Arguments
Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update
Posted on 27 November 2013 by Rob Honeycutt
A couple of years ago I happened upon a German "climate contrarian" website called NoTricksZone run by Pierre Gosselin. While reading through one particular post I made an off-hand comment that I'd never found a skeptic who would put their money where their mouth is related to climate.
Well, Pierre took that as a challenge and we got together to create a gentleman's climate bet with proceeds going to a charity of the winner's choice. (Correction: As Tom points out in the commens the terms state, "...the charity organisation is yet to be chosen, but will (1) be one that both sides agree on, (2) help children in dire need (3) have low overhead and (4) be international.") That was back in early 2011. It became the Climate Bet for Charity, subtext: "Will the next 2011-2020 decade be warmer than the previous 2001 – 2010 decade?"
To date, climate realists have put up a total of $5200 and the climate skeptics have put up $2000. So, already, my original claim is holding true, that skeptics are generally not willing to put their money where their mouths are. (Yes, bets are meant to include a bit of taunting. I'm perfectly willing to keep with that time honored tradition.)
A Third Party Tracking
The other day I was surprised to find a third party had created a chart to track the progress of the bet, and even further surprised that they were gloating over the current decade running cooler than the last.
Fig 1 - Graph created by "KiwiThinker"
I had a hard time making out exactly what they were tracking here at first. Initially it looked like they were merely tracking the monthly average of the past decade relative to the current decade, which is not what the bet is. And I made several erroneous comments to that effect.
I pulled up the UAH and RSS lower tropospheric anomalies through WoodForTrees.org and did the calculations myself. Sure enough, the average of UAH and RSS for the 2001-2010 decade comes out at 0.226C. The current 2011-present decade is running at 0.173C. That's 0.053C below the last decade, based on, yes, three years of data. So, they actually do have this much correct.
Convenient Start Point
When I dug deeper into the data I found this interesting tidbit. The monthly figure for Dec 2010 is 0.179C and the monthly figure for Jan 2011 is 0.052. So, right when we start their graph we have a large month-to-month temperature drop. That means all our initial running average data points are going to be heavily influenced.
As a test, I created by own graph. One data set I pulled the start point back 4 months to demonstrate the influence of the start point. This is not to suggest we change the start point, it's just to show that the start point is going to be misleading. In fact, since we're averaging so few data points in the early phase of the of the chart, it's going to be mostly just noise. It doesn't tell us anything meaningful at all.
Fig 2 - Reworking the climate bet chart.
The blue line in this chart shows us what happens if we move the start point back just 4 months relative to the green line, which is the start of the actual bet. The red line is equally meaningless since it is also relying on only a small amount of data and is going to be highly influenced by the general month-to-month noise in surface temperature data. Each of these three are cumulative running averages. As such, since they rely on less data, everything to the far left of the chart is noise. As we move toward the right end of the chart we start to see the actual signal.
Probably the best way to watch the progress of this bet would be to compare the 2001-2010 decadal average to the "to-date" decadal running average (currently Oct 2004 2003 to Sept 2013). I've added this in as the purple line, where the difference is only 0.013C.
Challenges Ahead
When we originally initiated this bet I was of the opinion that the satellite data was probably the most reliable data to use. Since then I've learned a few things about how the satellite data is compiled and the challenges that are involved.
For one, satellites are not thermometers. They're measuring a proxy of temperature by way of upwelling radiances collected by microwave sounding units (Uddstrom 1987). That data has to then go through significant processing to infer temperature. Even the two groups currently putting out satellite temperature data have data that disagrees, even though the data is coming from the same sources. And ironically, "skeptic" researcher, Roy Spencer's UAH data is current showing a higher rate of warming than RSS. Eventually that divergence has to be accounted for with an adjustment from one group of the other. Hopefully that will get resolved in a way that won't complicate the results of our bet.
Fig 3 - Divergence between RSS and UAH data
SkS has an excellent primer on satellite temperature measurements here that I highly recommend. Again, the bet is set, so I wouldn't think to suggest changing the terms. I'm now of the personal opinion that GISS is likely the most accurate data set being that it has the greatest coverage for the Arctic, where we're seeing the greatest warming. A warming pattern that is, incidentally, consistent with AGW theory.
