William comments Inductive and Deductive Views on Climate Change

[William]

This thread is created to discuss any comments I made in error in the thread "Inductive and Deductive Views on Climate Change" which are deemed by the Moderators to be ATM. It is not my intent to make comments which are ATM in the science section.

I will also use this thread to expand on my comments in the same thread.

[William]

1) Planetary temperature Change Vs CO2 & End of this interglacial

Planetary temperature changes only closely correlates with CO2 changes in the Quaternary and in the Quaternary, temperature changes first and then CO2 changes (600 year to 800 year lag).

It is my belief the above statement is a fact. Is that statement incorrect? I am making that statement as I am looking at the below graph which is taken from published papers.

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTem...%20perspective

The scale in this graph is millions of years. There are periods of millions of years when CO2 is high and planetary temperature is low and CO2 is low and planetary temperature is high.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Pa...s/image277.gif

[William]

People assumed global warming would result in increased frequency of occurrence of hurricanes and increased magnitude of hurricanes. Recent IPCC research indicates that belief is not correct.

Observational data and analysis of the fundamental mechanisms which control hurricane formation and strength indicates global warming will not result in increased magnitude or frequency of hurricanes. The most recent IPCC analysis indicates that increased temperatures could result in up to 25% less frequency of hurricane formation (higher moisture in the air and increased wind shear reduces the formation frequency of hurricanes) and the increase in hurricane wind speed due to warmer water will not be measurable.

Some public statements were unfortunately made prior to the IPCC work which had no scientific basis. Those mistaken statements were picked up by the media and have been repeated in this forum as a fact.

But Easterling and Landsea said the number of named storms has been skewed upward by advances in radar and other technology capable of detecting storms that were virtually invisible even a few decades ago. Landsea estimates some 240 storms may have been uncounted since 1851, when the official record book begins, including “shorties’’ that last only a day or two and often spin harmlessly in the open Atlantic. Toss out those shorties, Landsea said, and the trend line turns nearly flat. Other measures, including landfalls and intense storms, also haven’t changed significantly over the last century, he said. Instead, the numbers have swung from decade to decade, with hurricane development likely driven by other global weather patterns — among them La Niņa, El Niņo and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a pattern of ocean temperature shifts that can last 20 to 40 years. Warm phases like the current one, in its 17th year, tend to produce more storms.

The IPCC does find it “likely” that climate change could increase both rainfall and average intensity but Landsea said computer models have estimated that wind speeds would rise only 1 to 3 percent. On a major Category 3 storm, that could ramp up winds an extra 1 to 5 mph. “That’s so small we can’t even measure it,’’ Landsea said. There’s little doubt rising sea temperature will provide hurricanes with more starting fuel but computer models also suggest formation may be blunted by more moisture in the overall atmosphere and increased windshear, which can shred developing storms. By Landsea’s estimate, that could result in up to 25 percent fewer storms by century’s end. None of the findings, unfortunately, suggest hurricanes will become any less of a threat. Public safety concerns and economic losses are more likely to continue to soar, the IPCC finds, with rising sea levels and populations increasing along vulnerable coastlines — though those risks could be reduced by tougher building codes and restrictions on coastal building. Some global-warming skeptics have pointed to Landsea’s resignation from the IPCC, delivered in an open letter to climate scientists, as evidence that the threat of climate change has been exaggerated.

Read more here: : http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/11/3...#storylink=cpy


http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus...ea_leaves.html

Chris Landsea, chief scientist at the National Hurricane Center, resigned from the IPCC in 2005.

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author - Dr. Kevin Trenberth - to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

[William]

There was a comment in the Inductive and Deductive views on Climate change that this interglacial will end gradually in 10,000 years.

All of the past interglacial started abruptly and ended abruptly.


http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTem...%20perspective


http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary
Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years. The decadal-timescale transitions would presumably have been quite noticeable to humans living at such times,

Initial evidence from the GRIP ice core evidence (Dansgaard et al., 1993; Taylor et al. 1993) indicated that the Eemian (My comment last interglacial period) was punctuated by many short-lived cold events, as shown by variations in electrical conductivity (a proxy for windblown dust, with more dust indicating colder, more arid conditions) and stable oxygen isotopes (a proxy for air temperature) of the ice were used by these workers infer the climatic conditions during the Eemian. The cold events seemed to last a few thousand years, and the magnitude of cooling was similar to the difference between glacial and interglacial conditions; a very dramatic contrast in climate. Furthermore, the shifts between these warm and cold periods seemed to be extremely rapid, possibly occurring over a few decades or less.

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynolog...00yrevent.html

The 8200 B.P. event, "lasted four hundred years (6400-6000 B.C.) and, like the Younger Dryas, generated abrupt aridification and cooling in the North Atlantic and North America, Africa, and Asia (Alley et al. 1997; Barber et al. 1999; Hu et al. 1999; Street-Perrot and Perrot 1990). This event is well-known from the GISP2 analyses, within which it is second only to the Younger Dryas in magnitude of some measurable variables (Alley et al. 1997; Figure 22). The pronounced West Asian signal for the 8200 B.P. event is present in Soreq Cave speleothem records (Bar-Matthews et al. 1999), Negev snail isotope variability (Goodfriend 1991, 1999), low Dead Sea levels (Frumkin et al. 1994), and the geochemistry of stage E to stage F transition at Lake Van (Lemcke and Sturm 1997). . . ."

