Global warming skeptics everywhere are jumping on the solar bandwagon: "It's not greenhouse gases, it's the sun! Let's burn some coal to celebrate!"
There are, of course, many, many problems with the solar theory as an explanation for recent warming. To me, the most damning is that the correlation has failed in the last few decades. As highlighted in an interesting news item in this week's Science:
[Courtillot] and his team acknowledge that "anomalous warming" in the past 2 decades apparently cannot be linked to solar or geomagnetic activity, although they decline to ascribe it to greenhouse gases.
On the other hand, the mainstream theory that today's warming is caused by carbon dioxide (along with other anthropogenic effects and known natural variability) provides an explanation not just for the "anomalous warming," but for just about every climate variation over the last 100 million years.
In addition, the solar activity theory doesn't solve any of the few remaining problems with our standard theories of how the atmosphere operates. For example, it is well known that the tropical upper troposphere has not warmed as much as would be expected from the observed surface warming. But the solar theory provides no explanation to resolve this discrepancy. Thus, those that reject carbon dioxide as an explanation because of the upper troposphere temperature trends must also reject the solar activity theory. For more on the problem of the upper troposphere, see this RealClimate post. (See also Ray Pierrehumbert's dissection of Courtillot's theory here and here).
As a scientist, I'm always looking for the most parsimonious explanation for a physical phenomenon. If a single, physically reasonable explanation works, why invoke an entire menagerie of explanations, each more dubious than the last? That's why the IPCC concluded that greenhouse gases are very likely responsible for most of the recent warming. And that's why virtually all climate scientists agree with the IPCC reports.
[An unrelated note: the article also describes Courtillot as "one of a handful of credible scientists who reject IPCC's bottom line." They apparently don't find the "Inhofe 400" credible, either.]
What to make of the new climate poll
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Threaded
SammyOwl Posted 8:16 am
24 Jan 2008
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 8:19 am
24 Jan 2008
(That's not a dare, or an invitation.)
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:27 am
24 Jan 2008
grist.org
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 1:57 pm
24 Jan 2008
Now think ahead - just a few months - to springtime here in the north half of the world. As the sun's rays increase in strength day by day, they will begin to melt the southside of the drifts piled up in our driveways, and awaken the spring bulbs in the ground, and call the song-birds back from the south.
How come all this will be happening earlier and earlier every year, measurably so? Make up your own mind and don't rely on anyone else's book to tell you what's happening. Just remember, the trend to warmth will not stop because it gets uncomfortable, but only because we do something about it.
Des Emery
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 3:35 pm
24 Jan 2008
Its also fun to taunt them, and its not like the NFL where you can draw a penalty for it!
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 4:56 pm
24 Jan 2008
I am still waiting for someone to show up who does not believe CO2 is the cause for the observed warming. Someone who can actually make a proper argument and doesn't use the word Gore every five lines.... I so much don't want to believe in this global warming thing but none of these skeptics are even remotely believable. Very frustrating. I don't even have a bucket of sand big enough to fit my head in. Maybe one of our esteemed skeptics here has a spare one?
Permalink
SammyOwl Posted 12:05 am
25 Jan 2008
Yes, you AGW fanatics are so original and such critical thinkers. I also love all the Hillary and Obama ads on Dr. Dessler's site, it adds the proper perspective to this "blog".
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:57 am
31 Jan 2008
"On the other hand, the mainstream theory that today's warming is caused by carbon dioxide (along with other anthropogenic effects and known natural variability) provides an explanation not just for the "anomalous warming," but for just about every climate variation over the last 100 million years."
Andrew's statement is credible, because he has included the all-important words "natural variability".
Anthropogenic effects (including CO2) cannot have had much impact on the many dramatic climate changes that have occurred "over the last 100 million years".
Andrew also wrote: "If a single, physically reasonable explanation works, why invoke an entire menagerie of explanations, each more dubious than the last?"
As Andrew himself has written, a single, physically reasonable explanation does not work to explain these changes.
But a combination of factors very well may work.
Courtillot describes three mechanisms, which are thought to link solar variability with climate: (1) changes in solar irradiance leading to changes in heat input to the lower atmosphere; (2) solar ultraviolet radiation coupled to changes in ozone concentration heating the stratosphere; and (3) galactic cosmic rays leading to the formation of more low clouds and thus higher albedo.
He does admit that the observed correlation between temperature and magnetism fails after the mid-1980s, when solar irradiance and magnetic activity drop, whereas temperature continues to rise.