A Double Down Probably Not In The Cards
Since the "skeptics" seem so confident in their position I was thinking this would be great opportunity to double down on this bet, but that's when I realized, even if they doubled down they still wouldn't have put up as much as the realists already have in. All those $10 skeptics would have to pony up a whole $40 bucks to quadruple their bets to force the realists to double their bet.
I'm, frankly, not at all concerned whether the climate realist side will win this bet. The bet is based on a full decadal average rather than where any given year falls. My own best guess is, barring a major low latitude volcanic event before 2020, there is a >95% chance that this decade will end up being warmer than the last. Physics is on our side. You just can't add 2.3Watts/m2 of man-made radiative forcing (source) to the climate system and believe the planet is not going to warm.
I've come to liken the "skeptic" position as suggesting we pop the turkey into the oven to keep it cool until Thanksgiving day.
- - - - - - - - - -
Just to clean things up a little, here is how I would suggest is the most accurate way to track the bet. The 2001-2010 decadal average is set in stone. That doesn't change, so I've just established it as the bar that determines the over or under outcome. The green line is the 10 year to present moving average temperature. If that green line is above the blue line come December 2020, then the climate realists win. If the green line is below the blue line, the "skeptics" win.
Note that the decade of 1991-2000 was 0.139C warmer than 1981-1990, and the decade of 2001-2010 was 0.204C warmer than 1991-2000.
The chart below is current as of September 2013.
Arguably, if this decade ends up not being as warm - surface temperature wise - as the last decade, we all win.
Composer99... I'm actually more pessimistic about that potential. If this decade doesn't show warming in the surface temperature record, that is more likely to mean that the next decade will show an even more rapid rise in temps. And, in the meantime, that means that we'll see even more delay in taking action to reduce FF consumption.
I'm actually quite confident that we'll see a rise in surface temps by the end of the decade. It's not much of a risk, IMO, when you're betting on the side of basic physics.
Does this apply if both records are adjusted in the future such that the 2001 - 2010 values change?
barry... I'm assuming we will look at how the numbers look at the end of the decade. At that point, what was the 2001-2010 average might have been adjusted one way or the other. I would assume the most recent data at that time would be the most accurate.
I don't think it's going to be a problem either way. I think the end result will be the same. The latter part of this decade is likely to see some significant El Nino action, and with that a large change in surface temps that will bring the trend up to something close to the longer term trend.
Again, the only caveat might be a major low latitude volcanic event.
Rob... although bets are closed, I posted just now to encourage Pierre to reopen them til 2015, to reap as much money for charity as reasonably possible. I made a $100 bet for a warmer decade. By his reckoning, reading the last comment there, I'm backing a losing proposition. Maybe he'll take me up :-)
Just a small point - your current 'decadal running average' should run October 2003 through September 2013 (rather than October 2004) to cover a full 10 years.
P.S. I truly appreciate all the work done by the contributors to this site.
Rob, a small point. You say that the losers money will be donated to "a charity of the winner's choice". In contrast, Pierre Gosselin writes:
You may wish to clarrify that point.
Further, who counts as a winner? Specifically, as denier bets are only a fraction of pro-science bets:
1) do all pro-science pledgers cound as winners (should they win), with loser bets assigned pro-rata?
2) Or is it first come, first served, with bets paired of based on time of reciept so that later betting pro-science winners are not counted as winners?
3) Or is it just handled en masse, with choice of charity decided by a committee,
4) or by the two principles (you and Pierre)?
Or is some other method used.
Further, will the "warmer" side only pay an amount equal to the "cooler" sides commitments in the event that the temperatures are cooler? Pierre seems to indicates as such. If so that makes the former question even more consequential, for with choices (1), (3) and (4) those betting for warmer will only need to pay a fraction of their commitment. In the case of (2), early betters will pay their full commitment, but late comers will not need to pay (if betting stays as it is).
