• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Svensmark Closes the Loop -- The Missing Link Between GCR's, Clouds and Climate

Sunsettommy

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
875
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Jack Hays, did you see this?

Science Daily

The missing link between exploding stars, clouds, and climate on Earth

Excerpt:

Breakthrough in understanding of how cosmic rays from supernovae can influence Earth's cloud cover and thereby climate

December 19, 2017

Technical University of Denmark

Summary:

The study reveals how atmospheric ions, produced by the energetic cosmic rays raining down through the atmosphere, helps the growth and formation of cloud condensation nuclei -- the seeds necessary for forming clouds in the atmosphere.

LINK
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
17,021
Reaction score
10,561
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Words have meaning, A writer may choose to tighten or loosen the meaning with the syntax.
The statement, "A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge
of clouds and their interactions with radiation." does not exclude Svensmark's theories.
Words have meaning. I've already cited the passages where the IPCC flatly rejected Svensmark's theories. Yet again, if you do not understand that very simple fact, it's not my problem.


As your statements detail that you do not understand the basics of Svensmark's theories,
I have to wonder why you are arguing so vigorously that it cannot be a factor?
Oh, really?

Tell us all then, what exactly are Svensmark's theories? And how am I mischaracterizing them?
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
17,021
Reaction score
10,561
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
There seems to be quite a bit of dependency on the roll that clouds play in Earth's energy balance.
Really? How fascinating. Because I have it on good authority that a great deal of the uncertainty in the temperature variations we've observed is a result of not fully understanding the interplay of heat and.... clouds.

Who said that? Oh, it was the IPCC. Which you quoted, over and over and over again. "In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation."

I really love the fact that you've been hammering on about this for days, and then just drop it without a second thought. Based on a PowerPoint. In Comic Sans. Which explains the updates and corrections in v4 of the CERES data product. (I mean, really, do you even bother to look at what you're linking?)

 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
49,914
Reaction score
17,422
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Really? How fascinating. Because I have it on good authority that a great deal of the uncertainty in the temperature variations we've observed is a result of not fully understanding the interplay of heat and.... clouds.

Who said that? Oh, it was the IPCC. Which you quoted, over and over and over again. "In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation."

I really love the fact that you've been hammering on about this for days, and then just drop it without a second thought. Based on a PowerPoint. In Comic Sans. Which explains the updates and corrections in v4 of the CERES data product. (I mean, really, do you even bother to look at what you're linking?)

LOL.

The comic sans line killed me.

It’s like a metaphor for his whole posting history...
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
15,729
Reaction score
3,558
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm stating that the CLOUD lab at CERN has been operating for years, performing a variety of experiments. A handful of papers from CLOUD studies lend some support to the CR theory; most do not. The study I linked is one of the most extensive surveys of 10 years of data, and its conclusion is that CR variability has a negligible effect on the climate overall.



Please, spare us the conspiracy theory nonsense. We could just as easily say that the researchers who are funded by fossil fuel companies and conservative think tanks (e.g. Shaviv <--> Heartland) are equally compromised.



The evidence is in the linked article, which apparently you didn't read. Impressive.
You could but you would of course be lying.

They are not funded by anybody but them selves.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
15,729
Reaction score
3,558
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There seems to be quite a bit of dependency on the roll that clouds play in Earth's energy balance.
The CERES satellite was launched to measure some of these things directly.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documen...ct_CEREStechnical/23_Loeb_EBAF_TOA_Update.pdf
The Global Mean TOA Flux (Wm-2) Ed2.8
March 2000 – June 2015
All sky NET 0.60 Wm-2
Clear Sky NET 21.7 Wm-2
The all sky included clouds, the clear sky, is sort of self explanatory.
It sure looks like the clear sky TOA net FLUX is 36 times greater than the all sky,
I.E. Clouds drop the amount of net FLUX by a large number.
What proportion of the earth has clouds at any one time and are all clouds having similar effects?
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
15,729
Reaction score
3,558
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Really? How fascinating. Because I have it on good authority that a great deal of the uncertainty in the temperature variations we've observed is a result of not fully understanding the interplay of heat and.... clouds.

Who said that? Oh, it was the IPCC. Which you quoted, over and over and over again. "In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation."

I really love the fact that you've been hammering on about this for days, and then just drop it without a second thought. Based on a PowerPoint. In Comic Sans. Which explains the updates and corrections in v4 of the CERES data product. (I mean, really, do you even bother to look at what you're linking?)

