability, Proceedings of IAU Colloquium 143, 20 to 25 June 1993, J. M. Pap, C. Frohlich, H. S. Hudson, S. K. Solanki, Eds. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994), pp. 291-300. 44. M. Lockwood, R. Stamper, M. N. Wild, Nature 399, 437 (1999) . 45. D. V. Hoyt and K. H. Schatten, J. Geophys. Res. 98, 18895 (1993) . 12. J. Lean and D. Rind, J. Clim. 11, 3069 (1998) [CrossRef]. 22. J. Lean, J. Beer, R. Bradley, Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 3195 (1995) [CrossRef] [ISI].

By: Gary Gulrud

Gary Gulrud — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:02:57 +0000

An Inquirer:
Excellent question! I do remember a recent quote here, probably Jim Arndt, of Leif Svalgaard’s saying everyone (doubtless meaning expert) has a different definition. Leif’s site I believe is http://www.leif.org and has a published and prepublished library.

I’d also check wikipedia for the RC party line. They will say TSI is about 1365 Watts/meter squared. This value varies 0.1% from a given solar sunspot minimum to maximum. It may vary 1% or more routinely over 2 century cycles (Gleissberg?).

At IceCap there is also a fine library including a long paper by Gerlich and Teuschner(sp?)-may have to use the search tool to find it there. Important issue they mention is that the visible light spectrum, normally what is refered to by TotalSolarIrradiance is actually only 40% of incident light, remainder being 40% IR and 20% UV. During solar flares UV on its own can jump 100% (associated with sunspots).

TSI may or may not include the IR and UV components by every definition.

This, however, still leaves unaccounted, particle radiation carried by the solar wind knotted in the IMF. Pulses of this current are especially noticable now during solar minimum (coronal hole induced auroras) and as the IMF flips southward can enter unimpeded into earth’s atmosphere. The pulses are on the order of teraWatt inputs.

By these criteria TSI does not represent the total energy received by the earth by any common definition.

By: aaron

aaron — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:58:57 +0000

Peter Stott is a highly regard modeler who falls into the warmer camp. His models include:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5499/2133

Science 15 December 2000:
Vol. 290. no. 5499, pp. 2133 – 2137
DOI: 10.1126/science.290.5499.2133

External Control of 20th Century Temperature by Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings
Peter A. Stott,1* S. F. B. Tett,1 G. S. Jones,1 M. R. Allen,2 J. F. B. Mitchell,1 G. J. Jenkins1

“The solar and volcanic forcings we use are derived from reconstructions based on proxy data and are therefore also subject to considerable uncertainties, although recent explosive volcanic eruptions are likely to have cooled climate, and independent records of solar activity levels inferred from the cosmogenic isotope 10Be (43) and geomagnetic records (44) provide support to reconstructions (22, 45) that show generally increasing solar activity during the 20th century (12).”

He doesn’t indicate the size of the trend in the paper though.

By: aaron

aaron — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:22:11 +0000

A I, not sure it's very muddled. I highly recommend Nir Shaviv's site, siencebits.com. These two posts, http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar and http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate, are very good reads, but they don't get into the TSI measurments. Basically, warmers seem to look at the trend over the past century, but there are many diffent types of solar activity and while solar activity has peaked around 80, many also say it is still higher than in the past (as you said). I'm not sure sure about the 80s date, I think real decine happened later. Read the comment in Nir's posts, very interesting stuff. Basically, the types of cosmic rays approaching earch vary independently and the types that affect cloud cover are less correlated with solar activty than cosmic rays in general. Warmers lump all CRs together, Nir looks at the high energy level rays. I'm a bit skeptical, but as Nir explains it, there are also significant lags (similar to the ones assumed for CO2, warming of the oceans and such). They explain part of the continued rise after solar activity begins to decline.

By: Georg Hoffmann

Georg Hoffmann — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:03:37 +0000

I strongly doubt that Gavin or Mike declined the invitation to the group therapy organised by the Heartland “there is no such thing as tobacco produced cancer” -institute. They didnt answer.