The upshot is that only if Pierre is right about the paltry betting by "coolists" limiting the commitment of "warmists"; and further only if method (2) is used, does he have reasonable grounds for nolonger taking "warmist" bets. In all other cases, his refusal to take more bets looks like an attempt to limit the embarassment of "coolists" from their lack of conviction in their beliefs.
Am I misunderstanding something?
The bet is that the absolute 2011-2020 decade average will be warmer than the 2001-2011 decade average. The graph is showing the derivative of the decades (progressively averaged to date). The bet isn't will 2020's decadal warming rate be higher than 2010's warming rate.
Unless January 2001 has the exact same absolute temp as January 2011 then ploting the warming rates side by side isn't going to tell you much.
FTR, If my bet is allowed I would pay the full amount regardless of what the other side pledges. Putting my money where my mouth is # it's for charity.
Yes, the last graph is by far the best way of tracking the bet, unfortunately I didn't see it on the first read.
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/extreme-whether
We are a not-for-profit 501 (c) 3 raising money to produce a play that tells the story of Climate Scientists battling climate deniers...it's based on what has actually happened to the real-life scientists. If you want a good "charity" think of contributing to our Indiegogo campaing. We will also be hosting Festivals of Conscience when scientists and activists dialogue with audiences. James Hansen, Jennifer Francis, the late, dear Father Paul Mayer have spoken after public readings of the play. Needless to say, the Sloan Foundation (which endows a chair at MIT held by a major denier) and other big foundations connected to fossil fuels have refused to fund us. Take a look at the video on the link above. I think you'll like what you see, or www.theaterthreecollaborative.org
WT* American Meteorological Society are doing here?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
I’m quite sure you’ll win this bet, Rob!
This is the result if we use the data from GISS instead of RSS or UAH:
January 2001 – December 2010: 0.593oC
January 2011 – October 2013: 0.574oC
November 2004 – October 2013: 0.598oC
The running decadal average up till now is already in the lead, although the margin so far is much smaller than the uncertainty.
The fact that every year after 2000 have been warmer than every year before 1998 (according to GISS data) is a strong hint that the increasing forcing from the GHG’s already has cancelled out much of the cooling impact from negative ENSO, aerosols and a weak solar cycle during the last 10-12 years.
So, if a decant El Niño doesn’t occur soon, it’s just a matter of time before the next annual record will be set in a neutral or even an ENSO negative year!
Seems likely that there will be an El Nino before the end of this decade. Where do I get a piece of the action.
"You just can't add 2.3Watts/m2 of man-made radiative forcing (source) to the climate system and believe the planet is not going to warm."
From the Jul 65N Milankovitch cycle the solar insolation was 469.44W/m2 at the maximum 10,000 years ago. It is 426.76W/m2 today, a fall of 42.68W/m2. It seems to me that you will have to add a lot more than 2.3W/m2 to avoid global cooling in the next 2000 years (minimum of present cycle). Whether this will be apparent in the next decade is anybodys guess, there are too many other variables.
[TD] No, the next glaciation won't be happening for many tens of thousands of years. Here is a starting point for you, but read the comments as well: We’re heading into an ice age
Tom @7... I should have gone back to read the terms more clearly. You're correct. But it didn't seem like a contentious issue on what charity would receive the funds. I remember there being some discussion of Doctors Without Borders, which is perfectly find. And I think Pierre likes them as well.
My primary point of the bet has already been confirmed, that deniers are not willing to put their money where their mouths are. I was actually excited at one point to be proven wrong on this point. Reading back through the comments there was another "warmist" who also wanted to come in at the time the betting was open for $5k. But we've so overwhelmed their betting level at this point that it doesn't really matter.
mrkt @6... You're right. I'll fix that.
mrkt... Just double checked and the data I have is correct in the chart, I just stated it incorrectly in the blog post.
#15 jhnplmr:
You are wrong. The insolation change you are referring to wasn’t global, but regional, while the GHG forcing is global. If you look at figure 2 here you will notice that while the annual insolation has decreased at high latitudes during Holocene it has increased in the tropics. The global average hasn’t changed at all. And figure 1 shows that AGW hasn’t only stopped the cooling trend that started 5500 years ago, but caused most of the warming back to Holocene optimum level or higher in only 150 years.
