It's The Evidence, Stupid!

Willis, very simple answer. The systems we are observing are NOT strictly linear in any way shape or form. YOU YOURSELF have noted the “thunderstorm hypothesis” which mitigates matters. While an IMMEDIATE change in the ionization/seeding of clouds may produce a rather IMMEDIATE EFFECT…(such as noted by Svensmark’s paper) there are other factors (aka, think the thunderstorm hypothesis) which…with LONG TERM trends may tend to DAMPEN effects. It should be NOTED that the galaxy itself has an effect on cosmic ray intensity. We are NOT like a needle on an LP, staying in one plane in relation to the central slice through the galaxy. There is strong evidence we are cutting somewhat of a Lissajous figure, as the sun rotates around the center of the galaxy. Putting us on a cycle of going up and down with relation to the central “flat LP” of the galaxy. This TOO could have a long term effect on cosmic rays, and thus a longer term effect on clouds and the albedo.Thus, there could be an explanation for periodic ice ages. I think in ALL of this there is a fatal flaw in thinking “we” (currently, in our time, with our limitations”) can figure out ALL the variables in this multivariate system and their inter-relations.

Willis,
Clearly earth has thermoregulatory limits, particularly cloud and storm formation, which are massively non linear, dare I say it tipping points, but they are of course negative feedbacks. I think we can take for granted that earth temperature is proven to be solar insolation dependent since day is warmer than night, summer is warmer than winter, and the tropics are warmer than the poles. I think it’s rather incontrovertible that these difference are mediated by differing insolation. The sunspot cycle is a different matter, it’s not a terribly large change, and likely below the noise floor of say, ocean mediated temperature variation. Also, the different effects from sunspots in particular may have opposing effects such that overall the climatic effects are minimised. Sunspots are a different mechanism to say orbital eccentricity so it isn’t surprising to me that a sunspot signature is difficult to discern. Have you looked for example on the effect of sunspots on volatility? Energy entering into the system can be shown as more heat OR more volatility as feedback mechanisms become more perturbed in transforming that excess incoming energy to another form – even as the average remains unchanged.
The problem of course is which feedback out of millions to look at, the logical exit point is wind/waves where most of the thermal energy in the system ends up. Since wind velocity is a square root function of energy, good luck in eeking out a wind signature given only a 1 % change in energy sqrt(.01) = .0001 change in average wind velocity.

“”””””……joeldshore says:
May 24, 2014 at 7:06 pm
george e. smith says:
BUT ! back to a recent (not so long ago) Willis essay, on some observations of a Volcanic dimming incident(s) I believe made in Hawaii (shoot me if I’m wrong Willis) where for some months, there was a measured, very significant reduction (20-25% sticks in my mind) in the SURFACE solar irradiance; that decayed exponentially over a few months to a year or so (in that region) BUT, the local temperature anomalies showed no observable temperature change at all (in that region.
It was a striking demonstration that the weather / climate feedback loop, can squelch a host of solar irradiance variation, that happens over time intervals, that are clearly much longer than the thermal time constants.
Well the day night temperature cycle proves that the thermal response can be pretty darn fast, compared to a three month SI deprivation.
So that essay of yours Willis proved to me quite solidly, that there is a very active negative feedback, temperature regulating loop in play.
Well, it might prove it to you but it certainly doesn’t to me. I can think of a ton of issues with such a test. One is the huge thermal heat capacities involved…Places like Hawaii don’t have that strong a diurnal temperature cycle as is true of more continental climates. A second issue is the neglect of the fact that climate is far from a local effect, that is there is huge heat transport around the globe. You can’t just say, “Forcing is reduced here so it should be a lot colder here.” A third is you have to figure out the extent to which that change in solar radiation reaching the surface means less solar radiation being absorbed vs the extent to which some of that radiation that didn’t reach the surface was absorbed in the atmosphere (i.e., to what extent do the volcanic aerosols reflect radiation and to what extent do they block it by absorbing it).