Leaving the validity of Courtillot's theory aside, his conclusion makes good sense: "No forcing factor, be it changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or changes in cosmic ray flux modulated by solar activity and geomagnetism, or possibly other factors, can at present be neglected or shown to be the overwhelming single driver of climate change in past centuries. Intensive data acquisition is required to further probe indications that the Earth's and Sun's magnetic fields may have significant bearing on climate change at certain time scales."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_ ...
This sounds pretty reasonable to me. In effect, it says, "we do not know everything about what has driven climate changes in the past and we should probe to find out more."
Whether CO2 is the principal driver of climate, as Andrew, many other climate scientists today plus the IPCC believe, is still open for debate and has not been proven scientifically.
That it is one factor in today's warming trend is highly probable, maybe even "unequivocal", as IPCC puts it.
That it has been a major factor in past climate change is doubtful.
So let's look at what Andrew has admitted is also a factor, i.e. "natural variability".
This includes the impact of the sun. The IPCC (with which Andrew agrees) has stated in its 2007 SPM report that that the "level of scientific understanding" (LOSU) of solar forcing is "low" (pp.4,5).
IPCC 2007 SPM (p.12) also states that, "Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty".
The CLOUD study is now underway at CERN to attempt to confirm smaller laboratory experiments by Svensmark which linked cloud formation to solar activity. This study may shed light on both of these natural factors, which may be linked.
So Andrew admits that "natural variability" (which includes both solar forcing and non-anthropogenic changes in cloud cover) is a factor in climate change but refers to research work aimed at improving the low LOSU of solar forcing with a link to cloud formation, where there is also a low LOSU as "The Solar Distraction".
This is the weak point in Andrew's argumentation.
New scientific knowledge is a good thing, whether or not it supports the current mainstream paradigm of AGW caused primarily by CO2 emissions.
Max
Permalink
BlckWallaby Posted 10:00 am
01 Feb 2008
"For more on the problem of the upper troposphere, see this RealClimate post. (See also Ray Pierrehumbert's dissection of Courtillot's theory here and here)."
REASON 1) As a scientist, you should be aware that Michael Mann and his supporters were the instigators of the RealClimate website. You should also be aware that Mann et al were the inventors of the infamous hockey-stick, which being manna to the IPCC was clarioned in every nook and cranny of the various 2001 report sections, and at podia etc.
However, as you know, the hockey-stick has since been shown to be either scientific fraud or grossly incompetent or both, despite Mann et al's vigorous and long defence of it on said website. The long sad story of denial was closed by the IPCC expunging that 2001 warhorse for their 2007 report, for obvious reasons.
So these are the guys together with extremist colleagues such as Ray Pierrehumbert that run that fountain of wisdom that you recommend.
For another position statement from a mainstream "believer" perspective, here is what Jeff McIntyre Strasburg, the editor in chief of Green Options website has had to say:
"...RealClimate, the blog for anyone interested in hardcore climate science, also presents..."
Do you get the word hardcore?
REASON 2) The references you make show a bunch of scientists in open disagreement. What were you saying earlier about everyone agreeing on the science?
REASON 3) Carrying on from 2) You fail to mention the 5 year programme under-way at CERN, where over 50 scientists apparently do not share your views. CERN, an international organisation that has actually agreed on something, is making a big investment to confirm Svensmark's indicative results from his cellar concerning cosmic rays which are indirectly regulated on Earth by one of the activities of the Sun.
Quote CERN: The collaboration comprises an interdisciplinary team from 18 institutes and 9 countries in Europe, the United States and Russia. It brings together atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic ray and particle physicists to address a key question in the understanding of clouds and climate change. "The experiment has attracted the leading aerosol, cloud and solar-terrestrial physicists from Europe; Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom are especially strong in this area"
Oh dear, I can hear the collective sigh; we don't want to hear any good news from CERN
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:17 am
01 Feb 2008
Except that.
1. The solar irrandiance has been relatively flat/decreasing. (Which you admit)
(As does Christensen)
http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html
2. The stratosphere has been cooling
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png
3. There is no correlation between low clouds and GCR.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cos ...
Permalink
manacker Posted 11:32 am
01 Feb 2008
I'm not going to argue with you on your points 1 and 2.