Human emissions of greenhouse gases are now the leading forcing that will determine the Earths climate for millennia to come.
BTW, the summer solstice insolation at 65oN is close to its minimum right now at 481 watt/m2 and will remain between 480 and 493 watt/m2 for the next 20,000 years because the precession that changes the time of perihel will be countered by decreased orbital eccentricity and axial tilt.
So, even without AGW it’s unlikely that we would get an ice age during the next 20,000 years.
Rob @16, it does matter. If "warmist" bets are closed and "coolist" bets remain open, the gap between them will be closed over time. After a few years it will appear that both sides are equally convinced of their claims as evidenced by willingness to bet, whereas "warmists" were overwhelmingly more confident of their opinion in fact.
#19 HK
"while the annual insolation has decreased at high latitudes during Holocene it has increased in the tropics"
There is a very strong correlation between Vostok ice core temperatures and the Jul 65N Milankovitch cycles. There is more land mass in the northern hemisphere so lower summer temperatures here have more effect on global temperatures. Glacial periods are caused by lower summer temperatures where ice doesn't melt. Plot it for yourself, if I could find a way to upload my graph I could show you but I can't!
"BTW, the summer solstice insolation at 65oN is close to its minimum right now at 481 watt/m2 and will remain between 480 and 493 watt/m2 for the next 20,000 years because the precession that changes the time of perihel will be countered by decreased orbital eccentricity and axial tilt."
I don't know where you are getting your figures from but from mine:
-3000 424.1W/m2
-2000 423.61W/m2
-1000 424.61W/m2
This shows a clear minimum in 2000 years time. After that insolation will rise.
#Moderator Response:[TD]
"No, the next glaciation won't be happening for many tens of thousands of years"
I didn't say the next glaciation, I said global cooling. I am well aware that the present dip in the Milankovitch cycle is insufficient to trigger the next glacial period. The effect of man-made warming is to offset the cooling due to the Milankovitch cycle, that is why the present interglacial has been extended far beyond the duration of the last interglacial period. Plot the graphs and see for yourself.
We are running out of fossil fuels so it is unlikely that we can continue to inject sufficient GHG to offset future cooling.
#19 HK
"BTW, the summer solstice insolation at 65oN is close to its minimum right now at 481 watt/m2 and will remain between 480 and 493 watt/m2 for the next 20,000 years because the precession that changes the time of perihel will be countered by decreased orbital eccentricity and axial tilt."
I don't know how you plot your Milankovitch cycles but I use the same method that Milankovitch used, ie, using the orbital eccentricity, the precession and the axial tilt to calculate the solar insolation at any time.
Saying:
"because the precession that changes the time of perihel will be countered by decreased orbital eccentricity and axial tilt."
is meaningless as these factors have already been taken into account in the calculation.
[RH] Removed blank lines.
jhnplmr:
Your claim at 23 that fossil fuels are runnig out is false. Please provide a citation to support your wild claims. There has already been enough CO2 released to prevent global cooling for over 100,000 years. Do you really want to argue about what will happen in 500,000 years?
Saying "if I could find a way to upload my graph I could show you but I can't!" is not very convincing. This is a scientific board. Your unsupported word is not worth much. No-one will listen to you if you cannot provide peer reviewed support for your claims. Continously repeating the same unsupported claims is sloganeering. If you do not begin to support your claims the moderators will start to edit yout posts.
# 25: Michael Sweet
"Saying "if I could find a way to upload my graph I could show you but I can't!" is not very convincing"
The site asks for a URL to upload pictures, I can only point to a location on my computer, as is normal for uploads. If you don't find this "convincing" then I'm wasting my time.
"This is a scientific board. Your unsupported word is not worth much"
That is why I wanted to upload my graph to support my statements.
"Continously repeating the same unsupported claims is sloganeering. If you do not begin to support your claims the moderators will start to edit yout posts."
The graph I am referring to was compiled from the Vostok ice core data and the Milankovitch insolation was derived from: LINK
(-snip-).
(-snip-)?
[DB] Off-topic snipped.