But, another important thing is that you are making a big confusion between changes in forcing at the surface and top-of-the-atmosphere forcings. …..”””””
Joel, I read this posting of yours about 24 hours ago, and decided it wasn’t worth responding to. But I felt that a minimum response required, was an immediate recall of the recent gold stars you seemed (at the time) to have earned.
I’m still having a hard time believing it actually is you that wrote this drivel.
Well I decided in the interests of other readers, to try and address, your post. It will be necessary to define some terms as they arise, since the seem to be an area of confusion in your mind.
The first necessary definition, is one of those words I capitalized, for emphasis; SURFACE .
For the purpose of this posting, “surface” refers to the surface of planet earth, and that is further defined as ; Any boundary, separating any bulk portion of the earth that is in a solid phase, OR a liquid phase; from a bulk portion of the earth that is in a gaseous phase.
These may be colloquially referred to as “land” , “sea”, and “air.”
In this regard, CLOUDS , consisting of liquid or solid phases, are NOT considered part of SURFACE.
So I specifically referenced “surface solar irradiance.”
That would relate to ONLY EM radiant energy, that has already made contact with any portion of the surface, as defined above.
I repeat here this portion of YOUR post: “””””…..A third is you have to figure out the extent to which that change in solar radiation reaching the surface means less solar radiation being absorbed vs the extent to which some of that radiation that didn’t reach the surface was absorbed in the atmosphere (i.e., to what extent do the volcanic aerosols reflect radiation and to what extent do they block it by absorbing it)……””””
Do you see the dilemma here Joel. All of these strawmen you here set up; well they actually are red herrings.
Not a one of these things has ANY influence on the “SURFACE solar irradiance.”
It has already landed, either on the ground, or on the oceans. It is thus immune to aerosols, volcanoes, sea level rice, ocean acidification, or any other imagined pestilence you raised. The surface solar irradiance already made it to the surface.
So now to this ditty: “””””…..One is the huge thermal heat capacities involved…Places like Hawaii don’t have that strong a diurnal temperature cycle as is true of more continental climates. …..”””””
Just for the record, Joel, I was born and raised, surrounded by water; just like Hawaii is. Actually, I was born on such a strip, about five miles wide, having the entire Pacific ocean to the East of me, and the entire Indian Ocean to the West of me. Well the Australians like to call it the Tasman Sea, near where we are, but it’s the Indian Ocean. Actually, when the sea level rises, as it does twice per day, that five miles strip, shrinks to one half of a mile; just enough to get one road, and one railway track through on dry land. And no we are not near ANY continents.
And I can assure you Joel, that the temperature does change between day and night. Now admittedly, it is not as large as the 150 degree C change, one can experience by flying from the winter midnight of the Antarctic highlands, to the hot summer daylight deserts of North Africa.
But that day-night Temperature change (I mentioned above) is huge compared to the pitiful about 0.7 deg. C change that people are still trying to verify as having occurred on earth over the last 150 years.
Did you catch this part Joel ?
“””””…..that happens over time intervals, that are clearly much longer than the thermal time constants…..””””
Now I understand that you educators like to treat the climate, as a steady state condition. Note how Kevin Trenberth, et al’s “earth energy budget.” is a static steady state condition with no time element involved.
Like you, he probably has no understanding of a THERMAL TIME CONSTANT (which I mentioned above, and YOU chose to simply ignore, with this offering :
“””””…..One is the huge thermal heat capacities involved…”””””
Now Joel, you may not be aware of this; but ALL of those numbers, on KT’s “earth energy budget.” are NOT ENERGIES at all. The SI unit of energy, is the JOULE.
Watts is a unit of POWER, often defined as a RATE of doing work. It is an instantaneous “differential” quantity, which for a constant power, gives the same answer when observed for one atto-second, as when observed for a year.
And for the extra-terrestrial mean TSI (over the orbital year), is generally about 1366 W/m^2 areal power density. It most certainly is NOT 342 W/m^2, as asserted by KT et al.
