It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
IPCConsensus Glossary
The Sun exhibits periods of high activity observed in numbers of sunspots, as well as radiative output, magnetic activity and emission of high-energy particles. These variations take place on a range of time scales from millions of years to minutes.
The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle.
However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability.
There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols).
Solar Forcing
Nevertheless, even if there is such decrease in the solar activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations will be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due to greenhouse gases.
Seems like the IPCC are saying global warming HAS to be of the AGW type because there is no better explanation.
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
Are we really going to insist on pretending that satellite measurements of outgoing thermal radiation, specifically reduced by GHG's (confirmed by spectrum analysis) doesn't exist?
Furthermore are we going to keep pretending that mainstream climate science hasn't weighed all solar variables or that it doesn't continue to make sure findings are correct?
Here's what the full report says. I don't see a contradiction.
Considering that variations in solar output during the sunpot cycles are deemed negligible this explanation adds more confusion than clarification, plus it's basically self-contradicting.
Since AR4 there has been considerable new research that has connected solar forcing to climate. The effect of solar forcing on GMST trends has been found to be small, with less than 0.1°C warming attributable to combined solar and volcanic forcing over the 1951–2010 period (Section 10.3.1), although the 11 year cycle of solar variability has been found to have some influence on GMST variability over the 20th century. GMST changes between solar maxima and minima are estimated to be of order 0.1°C from some regression studies of GMST and forcing estimates (Figure 10.6) although several studies have suggested these results may be too large due to issues including degeneracy between forcing and with internal variability, overfitting of forcing indices, and underestimated uncertainties in responses (Ingram, 2007; Benestad and Schmidt, 2009; Stott and Jones, 2009).
The IPCC makes no such claim.
Grand Solar Minima (e.g. Maunder Minium) cannot have been responsible for the prolonged cooling periods when average temperatures were significantly lower on at least half of the globe.
There is medium confidence that both external solar and volcanic forcing, and internal variability, contributed substantially to the spatial patterns of surface temperature changes between the MCA and the LIA, but very low confidence in quantitative estimates of their relative contributions (Sections 5.3.5.3, 5.5.1).
The combined influence of volcanism, solar forcing and a small drop in greenhouse gases likely contributed to northern hemisphere cooling during the LIA (Section 10.7.2).
That's right. Not without the help of rising CO2 levels. It can't account for the amount of warming.
Conversely, the Modern Grand Solar Maximum cannot have been the cause for the 20th century warming.
Really? I don't see that in Chapter 8. Did you provide the wrong link? What I do seen in Chapter 8 is this:
Models don't even do UV.
In addition, the reduction in CH4 via stratospheric O3, UV fluxes and OH levels due to increased N2O abundance is included in GWPs and GTP.
I'm of the belief that one day (I hope) climate scientists are finally going to join forces with heliophysicists and discover that climate is actually driven and controlled by, not CO2/methane/water vapour, but (more specifically) the relationship between the sun's and the earth's magnetospheres (aka heliospheric variables).
Here's what the full report says. I don't see a contradiction.
GMST changes between solar maxima and minima are estimated to be of order 0.1°C from some regression studies of GMST and forcing estimates although several studies have suggested these results may be too large due to issues including degeneracy between forcing and with internal variability, overfitting of forcing indices, and underestimated uncertainties in responses.
but very low confidence in quantitative estimates of their relative contributions.
The IPCC makes no such claim.
Really? I don't see that in Chapter 8. Did you provide the wrong link? What I do seen in Chapter 8 is this:
Chapter 8
As UV heating of the stratosphere over a SC has the potential to influence the troposphere indirectly, through dynamic coupling, and therefore climate (Haigh, 1996; Gray et al., 2010), the UV may have a more significant impact on climate than changes in TSI alone would suggest. Although this indicates that metrics based only on TSI are not appropriate, UV measurements present several controversial issues and modelling is not yet robust.
That's right. Not without the help of rising CO2 levels. It can't account for the amount of warming.
They say it is slight. I pointed that out. They also say that slight reduction in TSI, along with volcanic activity and other transient factors (like ENSO) are the probable cause for the flattening. Volcanic activity and those transient (internal) factors are thought to be the primary causes.
Look closer and forget the Sun, they tell you it's negligible.
So you are saying that the low solar activity during the Maunder minimum had nothing to do with the LIA? You could be right, it could have been volcanic activity and other factors I suppose....you don't think the Sun could have had a very slight affect? IPCC thinks it's possible.
No, i did.
That's not what I get from that article.
Net TOA and surface energy flux is also still highly uncertain. The heat could be there or it couldn't.
Specifically, the longwave radiation received at the surface is estimated to be significantly larger, by between 10 and 17 Wm–2, than earlier model-based estimates
They say it is slight.
So you are saying that the low solar activity during the Maunder minimum had nothing to do with the LIA?
They also say that slight reduction in TSI, along with volcanic activity and other transient factors (like ENSO)
More longwave radiation means more heat. It certainly doesn't imply the "heat" might not be there.
The net energy balance is the sum of all individual fluxes. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 W/m2. The uncertainty is an order of magnitude larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The uncertainty is also an order of magnitude larger than the current estimates of net surface energy imbalance of 0.6 +/- 0.4 W/m2 inferred from the rise in OHC. The uncertainty in the TOA net energy fluxes, although smaller, is also much larger than the imbalance inferred from OHC.