[RH] Hotlinked URL.
# 25: Michael Sweet
"Your claim at 23 that fossil fuels are runnig out is false. Please provide a citation to support your wild claims."
If you seriously think that fossil fuels are an infinite resource then I don't need a citation, you need certifying.
# 25: Michael Sweet
"There has already been enough CO2 released to prevent global cooling for over 100,000 years."
Your evidence for this wild claim?
I can only repeat what I said:
"From the Jul 65N Milankovitch cycle the solar insolation was 469.44W/m2 at the maximum 10,000 years ago. It is 426.76W/m2 today, a fall of 42.68W/m2. It seems to me that you will have to add a lot more than 2.3W/m2 to avoid global cooling in the next 2000 years (minimum of present cycle)"
My "claim" is based on published data, what is your claim based on?
# 25: Michael Sweet
"There has already been enough CO2 released to prevent global cooling for over 100,000 years."
CO2 doesn't last that long. From:
David R. Cook Meteorologist Climate Research Section Environmental Science Division Argonne National Laboratory:
"The duration period for carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere is somewhere between 100 and 500 years"
(-snip-)
[RH] Please keep the discussion more polite. Insult snipped.
Residence time is only really meaningfull for first order processes - in fact CO2 uptake happens over several timescales, characterised roughly by uptake due to plants, oceans and rock weathering. As a result quoting a number for the residence time is pretty meaningless.
So I tried it out in the GEOCARB model here: http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/geocarb/
Put a 500Gt slug of CO2 in the atmosphere at T=0. This is an instantaneous release, so for a brief period CO2 levels in the air are higher than current, but it's about right.
After 10k years temps are still elevated by 0.35C. After 100k years temperatures are elevated by 0.2C.
CO2 levels are only slightly elevated at that point (10ppm), however both oceans and land surface have become net sources, gradually releasing the CO2 they took up earlier in the process.
Kevin's comment is on point and David Cook's quote was misinterpreted. The residence of a given molecule is quite different from the time it takes for concentrations to change and from the time it takes for temperatures to evolve accordingly. Thre is no incompatibility between a residence time of a few hundred years for a molecule and cooling prevented for thousands of years.
jhnplmr,
Your excuse for not posting your data is not acceptable. If you cannot learn how to post data why should I think you can process data? You could at least cite where you got the data from. Since you have not supported your data I do not need to support mine. There are plenty of fossil fuels, including unconventional fuels like oil sands and shale oil, for the next 50 years. More than enough for mankind to ruin the planet we live on. It is clear that you do not understand the concept of residence time. Why should you be able to calculate Milankovich forcing which is harder to understand?
jhnplmr:
"There is a very strong correlation between Vostok ice core temperatures and the Jul 65N Milankovitch cycles. There is more land mass in the northern hemisphere…."
It’s well known that the present layout of the continents makes the northern hemisphere much more sensitive to changes in insolation than the southern and that the resulting climate change is spread to the southern hemisphere via carbon cycle feedbacks. Therefore the correlation between the insolation at 65oN and Vostok temperatures.
More on that on other SkS threads, for instance here.
"I don't know where you are getting your figures from…."
I used the Orbital Forcing model just below the GEOCARB model Kevin C referred to in #31 and set the day of year to 173, northern summer solstice. The figures will be a bit different if you choose mid July (day 196-197), but the tendency is the same.
The result is similar to this graph in Wikipedia:
As you see, very little change for the next 20,000 years!
But back to the topic here:
I agree with Rob that this decade almost certainly will be warmer than the previous one, and that the only realistic way to avoid that is a large (Pinatubo scale) volcanic eruption in the tropics.
"I used the Orbital Forcing model just below the GEOCARB model Kevin C referred to in #31 and set the day of year to 173, northern summer solstice"
My figures were based on the data in:
LINK
These will take you well past the start of the present ice age, 2.6 million years ago, to 10,000 years into the future. The figures for Jul 65N seem rather different to yours but they show an excellent correlation to both the Vostok core data and the sedimentary data.