And when you supply energy to an object at a certain rate (power), which gets converted to heat energy in that object, which has a certain “specific heat”, the temperature will tend to rise above the equilibrium steady state temperature, at a very calculable initial rate; which rate will then slow down, as “heat” loss mechanisms kick in to slow the rate of temperature rise. Such processes are characterized by (in this case) thermal time constants; that being the time it takes for a new temperature level to be reached, if the heating continued at the initial linear rate.
This is what really takes place in a dynamic transient situation, which you choose to enshroud under a flowery unscientific term like “huge thermal heat capacities.”
Now I have been to or lived in a number (small) of different places, and in every such place, when a cloud passed between me and the daytime sun, the temperature drop experienced by me, was virtually instantaneous, in the shadow zone. But then, I have a short thermal time constant, and also a negative feedback loop, called sweating, that kicks out to stop me losing body heat so fast, in the shadow.
How about this “””””…..
But, another important thing is that you are making a big confusion between changes in forcing at the surface and top-of-the-atmosphere forcings. …..”””””
Sorry Joel; I never ever use the word “forcings”, and I never used it in my post, nor did I mention forcings at the top of the atmosphere, nor did I mention changes in forcings at the top of the atmosphere; never even mentioned the top of the atmosphere. Those are all strawmen dreamed up out of your fertile imagination, Joel.
I specifically discussed “SURFACE solar irradiance.”, and as I defined “surface, that is the BOTTOM of the atmosphere, and NOT the top of the atmosphere.
Well Joel to you educators, who teach, instead of do, the climate is the (static steady state) AVERAGE OF THE WEATHER .
Don’t know how many times I have told you it is the INTEGRAL of the weather.
That is the INTEGRAL over TIME and SPACE.
So I talked about Willis’s description of a LOCAL irradiance dimming; that persisted for a time much longer than the also local, thermal time constants; and described how it was found that LOCAL negative feedbacks, served to immediately nullify (locally) the effect of that dimming, so as to cancel out any change in LOCAL surface temperature.
Nothing in my post precluded, any such change in surface solar irradiance, occurring in ANY other location, or multiplicity of locations, and local feedbacks in those locations from cancelling out such perturbations; nor extending that to the entire earth, to be both spatially and temporally integrated to produce a global condition; or regional climate changes.
In addition to knowing what it is to be surrounded by water, I also know a thing or two about volcanoes. Well I had about 60 of them, within 25 miles of where I grew up. None of them were actually active at the time; but I used to go climbing and skiing, on a more distant (200 miles) away volcano, while it WAS actively erupting. Also used to go swimming in its sulphuric acid crater lake, at other times when it wasn’t erupting.
So aerosols I do understand somewhat; but so far as I know they tend not to be found between the SURFACE and the ground; or the ocean, they are more of an atmospheric thing.
But I’m sure, I have told you before Joel, I make it a rule to never get between somebody, and a cliff they are wanting to leap off.
But if just one person, is helped to understand negative feedback in the weather system, by my comments, on Willis’s Pinatubo solar dimming description, that is a gain as far as I am concerned.
You can drag out all the red herrings you wish Joel.
But I’m disappointed in you; I was beginning to think, you were somewhat more sensible.

Willis Eschenbach says:
May 25, 2014 at 3:00 pm
—————————————-
“If that were the case, then we would see the 11-year cycle in the 0-700 metre ocean heat content (OHC). Hang on, I’m determined to follow all leads … OK, here’s the periodogram for the Levitus 0-700m quarterly OHC data …”
No, the cumulative effect cannot be found in the data at current resolution. Remember you are looking for just 0.8C in 150 years.
“PS—Contrary to your claim, DWLWIR can indeed leave the ocean warmer than when there is no DWLWIR …”
I’m sorry Willis, DWLWIR is not what is stopping our oceans freezing. DWLWIR can effect water that is very cold with no wind speed or very saturated or very cold air above. But these are not conditions found over most over the oceans. For the radiative GHE hypothesis to be correct, DWLWIR would have to effect our oceans just as if they were a “near blackbody”. That simply isn’t the case.