But to your point 3 "There is no correlation between low clouds and GCR", I think you'll have to wait to see if the CERN CLOUD study confirms what Svensmark showed in a simple lab experiment.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
BlckWallaby Posted 6:58 am
02 Feb 2008
Sorry jo' there has been so-much insult flying our way that I did not remember your words precisely. In response to the infinite wisdom of David Roberts, who cautions on things like "don't feed the trolls", you actually wrote something to the same effect:
"Its also fun to taunt them, and its not like the NFL where you can draw a penalty for it!"
I take it that you agree with the rest of my post including that the MS Works dictionary defines YOU as a TROLL?
Permalink
BlckWallaby Posted 7:22 am
02 Feb 2008
You wrote:
"3. There is no correlation between low clouds and GCR.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cos ... ..."
Well of course there is no correlation according to "RealClimate"..... this is what they do.
On the other hand, CERN, an international cooperation has sufficient confidence in Svensmark's findings in his cellar, (where CGR's penetrate) to make a huge investment planned over 5 years. What would be the sense of that if it is all crap?
I suggest you study my post which yours seemingly crossed "Hardcore Porn"
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:21 pm
23 Feb 2008
Let's hope these guys are wrong and your team (the IPCC) is right! So far, solar cycle 24 is starting off very slow.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf ...
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:18 pm
23 Feb 2008
Why come up with a pseudo-scientific explanation to deny AGW when a totally silly one will do just fine. As long as you're going to believe any old crap believe in something where the parties are fun.
Aye, matey.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:02 pm
23 Feb 2008
Hi Andrew,
Let's hope these guys are wrong and your team (the IPCC) is right! So far, solar cycle 24 is starting off very slow.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf ... ...
Regards,
Max
Oh come now Manaker, you can't honestly be saying that Energy and Environment is a legitimate Peer Reviewed Physical Science Journal.
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
Infact, it's an unreviewed social science journal which doesn't even require spell checking.
It's also a favorite of so called "skeptics" because their psuedo-scientific bullshit can't get published in an actual real science journal.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:34 am
24 Feb 2008
Hi Greyfalcon,
Don't think "peer review" is going to stop any changes that may (or may not) occur in solar activity in sun cycles 24 and 25.
I fervently hope you, Pangolin and your "peer review" aficionados are right. I'd much rather have another 0.7 degree C increase in temperature over the next 100 years from AGW (or whatever) than a new Little Ice Age from another Maunder minimum, since this would be the MOTHER of all "solar distractions" (Andrew's term).
But, cheer up, we will get a chance to see from the actual developments who is right pretty soon, without even needing any "peer-reviewed" postulations as you prefer or "pseudo-scientific totally silly" explanations as Pangolin seems to like better.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:25 am
24 Feb 2008
Hi Greyfalcon,
Since global temperature records have been kept (based on the UK's Hadley Centre), and we have been emerging from the Little Ice Age, there have been several multi-decadal swings from warming to cooling, with an overall slight warming trend.
Period Trend per decade deg.C Years Linear increase over period deg.C
1860-1879 0.196 20 0.39
1879-1906 -0.047 27 -0.13
1906-1940 0.161 35 0.56
1940-1976 -0.020 36 -0.07
1976-2007 0.180 31 0.56
Between 1850 and around 1860 there was a very slight cooling trend. This trend reversed to a warming trend for the next 20 years until around 1879 (the highest decadal rate of increase since records have been taken). This was followed by another cooling trend until around 1906. Then came another warming trend until around 1940, followed by a slight cooling trend until around 1976. Following this, we have had a trend with the second highest decadal rate of increase, which appears to have reached a "plateau" or significant slowing down from 1998 to today.
The longer-term trend over all these cycles has been an increase of somewhat less than 1 degree C over the 150+ years of measurement. This average rate of increase is equivalent to the trend for the past ten years (1998-2007), which was around 0.06 degrees C per decade (this recent slowdown has also been confirmed by UAH satellite readings).
IPCC believes it knows what has "likely" caused the most recent warming trend since 1976 (AGW, of course). The preceding cooling trend is barely referred to by IPCC, but is explained by the somewhat speculative suggestion of human aerosol emissions that cancelled out the underlying AGW effect. Previous warming and cooling periods (before there was much AGW) are not mentioned at all.
But if we forget all the theoretical computer models and "peer-reviewed" hype that is out there and just look past history, it seems reasonable that we will see a continuation of what has happened over the past 150 years. This would mean that we will continue to have 20+ year swings in the rate of change but that on overall average, the 1850-2007 150+-year trend (or the most recent 1998-2007 decadal trend) would continue over the 21st century, bringing another 100-year increase of around 0.6 degrees C from today until around 2100.