Posted by Longview, post 671 ;There seems to be quite a bit of dependency on the roll that clouds play in Earth's energy balance.
The CERES satellite was launched to measure some of these things directly.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/document...TOA_Update.pdf
The Global Mean TOA Flux (Wm-2) Ed2.8
March 2000 – June 2015
All sky NET 0.60 Wm-2
Clear Sky NET 21.7 Wm-2
The all sky included clouds, the clear sky, is sort of self explanatory.
It sure looks like the clear sky TOA net FLUX is 36 times greater than the all sky,
I.E. Clouds drop the amount of net FLUX by a large number.
Hardly dropping it is it?!!!!!!

Wake up!!!
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
26,931
Reaction score
9,558
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Words have meaning. I've already cited the passages where the IPCC flatly rejected Svensmark's theories. Yet again, if you do not understand that very simple fact, it's not my problem.



Oh, really?

Tell us all then, what exactly are Svensmark's theories? And how am I mischaracterizing them?
The IPCC does not flatly reject Svensmark's theories, they simply do not assign a large role to
the amount of clouds formed from cosmic rays.

How have you characterized Svensmark's theories, well let's see?
In Post #644 you said,
CRs (from outside our solar system) are a fraction of the effects of solar irradiation.
And solar irradiation is (in the view of the IPCC) a tiny amount of the variation in global temperatures.


IPCC explicitly ruled out Svensmark's theories as having an effect.
Svensmark's theorie is not that cosmic rays are effecting solar irradiation,
but rather that changes from the sun regulate the amount of cosmic rays that can enter the atmosphere.
Your and through your inference the IPCC's position is that CRs are a very small external heat source,
Svensmark's theorie is solar changes cause cosmic rays to be like an inverting amplifier.
Actually not so subtle of a difference.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
26,931
Reaction score
9,558
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Really? How fascinating. Because I have it on good authority that a great deal of the uncertainty in the temperature variations we've observed is a result of not fully understanding the interplay of heat and.... clouds.

Who said that? Oh, it was the IPCC. Which you quoted, over and over and over again. "In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation."

I really love the fact that you've been hammering on about this for days, and then just drop it without a second thought. Based on a PowerPoint. In Comic Sans. Which explains the updates and corrections in v4 of the CERES data product. (I mean, really, do you even bother to look at what you're linking?)
Baede in 2001 says we have a limited understanding about clouds and radiation (They did not say heat).
In 2016 (only 15 years later) we have some actual measurements of energy in and out from a satellite,
which is you had bothered more than a quick glean would have seen the statement,
EBAF-TOA Ed2.8 (Current Version), but it makes little difference.
The Global Mean TOA Flux (Wm-2) Ed2.8
March 2000 – June 2015
All sky NET 0.60 Wm-2
Clear Sky NET 21.7 Wm-2

The Global Mean TOA Flux (Wm-2) Ed4.0
March 2000 – June 2015
All sky NET 0.63 Wm-2
Clear Sky NET 18.3 Wm-2
So in the newer version the clear sky flux is 29 times greater than the all sky flux, instead of 36 times,
It still says clouds have a much greater effect than that assigned by the IPCC models.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
26,931
Reaction score
9,558
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What proportion of the earth has clouds at any one time and are all clouds having similar effects?
I have heard numbers for average cloud coverage, but without a link, it would only be my poor memory.
From what I have read different clouds have different effects, ceres would be looking at the overall average,
and the clear sky having 29 to 36 times more flux than the all sky, says clouds have a very large negative forcing effect.
Keep in mind the total energy imbalance from doubling the CO2 level, is supposed to be 3.71 Wm-2,
but the measured clear sky vs all sky number is 17.67 Wm-2.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,864
Reaction score
28,075
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Jack Hays, did you see this?

Science Daily

The missing link between exploding stars, clouds, and climate on Earth

Excerpt:

Breakthrough in understanding of how cosmic rays from supernovae can influence Earth's cloud cover and thereby climate

December 19, 2017

Technical University of Denmark

Summary:

The study reveals how atmospheric ions, produced by the energetic cosmic rays raining down through the atmosphere, helps the growth and formation of cloud condensation nuclei -- the seeds necessary for forming clouds in the atmosphere.

LINK
Yes, I did. Thank you.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
17,021
Reaction score
10,561
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Baede in 2001 says we have a limited understanding about clouds and radiation (They did not say heat).
I know this is hard for you, but... read the entire paragraph. It's talking about infrared radiation. That's heat.

I mean, seriously, what do you think they're talking about? X-rays? Microwaves? Gamma rays?