"I agree with Rob that this decade almost certainly will be warmer than the previous one, "
Time will tell but if I am right there should be a cooling trend setting in as decreasing use of fossil fuels, due to shortages, loses the battle against decreasing solar insolation.
The way I see it is that we are trying to keep the temperature relatively constant to artificially prolong the present interglacial period but not allow it to go high enough to pull us out of the present ice age. This will require enormous amounts of energy which is becoming increasingly scarce and expensive. Faced with a choice between another glacial period and a much warmer "normal" (non ice age) period I know which I would prefer.
[RH] Extra blank lines removed and hotlinked URL.
#32 Michael Sweet
"You could at least cite where you got the data from."
I have, Vostok ice core data and Jul 65N Milankovitch cycles. Where did you get your data from?
[RH] Extra blank lines removed.
#33 HK
"The result is similar to this graph in Wikipedia: As you see, very little change for the next 20,000 years!"
If you call oscillations between 560W/m2 to 460W/m2 (rises and falls of 100W/m2) very little change. IPCC gives 1.6W/m2 as the total man-made radiative forcing from 1750 to present day. That is very small compared to the changes in solar insolation.
A fall from 490W/m2 to 400W/m2 (90W/m2) was sufficient to plunge us into the last glacial period yet you dismiss this as very little change!
[RH] Removed blank lines.
jhnplmr... I'm not sure exactly where you're off here, but that you're claiming a ~20% difference in insolation seems off by a couple of orders of magnitude. I think you're somehow not understanding the numbers you're quoting and I don't yet understand them enough to say why.
When I come up against something like this, my immediate assumption would be that I'm not yet fully comprehending the science and continue to do research. You seem to be finding numbers that you believe support what you want to believe and then stop your research.
That's called confirmation bias.
A good clue in this situation would be, "Does what I'm saying go against the larger body of scientific research?" If this answer is yes, then you have to continue to try to understand why. The greater likelihood is that scientists already understand this and I (you) haven't done enough research.
Rather than get defensive about your position, I would suggest you dig deeper. See if you can do what real scientists try to do. Try to prove yourself wrong in the process of your research so that you don't end up looking foolish when someone else points out an elemental error.
And jhnplmr, you might find some answers in Kiehl 1997 and Evans 2006.
#37 Rob Honeycutt
"but that you're claiming a ~20% difference in insolation seems off by a couple of orders of magnitude. I think you're somehow not understanding the numbers you're quoting "
The problem is that the insolation figures I am using: LINK
are different to those used by HK. He referred to a graph in Wikipedia and I used the figures from that graph to comment on his "little change" hypothesis.
I do understand the figures I am quoting and they are considerably more accurate than those derived from a Wikipedia graph.
(-snip-)
[RH] Can we get you to use the link function for your URL's (second tab above the comments box) so that your URL's don't break the page formatting? Thx.
[RH] Moderation complaints snipped (see comments policy page).
jhnplmr... Read the Kiehl 1997 paper please. I think you'll find it informative.
jhnplmr,
The paper you cite only looked into the past. Its timeline, same like the cited wikipedia page is in thousands of years. As the wikipedia graph pointed out by HK @33 shows, in the small period past the blue dot (today), the change are going to be relatively small, much smaller than you are talking about. The larger changes (+20 W/m2), i.e. first in the positive direction, are more than 20,000 years in the future. The first negative anomaly is more than 50,000 years in the future. So unless the wikipedia graph is wrong, I do not see your argument.
jhnplmr:
"If you call oscillations between 560W/m2 to 460W/m2 (rises and falls of 100W/m2) very little change. IPCC gives 1.6W/m2 as the total man-made radiative forcing from 1750 to present day."
First of all, those changes are regional, not global.
Secondly, we are not talking about the maximum oscillations during the last 2 million years, but the next 20,000 years. That’s a big difference!
And third, your source doesn’t agree with your claims. The file bein11.dat is the one you should use as it covers the next 100,000 years. Multiply the figures for 60oN or 70oN by 0.4843 to convert them from langleys/day to watt/m2 and you will find that the result supports me.
And BTW, the updated figure for man-made radiative forcing in AR5 is 2.3 watt/m2, not 1.6 watt/m2.
jhnplmr... I think HK has just proven my point about making elemental errors and looking foolish.