All other factors (solar influence, etc.) being equal, of course (which they probably aren't).
Makes sense to me. What do you think?
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:07 pm
24 Feb 2008
Following-on from Max's comments, where you, GreyF, can only see black in the temperature trends, one thing that I find ironic is the faith that is still placed in the various regional dendro-proxy reconstructions, including by some hardcore believers in the disgraced manna Graph called Hockey-Stick. It is necessary in these studies to calibrate the ancient tree-ring growth rates to known modern instrumental data, and it is a tricky decision to know where to go in this calibration, because as Max has pointed out, the decadal trend in T's is far from linear. What can be said is that whilst the published global temperatures are trending up in recent decades, (If we ignore the recent plateau), tree-ring growth rates are sharply trending DOWN since about 1960. This is despite that the CO2 levels are increasing which prima facie should result in compound acceleration in growth. This has been described for the past ten years or so as "The Divergence Problem", and whilst there are I recall some six differing hypotheses either way, there is no resolution.
You went very quiet and on hiatus when I pointed out to you that when you asserted the Bible according to RealClimate, that galactic cosmic rays have no influence on cloud formation, that contrary-wise CERN is conducting a massive 5-year research programme (CLOUD) with over 50 multi-discipline scientists from respected institutions around the world. This contrast in both depth of expertise and confidence is a bit like comparing your Mouse with a Moose. No wonder you have gone silent on this!
Grey, please start thinking grey, or even white, not black.
Things may not be as bad as you hope they are!
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:01 am
25 Feb 2008
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons has recently published a report entitled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", by physical scientists A.B. Robinson, N.E. Robinson and W. Soon. The report is an up-date of earlier studies made by the same authors plus S. Baliunas.
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson.pdf
This report may be "off limits" reading for some who restrict their reading to "peer reviewed" literature cited by IPCC or alarmist blog site lead articles.
But it gives a fairly good de-bunking of many of the IPCC claims and forecasts. It essentially concludes that we are not headed for any "climate disaster" due to AGW. It makes reference to what Andrew calls the "solar distraction" and also points out some benefits to mankind and the environment from higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and slightly warmer temperatures.
Max
Permalink
Ian Forrester Posted 8:41 am
25 Feb 2008
Enough is enough. Go away, everyone who has any knowledge of climate science is completely fed up of you, Blckwallaby, BenP and other spreaders of junk science (are you really separate people or are you playing games?).
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:27 pm
25 Feb 2008
If Ian really wants to read some "drivel" (as he puts it) he should check:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:15 pm
25 Feb 2008
Black Wallaby lives in Melbourne Australia.
Max Manacker lives in Switzerland
BenP......I dunno.
If you read our language and style with attempted cognisance and if you might have a modicum of intelligence, you should be able to see that we are very independent thinking souls.
BTW....are you able to actually contribute something sensible in the debate, rather than vague zero nonsense?
Permalink
Ian Forrester Posted 1:06 am
26 Feb 2008
You are all obviously lacking in science skills and knowledge that it is impossible to have any sort of serious discussion at all.
The limit of your "scientific" ability is to quote from junk science sites like E&E, JAPS, JunkScience, CO2Science, and other pseudo-science sites.
I don't know why Andrew puts up with all the dishonest nonsense you post on this site and others.
Start reading and understanding real science and people will treat you with more respect.
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:48 am
26 Feb 2008
Andrew does not have to "put up with dishonest nonsense" anymore than he has to generate "dishonest nonsense". He is the guy that opens blog sites like it is going out of style. Does he just want to pontificate his own viewpoints over and over again or does he want to start blog discussions where other viewpoints can be aired? I would hope it is the latter. A good debate can be fun and both sides can learn from it (even Andrew).
You have a basic problem here, Ian, which I will point out to you. You get too emotionally involved with this whole topic, and then you have a hard time controlling your manners and your speech. I'm sure your Mommy told you that calling people "idiots" is naughty. Don't get hysterical. Try to stay rational, unemotional and polite, and you'll get further (in this debate and in the world, in general).
Max
Permalink
Ian Forrester Posted 9:00 am
26 Feb 2008
You are pathetic.
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:24 am
26 Feb 2008
You are pathetic."
Tell me Ian, are you really only 15 years old or are you just acting that way?
