Are We Doomed To Arctic Winters In America?

All scientists believe that man contributes to temperature but there is much debate on how much or if it is some kind of disaster. Curbing pollution on the other hand, is a good thing all around.

 

No, they are not reconstructions. They are real data, taken from real satellites. The difference between the two is entirely due to the "ACRIM gap", a period in the early 90s after ACRIM I had died and before ACRIM II had been launched. During that gap, both the PMOD and the ACRIM datasets filled the gap with data from other, less reliable instruments, and that's were the difference lies. So one of them did it right, and the other did it wrong. We now know that ACRIM, the one showing warming in the gap, did it wrong, and PMOD, the one without warming in the gap, did it right. Using the ACRIM dataset is no longer scientifically justified. Of course, if you care more about the politics than the science, I'm sure you'll continue to use it anyway.

Pre-satellite era TSI reconstructions are quite easy to verify, simply by using the same techniques on satellite era data and seeing how close you get. The clear winner in this regard is the SATIRE model (see Krivova et al. 2010 for the latest, also references therein dating back to '06 for the origins) which correlates with actual TSI at r=.96. Krivova is so good that almost nobody, except deniers with a political agenda, uses anything else these days.

 

Of course they are reconstructions. Otherwise they would look like the raw data in the previous graph.

 

Not the. To say that assumes the unscientific approach that another, possibly unknown variable doesn't change. That's why proxies are used, and even that have variability that can be illusive.

The SATIRE model works great for the satellite era because actual size of the sunspots and faculae can be measured. If you read the paper, they compare their end results with Balmaceda et al. [2007] and Krivova et al. [2007], and could be cherry picked to match.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2010JA015431/asset/jgra20618.pdf

http://www.pages-igbp.org/download/...ions/2012-1st-solar-forcing-wshop/krivova.pdf

The work itself looks great, but the hindcasting should be questioned.

 

Quote over a very short time frame. There aren't enough recorded cycles to have that degree of confidence in any model. We have actually observed only 2 solar cycles. You cannot with any confidence say that previous solar cycles behaved as the cycles we recorded.

Other than the simple fact that we are making a model with only 2 solar cycles? A .96 correlation to known data isn't very good.

Hoosier8 graphic makes it clear that one part is measured and one is an approximation. You only admit such when challenged. You only admit that pre 1978 data is a reconstruction until pressured on it. If I hadn't bought it up you would have continued to pretend that we actually had TSI measurements in 1958.

 

That is total bull(*)(*)(*)(*) because it assumes that all solar cycles are alike. We only have 2 full cycles of TSI data. That is not enough to claim any confidence in a model.

 

Excuses are only important to the deniers. Scientists look for explanations.

 

There are now 52 different 'explanations' for the hiatus now and of course, no one has any idea what is correct. Use whatever word you like and continue to show your school yard mentality by calling names.

 

Gee, they do. I wonder why that is?

 

First you say they are not, then you say they are. Discussing any of this with you is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

 

But you have no scientific basis on which to question it. other than your political beliefs. Speculating about a "possibly unknown variable" isn't science, it's conspiracy theory.

 

Thank you for admitting that we should have no faith in solar models of the climate. I guess that leaves greenhouse.

 

You know it's okay in science to say we don't know. To do otherwise is a pretense of knowledge.

 

It's also okay in science to understand the evidence instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

 

Or pretending hypothesis is fact.

 

Well the fact is the planet is warming, and the fact is that we're responsible. Everything else is politics.

 

The fact is that we are responsible is an hypothesis, not a fact.

 

No, it's as well proven as anything in science. The warming is more greenhouse, and the more greenhouse is us.

 

It is not proven by any means. It is an hypothesis that has so far failed on most accounts (except in politics).

 

I've never prepended that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. However I have seen evidence enough to convince me that the atmosphere has a positive feedback in respect to temperature.

In a lab the forcing of CO2 is about 1C. That is hardly a crisis. There is plenty of evidence that it is beneficial. I've always wondered how you reconcile your belief in the Marcott reconstruction which says CO2 is actually keeping us out of a glaciation with your belief that AGW is catastrophically bad.

 

Then why do climate scientists find what ever way possible to put most the blame on CO2 when there is good evidence to the contrary?

- - - Updated - - -

Same question I asked before.

Where can I buy the poker cards?

Who wants to make money making them?

 

I absolutely do. I just explained why. Not my fault you don't understand that sunspot numbers are not the only factor for modeling this. He has insufficient data to claim any hindcasting accuracy.

It's obvious you either didn't read, or didn't understand the paper.

 

Yes, it has been. We might start into a new cooling period.

No proof. Just hypothesis by the IPCC et. al that reality has broken nearly every predictive temperature model after a few years.

Especially climatology.

 

I think I've got you pegged now, Lord Planar. You're just totally dishonest, aren't you? You sit there in your den, typing falsehoods into the computer and you hope nobody will notice or call you out on them. You are the Lord of No Evidence, claiming time and time again that evidence exists, which somehow you can never actually produce, even when challenged to do so.

Pathetic.

Scientists blame greenhouse gases (primarily, but not exclusively, CO2) because that's what the evidence shows. Your claim to the contrary is a flat-out lie. And I think you know that. If I'm wrong, it would be easy to show, if you had evidence to the contrary. Which you don't.

 

The evidence is pretty clear. CO2 forcing was supposed to keep warming the earth. The hiatus put a wrench in the works. The IPCC continues to reduce it's forcing effect to try and cover for no warming. Observational science is trumping computer models.