In 2016 (only 15 years later) we have some actual measurements of energy in and out from a satellite,
which is you had bothered more than a quick glean would have seen the statement,
EBAF-TOA Ed2.8 (Current Version), but it makes little difference.
If you had done more than a quick glean, you'd realize that the document you linked does not draw conclusions about CERES data. What it does is show the differences between 2.8 and 4.

And yes, that means that 2.8 is the older version, which was replaced by version 4. You can see this on the NOAA Data Quality Survey page, for example:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/dqs.php

I mean, seriously. What does it say on the first page? CERES Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) - TOA Edition 4 Update (Emphasis added).

Someone has to analyze the CERES data, and see if or how it correlates to temperature variations on regional and/or global levels and/or different strata (e.g. ocean, land, troposphere etc). Here's an example of that type of work:
Climate variability and relationships between top-of-atmosphere radiation and temperatures on Earth - Trenberth - 2015 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
26,931
Reaction score
9,558
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I know this is hard for you, but... read the entire paragraph. It's talking about infrared radiation. That's heat.

I mean, seriously, what do you think they're talking about? X-rays? Microwaves? Gamma rays?



If you had done more than a quick glean, you'd realize that the document you linked does not draw conclusions about CERES data. What it does is show the differences between 2.8 and 4.

And yes, that means that 2.8 is the older version, which was replaced by version 4. You can see this on the NOAA Data Quality Survey page, for example:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/dqs.php

I mean, seriously. What does it say on the first page? CERES Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) - TOA Edition 4 Update (Emphasis added).

Someone has to analyze the CERES data, and see if or how it correlates to temperature variations on regional and/or global levels and/or different strata (e.g. ocean, land, troposphere etc). Here's an example of that type of work:
Climate variability and relationships between top-of-atmosphere radiation and temperatures on Earth - Trenberth - 2015 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library
As I said, words have meaning, If they had wanted to limit the discussion of clouds to only infrared radiation,
they could have said so. but the context is not only infrared radiation.
When clouds are seen from space, what color are they?
https://www.generation-nt.com/zoom-1625857,1917429-nasa-photo-terre.html
If clouds only reflected infrared radiation, we would not see them from space, or the ground.
Also recently, we have learned that thunderstorms emit gamma burst, that to is a cloud radiation interaction.

As to the CERES data, both versions show that clouds have a very large (negative) effect on the energy balance.
 

Sunsettommy

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
875
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Visbek writes,

I know this is hard for you, but... read the entire paragraph. It's talking about infrared radiation. That's heat.
IR is a light wave of ENERGY, not heat, a common misunderstanding many people have.

From Wikipedia:

Infrared radiation is electromagnetic radiation (EMR) with longer wavelengths than those of visible light, and is therefore invisible to the human eye. It is sometimes called infrared light. It extends from the nominal red edge of the visible spectrum at 700 nanometers (frequency 430 THz), to 1 millimeter (300 GHz)[1] (although specially pulsed lasers can allow humans to detect IR radiation up to 1050 nm.[2][3][4][5]). Most of the thermal radiation emitted by objects near room temperature is infrared. Like all EMR, IR carries radiant energy, and behaves both like a wave and like its quantum particle, the photon.
bolding mine

LINK

Heat shows up when IR meets something (surface) that is then converted to heat. IR heaters seem to put out heat when it is actually putting out energy waves, if feels like heat because energy waves from the heater are converted to heat by your body.

From Wikipedia:

In physics, energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object
LINK
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
26,931
Reaction score
9,558
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I enjoyed the paper, but noticed they used the CERES ED2.8.
Something that struck me odd was this statement,
Figure 1 presents the mean annual cycles of TOA net radiation for CERES and ERA-I both
for total and estimated clear-sky radiation. Fasullo and Trenberth [2008a, 2008b]
analyzed the annual cycle in considerable detail. CERES EBAF values are 1 to 3 W m−2 higher
than ERA-I values for the total, but several W m−2 lower for clear sky (Figure 1).
These should be considered biases in the ERA-I for the most part
[Trenberth and Fasullo, 2013a]—otherwise, the TOA net radiation from ERA-I implies global cooling.
I have to wonder why, if the empirical data is implying cooling, it must be biased?
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
17,021
Reaction score
10,561
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The IPCC does not flatly reject Svensmark's theories....
Yes, they did. Twice. I already identified the relevant sections, and cited parts of those passages. It is screamingly obvious you haven't read either the passages or my citations. FAIL.