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL017115.shtml

The strongest periodic forcing function in the paleoclimatic record follows a 1470 year periodicity as noted by RealClimate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf. As Rahmstorf notes it appears this periodic forcing function is external to the earth. As Gerald Bond noted there are cosmogenic isotope changes that correlate with the 1470 year abrupt climate changes.

Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf

Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.

[Torsten]

The strongest periodic forcing function in the paleoclimatic record follows a 1470 year periodicity as noted by RealClimate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf. As Rahmstorf notes it appears this periodic forcing function is external to the earth. As Gerald Bond noted there are cosmogenic isotope changes that correlate with the 1470 year abrupt climate changes.

And also from the other thread:

The finding of abrupt climate change that follows a 1470 year period is also a fact. What is not known is what causes the abrupt climate change.

Were you aware of this?: Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model, Braun et al., 2005. Notice Rahmstorf is an author on this one too.

The superposition of the the DeVries–Suess and Gleissberg solar cycles (210 and 86.5 years) during stadial periods might result in the crossing of threshold values that produce freshwater forcing on a 1470 year interval. Over the last few years you've made much of the 1470 year timing in reference to cooling events. But in the Rahmstorf paper you linked above, he defines the start of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events as a warming of 2C over some arbitrary time frame. No biggee, but important in what follows: In both that paper and the one I reference here, the fact that the events do not show up strongly during the Holocene is mentioned. The model in the Braun et al paper starts with the assumption that the known solar frequencies show up in the hydrological cycle. The coincidence of the cycles results in a freshwater perturbation to the North Atlantic on 1470 year intervals, but the effect crosses threshold conditions only during glacial periods. Rahmstorf points to the the Little Ice Age as maybe the most recent cold phase of this cycle. He makes a great deal of the fact that the warming events occur with a steady periodicity, and mostly vary by less than ~10%. So, simplistically, if you project forward from event "0" of 11,605 years before present (2003 for that paper), the next big warming (if the signal were sufficient during interglacials) should happen in about 155 years. What explains the warming of the last century?

In that thread you also wrote:

Appeals to amplification of forcing do not explain the saw tooth graph.

I understand that orbital changes plus non-linear amplifications account for the broad strokes of that record. This 1470 year superposition of solar cycles contributes to the sawtooth pattern within it, at least during the last 50,000 years of the last glacial.

[Torsten]

The scale in this graph is millions of years. There are periods of millions of years when CO2 is high and planetary temperature is low and CO2 is low and planetary temperature is high.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Pa...s/image277.gif

Oh, this old thing again...

It's been discussed here before, and you were present in one of the threads, but have seem to have forgotten.

The chart incorporates the simple schematic of ancient climate from Scotese's Paleomap Project, and a variation of a chart on page 201 of Berner and Kothavala's (2001) "GEOCARB III: A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME".

The latter publication describes a model that reconstructs past atmospheric CO2 concentrations. You can create the CO2 chart yourself from data located here (linked in the other thread by Robert Tulip). It uses a general circulation model to derive factors for the temperature response to CO2 as well as runoff and and other factors, and these were then used to model the surface geologic processes that in turn affected the atmospheric CO2!

The error bounds are fantastically wide in deep time (see the chart in the conclusion; it's barely noticeable in the chart you've linked).

The publication contains disclaimers such as:

However, if one compares figures 9 through 12, it is obvious that many factors, some of which were possibly more important than degassing, also could have affected CO2 during this period. This points to the importance of considering ALL factors affecting CO2 when modelling the long term carbon cycle and not concentrating only one cause.
...
Even if our assumed functional response of plant induced weathering to CO2 may be correct, there is still no idea of what proportion of plants globally respond to CO2.
...
from the conclusion:
This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

It's ironic that the fellow who created your linked chart, and who is bent on disproving a link between CO2 and global temperature, would use data derived from a model that uses that very relationship.

[William]

In reply to Torsten.

And also from the other thread:

Were you aware of this?: Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model, Braun et al., 2005. Notice Rahmstorf is an author on this one too.

The superposition of the the DeVries–Suess and Gleissberg solar cycles (210 and 86.5 years) during stadial periods might result in the crossing of threshold values that produce freshwater forcing on a 1470 year interval. Over the last few years you've made much of the 1470 year timing in reference to cooling events. But in the Rahmstorf paper you linked above, he defines the start of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events as a warming of 2C over some arbitrary time frame. No biggee, but important in what follows: In both that paper and the one I reference here, the fact that the events do not show up strongly during the Holocene is mentioned. The model in the Braun et al paper starts with the assumption that the known solar frequencies show up in the hydrological cycle. The coincidence of the cycles results in a freshwater perturbation to the North Atlantic on 1470 year intervals, but the effect crosses threshold conditions only during glacial periods. Rahmstorf points to the the Little Ice Age as maybe the most recent cold phase of this cycle. He makes a great deal of the fact that the warming events occur with a steady periodicity, and mostly vary by less than ~10%. So, simplistically, if you project forward from event "0" of 11,605 years before present (2003 for that paper), the next big warming (if the signal were sufficient during interglacials) should happen in about 155 years. What explains the warming of the last century?