Grow up.
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:17 am
28 Feb 2008
His refusal to accept scientific data that does not conform with his belief system reminds me of people who still believe that the Grand Canyon was formed about 4,000 years ago in Noah's flood, according to their interpretation of the Bible. This is despite the geological evidence that shows it is actually very old indeed.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:17 pm
29 Feb 2008
"You are dishonest"
I'm mystified by that statement!
Could you please give even one example of dishonesty by Max?
I've read his stuff, and have no idea of where you are coming from.....give me some specifics....please!
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 2:48 pm
02 Mar 2008
In his apparent absence.....any other takers? (like in the wisdoms of Pangolin, Forrester, or lovely Jo, to name but a few)
Following-on from Max's comments, where you, [anyone], can only see black in the temperature trends, one thing that I find ironic is the faith that is still placed in the various regional dendro-proxy reconstructions, including by some hardcore believers in the disgraced manna Graph called Hockey-Stick. It is necessary in these studies to calibrate the ancient tree-ring growth rates to known modern instrumental data, and it is a tricky decision to know where to go in this calibration, because as Max has pointed out, the decadal trend in T's is far from linear. What can be said is that whilst the published global temperatures are trending up in recent decades, (If we ignore the recent plateau), tree-ring growth rates are sharply trending DOWN since about 1960. This is despite that the CO2 levels are increasing which prima facie should result in compound acceleration in growth. This has been described for the past ten years or so as "The Divergence Problem", and whilst there are I recall some six differing hypotheses either way, there is no resolution.
You went very quiet and on hiatus when I pointed out to you that when you asserted the Bible according to RealClimate, that galactic cosmic rays have no influence on cloud formation, that contrary-wise CERN is conducting a massive 5-year research programme (CLOUD) with over 50 multi-discipline scientists from respected institutions around the world. This contrast in both depth of expertise and confidence is a bit like comparing your Mouse with a Moose. No wonder you have gone silent on this!
[Anyone], please start thinking grey, or even white, not black.
Things may not be as bad as you hope they are!
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:45 pm
08 Mar 2008
BTW, Richard Murdoch is NOT AUSTRALIAN, he changed his citizenship to that of the USA, apparently for commercial reasons
IMHO, he is an evil man, and I'm relieved that he is NOT AUSTRALIAN
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:46 pm
08 Mar 2008
BTW- That tree ring growth increase you predict has been long debunked. Actually after an initial boost in growth due to localized increases in CO2 further growth is limited by acid (carbonic acid) leaching of soil nutrients. Soil nutrient availability is a far more important factor in growth forcing or limitation than CO2 availability. The increase in acid rain due to coal pollutants worldwide leaches nutrients away from roots.
Please try to keep up.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:16 pm
08 Mar 2008
Please try to keep up."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's interesting! I'm aware of half a dozen contrasting hypthosese but not your latest claim. I'm genuinly interested and do try to "keep-up", but do not claim infallibillity.
Do you have any references that I might consult? I'm always eager to learn!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:14 am
09 Mar 2008
Then we'd see the Stratosphere increasing in temperature.
Guess what's been happening to the Stratosphere.
"Something" has been stopping heat from rebounding into the Stratosphere.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing.png
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:08 pm
09 Mar 2008
Google: acid leaching soil nutrients
What, you think they lime soil because it looks better white?
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:33 pm
09 Mar 2008
You have apparently overlooked my repeated comments that perhaps you should think grey rather than black or white. (Translation = don't be fundamentalist, eg like G W Bush; but be rational, and think broader things like; "Oh gee, what if?"!)
You also seem to overlook that several of us rationalists have stated that we fully understand that CO2 and water vapour etc are greenhouse gasses, and that they MUST contribute to helping keep this Planet within a tiny band of "comfort" in absolute T terms. However, there are other grand factors such as 3 phase-changes in water, the massive heat transfer from the tropics pole-wards, and even the IPCC show in Fig 1 of WG1 that heat transfer from the surface delayed by GHG's is small relative to other processes. Furthermore, in establishing that absorptive long-wave level in the K & T 1997 paper, it is goofy in assuming a black-body earth etc. (Bizarre.....did someone say; "Peer Review"!)