How have you characterized Svensmark's theories, well let's see?
In Post #644 you said...
sigh

Svensmark's theory is, in a nutshell: "More solar wind = less GCRs = less clouds = hotter atmosphere."

(We should note, yet again, that this has resulted in him making busted predictions, such as saying in 2009 that "the next 10-20 years will be cooler;" in fact 4 of the hottest years on record happened after 2009. Anyway....)

Since you need me to clarify #644:
• Svensmark is not actively working (at this time) on measuring the effects of cloud cover on temperatures. As best I can tell, he's relying on other research for this claim. I.e. his work does NOT address the uncertainty identified in that one quote (which you now seem to have abandoned, ooops).

• Svensmark isn't talking about feedbacks. He is not, for example, saying that "hotter atmospheric temperatures causes more vapor, which makes the atmosphere more sensitive to GCRs, which causes more cloud formation." That would be a feedback. He's talking about a forcing mechanism -- i.e. something outside the environment which forces changes in the climate. (In this case, "more GCRs = more clouds = lower temps.")

• I was trying to point out that the amounts of GCRs are a fraction of that of solar irradiation. Thus, it is likely that the effects of GCR are quite small, almost certainly dwarfed by variations in solar activity -- which is also quite small. (Hence the poor correlations between GCR flux and temperatures.) Now, I will agree that I didn't phrase this well, but I certainly did not say that "Svensmark is saying that GCRs directly increase temperatures." Nor, AFAIK, has Svensmark ever proposed that theory.


Svensmark's theorie is not that cosmic rays are effecting solar irradiation,
but rather that changes from the sun regulate the amount of cosmic rays that can enter the atmosphere.
Your and through your inference the IPCC's position is that CRs are a very small external heat source,
Svensmark's theorie is solar changes cause cosmic rays to be like an inverting amplifier.
Actually not so subtle of a difference.
Uh, no. Neither I nor the IPCC claimed that GCRs affect solar irradiation, or that GCRs are an "external heat source." Not even remotely close.

You would have know that if you actually read the IPCC docs, or the parts I keep citing.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
26,931
Reaction score
9,558
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, they did. Twice. I already identified the relevant sections, and cited parts of those passages. It is screamingly obvious you haven't read either the passages or my citations. FAIL.



sigh

Svensmark's theory is, in a nutshell: "More solar wind = less GCRs = less clouds = hotter atmosphere."

(We should note, yet again, that this has resulted in him making busted predictions, such as saying in 2009 that "the next 10-20 years will be cooler;" in fact 4 of the hottest years on record happened after 2009. Anyway....)

Since you need me to clarify #644:
• Svensmark is not actively working (at this time) on measuring the effects of cloud cover on temperatures. As best I can tell, he's relying on other research for this claim. I.e. his work does NOT address the uncertainty identified in that one quote (which you now seem to have abandoned, ooops).

• Svensmark isn't talking about feedbacks. He is not, for example, saying that "hotter atmospheric temperatures causes more vapor, which makes the atmosphere more sensitive to GCRs, which causes more cloud formation." That would be a feedback. He's talking about a forcing mechanism -- i.e. something outside the environment which forces changes in the climate. (In this case, "more GCRs = more clouds = lower temps.")

• I was trying to point out that the amounts of GCRs are a fraction of that of solar irradiation. Thus, it is likely that the effects of GCR are quite small, almost certainly dwarfed by variations in solar activity -- which is also quite small. (Hence the poor correlations between GCR flux and temperatures.) Now, I will agree that I didn't phrase this well, but I certainly did not say that "Svensmark is saying that GCRs directly increase temperatures." Nor, AFAIK, has Svensmark ever proposed that theory.



Uh, no. Neither I nor the IPCC claimed that GCRs affect solar irradiation, or that GCRs are an "external heat source." Not even remotely close.

You would have know that if you actually read the IPCC docs, or the parts I keep citing.
If you don't get what I am saying by now, you never will!
I can only say we still do not know all the variables that go into our climate,
and CO2 is only one of many.
 

Sunsettommy

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
875
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
From “Thermodynamics”, G. J. V. Wylen, John Wiley & Sons, 1960:

“Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a temperature difference or temperature gradient. Implied in this definition is the very important fact that a body never contains heat, but that heat is identified as heat only as it crosses the boundary. Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon. If we consider the hot block of copper as a system and the cold water in the beaker as another system, we recognize that originally neither system contains any heat (they do contain energy, of course.) When the copper is placed in the water and the two are in thermal communication, heat is transferred from the copper to the water, until equilibrium of temperature is established. At that point we no longer have heat transfer, since there is no temperature difference. Neither of the systems contains any heat at the conclusion of the process. It also follows that heat is identified at the boundaries of the system, for heat is defined as energy being transferred across the system boundary.”