By: An Inquirer

An Inquirer — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:29:35 +0000

Gary Gulrud,
Concerning Solar TSI, I have read much on various websites (warmists as well as skeptics), and the noise seems to have drowned out clear explanation. Is there a reference that you would recommend for clarity — one that explains how TSI (or other solar indicators) is measured, why warmists believe that TSI and temperatures are not correlated, and what are the weak points of their analysis? (I am familiar with the correlation work D’Aleo.)

By: Sims

Sims — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 03:45:00 +0000

Al won’t go because he doesn’t want to give up his Nobel.

By: George Snyder

George Snyder — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 01:41:26 +0000

In the summer of 1959 and for a couple of years after that I worked as a student trainee for the state of Ohio US Climatologist, who had been with the weather service for many years. He mentioned that temperatures seemed to be going up a little at various sites, but discounted it being a real change by telling me how the weather stations had changed over the years. For example, airports were more busy (and that was before jets), cities were larger, etc. I always remembered that when I heard about “global warming”. Keep up the good work in your investigations of temperature recording sites. You might consider tracking them back into the ’20s and 30’s to see what the adjacent conditions were then.

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:52:49 +0000

As far as I can tell they’re sticking with the “the correlation of Global temperature rises and Solar TSI has fallen off since 1980″.

Maybe they have fallen off–with the measurements. But maybe the measurements aren’t so accurate themselves.

Maybe Mr. D’Aleo’s PDO correlation would fit even better if the post 1980 increases were, say, exaggerated by a tenth of a degree or three.

By: bill p

bill p — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:41:00 +0000

“his usual $200,000 speaking fee”

Holy Moly! I’ll tell ‘em anything they want to hear for that!

By: Robert in Calgary

Robert in Calgary — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:14:05 +0000

“….questions and ideas….”

No wonder they’re all staying away.

Those are two very dangerous things to modern climate science.

By: Gary Gulrud

Gary Gulrud — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 22:57:20 +0000

Kim Re Gavin and the RC party line:
As far as I can tell they’re sticking with the “the correlation of Global temperature rises and Solar TSI has fallen off since 1980″.
Part of the problem appears to be academicians like Solanki of Max Planck that can put out a paper with the above assertion and the next paper saying “Solar output is currently at higher levels than any time in the last 11,000 years.”
Looking at his CV, Sami has a co-authored paper every 2 weeks over the last quarter century! Peer review isn’t working any magic; the cherry-pickers can believe whatever they choose.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:06:49 +0000

Good luck at the conference! Hope your presentation goes well.

I’d be there, but its expensive!

By: Sylvain

Sylvain — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:49:28 +0000

Hansen can again claim that he was silenced by a bureaucrat (himself). It is amazing that this guy keeps complaining about officials interference when he is the first one to wish to silence other from speaking up.

It is easy to say that the Heartland institutute is an oil puppet, yet the oil puppet gave everyone a chance to make their case, unlike the IPCC who refuse to acknolede any other views.

By: Al Fin

Al Fin — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:41:09 +0000

Hansen and Schmidt may have have wonderful minds, Bill, but they seem to keep losing them. If they had only gone to the ICCC and faced a group of free-thinkers, and answered all their questions, perhaps they could have found them again.
;-)

By: crosspatch

crosspatch — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:59:59 +0000

“I’ll even pick up cab fare”

I hear Al rides a pretty expensive cab these days.

By: AGWscoffer

AGWscoffer — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:37:54 +0000

Concerning Gavin Schmidt,
I demanded he put his money where his climate mouth is; and bet on sea level rises: 10 cm or less in the next 10 yrs, I win.
10 cm or more sea level rise in the next 10 years, he wins. Bet: $100K.
He refused! Is anyone surprised? They don’t even believe their own predictions and models.
IN FACT he refused to say at which sea level he would bet. (My guess is that it would be a sea level rise of maybe 1 cm / decade.)
THAT MEANS: NO CATASTROPHE!

Try to get any alarmists to bet on a sea level rise in the next 10 years.
You won’t find a single one ready to money down on their own projections. End of discussion.