It's incumbent upon you to more completely do your research before making fantastical claims.
Hi Rob and John, I like your post and feeling quite chuffed to see my graph here at Skeptical Science. I did another view of the bet trying to eliminate the 'noisey' look at the front end. Here's a link - http://www.kiwithinker.com/2013/11/a-decadal-global-climate-bet-a-second-view-of-the-race/. With best regards to all from NZ, nzrobin.
#41 gws
"The paper you cite only looked into the past."
I don't recall citing any paper, which one are you referring to?
If you are referring to the Milankovitch data then this covers 5 million yrears BP to 100,000 years into the future.
I don't want to be forced into using the wiki graph, firstly because it is inaccurate, secondly because I didn't introduce it to back my argument.
My initial post was:
"From the Jul 65N Milankovitch cycle the solar insolation was 469.44W/m2 at the maximum 10,000 years ago. It is 426.76W/m2 today, a fall of 42.68W/m2."
These figures were from the NOAA site I quoted. I compared this fall in solar insolation with the rise in radiative forcing due to man (1.6w/m2 according to IPCC, 2.3W/m2 according to the article). I said the man-made forcing was small compared to the change in solar insolation.
I was then informed that the next minimum was 20,000 years into the future. I said that the NOAA data gave it 2000 years into the future:
+3000 424.1W/m2
+2000 423.61W/m2
+1000 424.61W/m2
This shows a clear minimum in 2000 years time. After that insolation will rise.
This change from peak (469.44W/m2) to trough (423.61W/m2), a change of 45.83W/m2, is less than that which forced us into the last glacial period, a fall from a peak of 476.59W/m2 (103,000 years ago) to a trough of 421.14W/m2 (93,000 years ago), a fall of 55.45W/m2.
I feel much happier using my more accurate figures from the original data than trying to derive them from a published graph.
"I do not see your argument"
My argument is that man-made forcing is small compared to that caused by changes in solar insolation. Furthermore, the man-made forcing has been beneficial as it has prolonged the present interglacial period without an undue rise in global temperatures. I made the further point that trying to indefinitely prolong the present interglacial at present temperatures would require a lot of energy, which we don't have. I then said that the fall in insolation would eventually cause a fall in global temperatures, but not a glacial period.
I hope this makes my position clear. It would be much clearer if I could publish my graph but this doesn't seem possible.
[RH] You need to host the image somewhere and then link to that location.
jhnplmr:
The link you have posted is not very helpful since it is raw data . It is clear from your postings that you have misread your link and think 2,000,000 years is 20,000 years. The Wikipedia link from HK in 33 is clear and shows that you cannot read a graph. I think you have proved my initial point that you needed to cite your links for your fantistical claims. I am not going to post on this thread any more.
It is typical for climate change deniers to be unable to read their own data links. Thank you for an excellent example of this point.
nzrobin @45... Looked at your new chart. Still seems like a strange way to process the data but I think it'll all pan out in the end. Just be aware that your Y axis is probably going to change pretty dramatically as we catch some El Nino cycles in the coming years. ;-)
#42 HK
"The file bein11.dat is the one you should use as it covers the next 100,000 years. Multiply the figures for 60oN or 70oN by 0.4843 to convert them from langleys/day to watt/m2 and you will find that the result supports me"
I used orbit91 for the years BP and bein11 for the 10,000 years into the future. I took the mean of Jul 60N and Jul 70N to get Jul 65N. I then had to correct a zero years error between the two sets of data and multiplied by 0.479775 instead of 0.4843 to correct this error. This gives a small scaling error of < 1%. So my figures for the next 10,000 years are less than 1% out but this doesn't affect the minimum or maximum points.
"Moderator Response:[RH] You need to host the image somewhere and then link to that location."
The file is on my computer, if I read your post correctly you want me to transfer it to an external web site and then use that web site URL to link it to my post.
This seems a very cumbersome method of linking to a file. Why can't I upload it directly from my computer?
[RH] SkS is a custom built site and doesn't yet have that capability.