LINK
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
17,021
Reaction score
10,561
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I enjoyed the paper, but noticed they used the CERES ED2.8.
Yes... that's because... the paper was written in 2015... and the 4th Edition of CERES was issued around October 2016... as it says in the Comic Sans Powerpoint.


I have to wonder why, if the empirical data is implying cooling, it must be biased?
OK, I'm going in

This is what they are actually saying.

A brief examination of the TOA radiation is first given for ERA-I versus CERES. Figure 1 presents the mean annual cycles of TOA net radiation for CERES and ERA-I both for total and estimated clear-sky radiation. Fasullo and Trenberth [2008a, 2008b] analyzed the annual cycle in considerable detail. CERES EBAF values are 1 to 3 W m−2 higher than ERA-I values for the total, but several W m−2 lower for clear sky (Figure 1). These should be considered biases in the ERA-I for the most part [Trenberth and Fasullo, 2013a]—otherwise, the TOA net radiation from ERA-I implies global cooling. Nevertheless, the time series of global anomalies (Figure 2) show very good agreement in most of the month-to-month variability that reflects the weather variations in clouds for the most part. The overall monthly correlation is 0.79 (5% significance level is 0.18). (Emphasis added)

That means:
• There is a discrepancy between the CERES and ERA-I data
• They wrote a paper in 2013 which talks about this issue (fyi it's that there is some data in ERA-I they regard as spurious)
• If you don't adjust for this, you're going to read the data incorrectly (i.e. if the data shows cooling, when empirical observation shows warming, you can deduce that there's an error somewhere)
• All that being said, ERA-I is very good, the discrepancies are quite small, ERA-I and CERES almost always agree, and the month-to-month correlation of ERA-I and CERES is 0.79 (and yes, that's pretty good... it's like saying they agree 90% of the time)

Got it?
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
26,931
Reaction score
9,558
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes... that's because... the paper was written in 2015... and the 4th Edition of CERES was issued around October 2016... as it says in the Comic Sans Powerpoint.



OK, I'm going in

This is what they are actually saying.

A brief examination of the TOA radiation is first given for ERA-I versus CERES. Figure 1 presents the mean annual cycles of TOA net radiation for CERES and ERA-I both for total and estimated clear-sky radiation. Fasullo and Trenberth [2008a, 2008b] analyzed the annual cycle in considerable detail. CERES EBAF values are 1 to 3 W m−2 higher than ERA-I values for the total, but several W m−2 lower for clear sky (Figure 1). These should be considered biases in the ERA-I for the most part [Trenberth and Fasullo, 2013a]—otherwise, the TOA net radiation from ERA-I implies global cooling. Nevertheless, the time series of global anomalies (Figure 2) show very good agreement in most of the month-to-month variability that reflects the weather variations in clouds for the most part. The overall monthly correlation is 0.79 (5% significance level is 0.18). (Emphasis added)

That means:
• There is a discrepancy between the CERES and ERA-I data
• They wrote a paper in 2013 which talks about this issue (fyi it's that there is some data in ERA-I they regard as spurious)
• If you don't adjust for this, you're going to read the data incorrectly (i.e. if the data shows cooling, when empirical observation shows warming, you can deduce that there's an error somewhere)
• All that being said, ERA-I is very good, the discrepancies are quite small, ERA-I and CERES almost always agree, and the month-to-month correlation of ERA-I and CERES is 0.79 (and yes, that's pretty good... it's like saying they agree 90% of the time)

Got it?
Our empirical observations show minimal warming (.89 C over 167 years) with a standard deviation likely almost as much
as the measurement. While there are limitations and linearity issues with measuring the TOA flux,
I think those could well be less than the surface temperature data sets.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
17,021
Reaction score
10,561
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
If you don't get what I am saying by now, you never will!
Have you actually read the IPCC's comments on Svensmark, in the 3rd and 5th Reports?

Yes or no?
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,864
Reaction score
28,075
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Solar
[h=1]Cool science: NASA Satellites Recreate Solar Eruption in 3-D[/h]The more solar observatories, the merrier: Scientists have developed new models to see how shocks associated with coronal mass ejections, or CMEs, propagate from the Sun — an effort made possible only by combining data from three NASA satellites to produce a much more robust mapping of a CME than any one could do alone.…
 
Top Bottom