There are MANY possible causes for climate change, NOT JUST ONE, and if you want to ignore the totally natural ones, such as was evident during the MWP and LIA etc., let's instead look at a few of the current anthroprobo's:
Population growth; Land clearing; agricultural practice, water re-sourcing/ redistribution; Pollution reductions; Various particulate/ aerosol increases AND reductions; Increased human habitation density triggering of wild-fires; Pre-emptive forest burns; SE Asia brown haze; Human disruption of the life-chain-balance in the oceans, (CO2) absorption; Increasing vapour trails from aircraft; Increased farting and belching from domestic animals and humans, (CH4 + CO2); Increased methane from decomposing human bodies in Africa for various reasons of World Neglect. Increased consumption of hamburgers in the "advanced nations"; and uhm uhm, will that do for now?
I'm not sure if the continuing O3 depletion can be said to be anthro.' or not, but despite that Monsanto et al "fixed the problem" for us long ago, (at a cost to humanity), the data shows a continuing GLOBAL decline of the ozone layer of about 4% per decade, and the biggest Antarctic "Hole" ever of ~30 million square kilometres occurred in 2006. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
This alone would contribute to cooling of the stratosphere.
Apart from that, I seem to remember that some 6 months ago, on a different blog, Max Manacker had some rather different data and theoretical arguments to what you now offer. Perhaps things may have changed in that time frame, but if he is around, perhaps he could comment.
Incidentally, you do know that ~40% of (incoming) sunlight is in the near infra-red?
Are you also aware that the Sun has a variety of outputs other than the obvious thermal? For example do you remember my mention of CERN? Also, what about no sunspots for the past couple of months + ......
You seem to be mute on those points!
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:36 pm
09 Mar 2008
NOT JUST ONE!
NOT JUST ONE!
NOT JUST ONE!
NOT JUST ONE!
NOT JUST ONE!
Got it yet?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:20 pm
10 Mar 2008
I then thought, Oh! He/she must have been reading something in RealClimate, but to my great surprise I could find nothing relevant there either.
A point to bear in mind is that in most cases the Dendro's (putting aside MBH) pick high latitude/altitude sites that are considered to be pristine and hopefully with a millennially constant winter snow deposit plus a few etc's.
It would be interesting to know if Pangolin's comments apply to those areas, such as in high Pakistan etc.
At this point, it would be amusing to insert the laughable letter from Hughes (or was it Bradley?) of the MBH hockey-team to Nature journal in July 1998, trying to dismiss "The Divergence Problem", but let's keep this short and ignore the comedy-science.
I remember that a good while ago, Canada was rather irritated by all the pollution it was receiving free from that grand polluter; the USA, and thought to Google that topic. So it looks like the USA started to take some responsibility in about 1990, but I could only find rhetoric, and no data to measure any progress. Meanwhile of course, there's a worldwide acceleration in the use of coal-fired energy and road transport, including diesel popularization, etc
But here's the good news:
There is incontrovertible proof in the IPCC 2007 report, in chapter 6 of WG1, that Pangolin is wrong in his/her assertions. Please go to Fig. 6:10b, that being the infamous spaghetti graph, and you will see that the various alleged 30-year smoothed proxy data sets reach a maximum at around 1950 and then sharply plunge downwards until around 1975, but then what-ho, golly-gosh, they all then sharply reverse upwards, trying to catch-up with the published global average surface T's.
This is despite Pangolin's dreadful acid leaching of the soils slowing down the tree-growth rate.
A more graphic and more WIDELY trumpeted illustration from the various IPCC 2001 reports and releases, based on MBH 99, is similar except that it has a 40-year smoothing of similar corruptness.
Clue to Pangolin: Re; CORRUPT data: Try to understand what is 30 or 40-year smoothing, like where does it END in the data set?
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 7:37 pm
10 Mar 2008
Our activities are now one of the forcings.
Still waiting on any correlation even between cosmic rays and clouds. But the fact that you are clinging with such desperation is fairly amusing.
Permalink
manacker Posted 12:07 pm
11 Mar 2008
I did some looking around to find some experimental results that provide hard observational evidence that the current sort of bumpy warming curve we've seen over the past 150 years is really caused by anthropogenic greenhouse warming, primarily tied to atmospheric CO2 levels. I found nothing other than the theories as they were developed over the years and the forcing calculations as used by IPCC, but no hard data.
Maybe one of you can steer me to something definitive (please no links to gristmill or RealClimate blogs, but a serious report providing experimentally derived hard data proving this link).
In my search I did find one interesting paper that presents a radically different viewpoint.