I don't know, are you? Cause i sure don't.
But i'm virtually certain you still insist on pretending you would know what you're talking about.
Kali (i'm paraphrasing): "All hell is gonna break loose when the sun wakes up again."
How much is the observed TOA energy imbalance?
No they have not. They can't. Models don't even do UV.
No i said that IPCC-related science has quantified the varaitions in solar output and the assessment is that the effect on the climate is minuscule compared to all other forcing. I also said the laws of physics cannot change and therefore the LIA must have been caused by something other than the Sun.
ENSO is not a transient factor.
If the IPCC can't I certainly can't. Slight is a little, maybe, if at all. To low to measure. The other factors are more important.
Quantify slight.
And the IPCC agrees. It was the result of a number of possible contributing factors. The Sun may or may not have had a slight contributing effect but the Sun alone cannot account for it.
I also said the laws of physics cannot change and therefore the LIA must have been caused by something other than the Sun.
Really? You mean it's a permanent feature? It seems to vary quite a bit in timing and intensity.
ENSO is not a transient factor.
Not all the difference. If you read the report it's pretty clear what the IPCC has based its evaluations on. (7.2.3.5)
Getting clouds worng makes all the difference.
Most CRM and LES studies do not span the large space and time scales needed to fully determine the interactions among different cloud regimes and the resulting net planetary radiative effects. Thus our assessments in this chapter do not regard any model type on its own as definitive, but weigh the implications of process model studies in assessing the quantitative results of the global models.
No, I didn't misunderstand it. It says that previous models understated the amount of longwave radiation infrared at the surface.
You misunderstood the part you've quoted, it describes the discrepancy between models on observation, nothing else.
Satellite observations combined with other data (Box 1) now convincingly support previous observation-based estimates of the surface downward longwave flux. The revised estimates of these fluxes range between 342 and 350 Wm−2, and are between 10 and 17 Wm–2 larger than past estimates that have relied primarily on
global models.
Indeed that's similar to something I said, how does that conflict with anything I, or for that matter, the IPCC... have said about the sun?
GMST changes between solar maxima and minima are estimated to be of order 0.1°C from some regression studies of GMST and forcing estimates (Figure 10.6) although several studies have suggested these results may be too large due to issues including degeneracy between forcing and with internal variability, overfitting of forcing indices, and underestimated uncertainties in responses.
If the sun does wake up won't that make the situation worse?
In order to argue that the satellite data is wrong we must pretend that the argument regarding the modelling is about TOA and not surface fluctuations, which I believe can be attributed to those pesky volcanic aerosols and La Ninas...
If the IPCC can't I certainly can't. Slight is a little, maybe, if at all. To low to measure. The other factors are more important.
Really? You mean it's a permanent feature? It seems to vary quite a bit in timing and intensity.
Is ENSO a cycle or a series of events?
After early ideas that saw El Nin˜os as isolated events, the advent of coupled models brought the conception of ENSO as a cycle in which each phase led to the next in a self-sustained oscillation. Twenty-two years of observations that represent the El Nino and La Nina peaks (east Pacific SST) and the memory of the system (zonal mean warm water volume) suggest a distinct break in the cycle, in which the coupled system is able to remain in a weak La Nina state for up to two years, so that memory of previous influences would be lost.
Similarly, while the amplitude of anomalies persists from the onset of a warm event through its termination, there is no such persistence across the La Nina break. These observations suggest that El Ninos are in fact event-like disturbances to a stable basic state, requiring an initiating impulse not contained in the dynamics of the cycle itself.
Evolution of El Nino–Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures
The negative feedback between SST and surface fluxes can be interpreted as showing the importance of the discharge of heat during El Nino events and of the recharge of heat during La Nina events. Relatively clear skies in the central and eastern tropical Pacific allow solar radiation to enter the ocean, apparently offsetting the below normal SSTs, but the heat is carried away by Ekman drift, ocean currents, and adjustments through ocean Rossby and Kelvin waves, and the heat is stored in the western Pacific tropics. This is not simply a rearrangement of the ocean heat, but also a restoration of heat in the ocean.
That means more infrared energy at the surface than older models showed (about 5% more). It doesn't mean the heat "may or may not be there". If the energy is there, the heat is there.
There so much conjecture and baseless assumption in your last post alone, you really don't need me to prove the point.
I say it again, unemotionally, you have no idea what you are talking about. You're making it clear time and time again.
It's only you claiming it would make a difference. Based on what? The IPCC does not.
... maths, graphs, formulae etc ...less understanding of the overall picture than I.
That's your problem right there. All the sciency stuff.
The Consensus tells you, you don't need to be afraid about what the Sun does. You won't even notice the difference.
You're just throwing words together.
I'm not even going to ask you what satellite data has to do with all the other things you've said.
Stop pretending.
GMST changes between solar maxima and minima are estimated to be of order 0.1°C
not only am I too stupid to understand science
you are doing so in order to prove that warming has nothing to do with humans or increased GHG's in the atmosphere.
CERES and ISIS gave us empirical data