This study raises serious questions concerning the validity of the greenhouse theory itself, from the standpoint of theoretical physics:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf
This study was written by two German scientists, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner.
Abstract
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896 and is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular
conjecture is analysed and the underlying physical principles are clarifed. By showing that
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,
(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,
(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Reading through the report, the authors' argumentation seems to make sense, although I cannot say whether it really proves that the IPCC position on AGW is false or not.
The wording is sometimes strange, because it is obvious that the report was translated from German into English.
I have not seen a scientific refutation of this paper, although I am sure that articles have been written by supporters of the anthropogenic greenhouse warming hypothesis attacking this study and/or its authors.
I'd be less interested in "ad hominem" attacks of the two authors or a statement "well, it was not peer reviewed so is meaningless", but if someone out there has seen a serious scientific study refuting the methodology or conclusions of this paper, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:13 pm
11 Mar 2008
Concerning my comment that ice core temperature proxies reflect the regional temperature, not global, you responded:
"Based on the above, I don't think you really understand what the cores are telling us. The temperature in the cores is derived from the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the ice. This is based on the "global temperature", not local effects. So you are not correct when you say it applies to a few very high latitude areas."
I think John, you may be confused in the knowledge that most of the water vapour (a gas) at higher latitudes actually originates around the tropics, where it has the highest molecular mass, notably in the 18/O to 16/O isotope ratio. (But different from the water from which it evaporated). However, in brief, each time there is a phase change fractionalization in any direction from gas - water - ice (snow), the ratios change, maybe up and down in its long journey wending pole-ward. (In an INDETERMINATE way). Here is a brief concluding quote in the context of isotope ratios from an educational site, explaining what happened through different climate periods in the deposition of ice (cores):
The snow falls through the atmosphere and gets the same temperature as the atmosphere. The snow then becomes ice, and still keeps that same temperature. If it becomes somewhat warmer, the snow falling during this warmer climate reflects a higher temperature than the existing ice had. This new snow keeps the somewhat warmer temperature of the air that it fell through when it accumulates as ice. http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/isotope.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You further wrote:
"Finally, I would like you to clarify your statement "...but if you go to the relevant IPCC report AR4 WG1, there is ZERO discussion on it!" I am not sure I agree, but I would like you to specifically state what there is zero discussion on."
The report mentions in the fine print somewhere, (under a figure?) that there is co-variability between proxy T and CO2 in the ice cores, and it may even mention the lag. But as far as I am aware there is no discussion on it. (No explanation)
In 3AR someone said concerning the lag, that it was too early to apply sign to the lag, which I thought was amusing, but again, no discussion.
Perhaps you could review your other remarks in a fresh light?
There is also of course the question of CO2 mixing, "global" versus regional which is of relevant interest, and also the ice-core to Moana Loa "correction factor" of 83 years, I think it is for Greenland. Oh, plus a couple of other thingies!
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:22 pm
11 Mar 2008
Still waiting on any correlation even between cosmic rays and clouds. But the fact that you are clinging with such desperation is fairly amusing.
Be patient lad, Here is a paste from my Feb 1 post:
Quoting CERN on their 5 (five) year programme:
"The collaboration comprises an interdisciplinary team from 18 institutes and 9 countries in Europe, the United States and Russia. It brings together atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic ray and particle physicists to address a key question in the understanding of clouds and climate change. "The experiment has attracted the leading aerosol, cloud and solar-terrestrial physicists from Europe; Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom are especially strong in this area"
Oh dear, I can hear the collective sigh; we don't want to hear any good news from CERN
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:40 pm
11 Mar 2008
Regional Versus Global Proxy Data
Hi JohnC,
It should be at:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:02 pm
11 Mar 2008
The CO2 greenhouse warming is also pure theory (not yet tested by any hard experimental data).
CERN will experimentally test the cosmic ray / cloud theory on a larger scale soon.
Who is going to test the greenhouse warming theory experimentally and when?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:10 am
15 Mar 2008
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf
I asked if anyone had seen a direct refutation of this paper.
So far I have received no link to any direct refutation, but have seen a February 29, 2008 paper by Arthur P. Smith, entitled "Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect".
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
This paper gives a partial rebuttal of the G+T paper plus a good description of the greenhouse theory, but does not refute the specific points made by G+T. It also does not provide any "proof" of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Again, if anyone has read these two papers and has seen a true scientific refutation of G+T, I would be interested in seeing this.
Thanks,
Max
Permalink