William: Rahmstorf appeals to a solar forcing function. As Gerald Bond notes in this paper there are cosmogenic isotope changes that correlate with cyclic climate changes. Rahmstorf did not originally support Svensmark's mechanism however the CERN experimental results supports Svensmark mechanism. Realclimate posted a positive article on the CERN cloud experiment. The hydrological cycle is affected by Svensmark's mechanism. So what Rahmstorf could be observing is an affect not the cause of the planetary temperature changes.

http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q...ng/VanGeel.pdf


"A number of those Holocene climate cooling phases... most likely of a global nature (eg Magney, 1993; van Geel et al, 1996; Alley et al 1997; Stager & Mayewski, 1997) ... the cooling phases seem to be part of a millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independent of the glacial-interglacial cycles (which are) forced (perhaps paced) by orbit variations."

"... we show here evidence that the variation in solar activity is a cause for the millennial scale climate change."

Last 40 kyrs
Figure 2 in paper. (From data last 40 kyrs)... "conclude that solar forcing of climate, as indicated by high BE10 values, coincided with cold phases of Dansgaar-Oeschger events as shown in O16 records"

Recent Solar Event
"Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) "...coincides with one of the coldest phases of the Little Ice Age... (van Geel et al 1998b)

Periodicity
"Mayewski et al (1997) showed a 1450 yr periodicity in C14 ... from tree rings and ...from glaciochemicial series (NaCl & Dust) from the GISP2 ice core ... believed to reflect changes in polar atmospheric circulation.."
On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget

The point is in the past there was warming and cooling that appears to be driven by solar changes. If that is accepted as smoking gun evidence, the next question is does the sun cause the temperature change. How does solar changes directly or indirectly cause the temperature change.

In reply to what caused the warming in the late 20th century. Most certainly a portion of the warming was caused by CO2, however, there is observational data that indicates planetary cloud cover is also responsible for a significant portion of the warming. If all of the warming was due to CO2 the upper troposphere should exhibit more warming. Warming of the surface without corresponding warming of the upper troposphere points to a change in planetary cloud cover causing a significant portion of the 20th century warming. This statement is supported by satellite analysis of planetary cloud cover that shows a net reduction in planetary cloud cover that correlates with the late 20th century temperature changes.

The scientific viewpoint is gradually changing concerning Svensmark's mechanism. When the planet was warming it appeared the warming would continue. The hiatus in warming was not expected. The longer it continues the more difficult it is to explain for the highly positive feedback hypothesis. (Whether the feedback positive or negative and the magnitude of the feedback is the scientific issue. There is no disagreement with the assertion that CO2 increases causes some warming. With no feedback the IPCC general climate models predicted a doubling of CO2 will result in 1.2C of warming.)

In that thread you also wrote:

I understand that orbital changes plus non-linear amplifications account for the broad strokes of that record. This 1470 year superposition of solar cycles contributes to the sawtooth pattern within it, at least during the last 50,000 years of the last glacial.

The saw tooth changes are of different magnitude. If one assumes the same fundamental mechanism there are other factors which change periodically to dictate the planet's response to the forcing event.

Insolation changes are gradual. There is rough correlation in time with orbital eccentricity with the start and termination of the interglacial however planetary temperature changes due to orbital eccentricity are not capable of causing what is observed. Detailed analysis indicates that something external is forcing the planet's climate. As I have noted there are geomagnetic excursions at the termination of the interglacials. There are also archeomagnetic jerks at the 1470 year events. Geomagnetic field changes would explain the duration of the climate changes.

[William]

Oh, this old thing again...

It's been discussed here before, and you were present in one of the threads, but have seem to have forgotten.

The chart incorporates the simple schematic of ancient climate from Scotese's Paleomap Project, and a variation of a chart on page 201 of Berner and Kothavala's (2001) "GEOCARB III: A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME".

The latter publication describes a model that reconstructs past atmospheric CO2 concentrations. You can create the CO2 chart yourself from data located here (linked in the other thread by Robert Tulip). It uses a general circulation model to derive factors for the temperature response to CO2 as well as runoff and and other factors, and these were then used to model the surface geologic processes that in turn affected the atmospheric CO2!

The error bounds are fantastically wide in deep time (see the chart in the conclusion; it's barely noticeable in the chart you've linked).

The publication contains disclaimers such as:


It's ironic that the fellow who created your linked chart, and who is bent on disproving a link between CO2 and global temperature, would use data derived from a model that uses that very relationship.

Berner's data does not support Berner's comment. A separate paper by specialist on atmospheric CO2 notes that there is not correlation of planetary temperature and CO2.

http://www.sciencebits.com/files/art...2No1Veizer.pdf

Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle by Ján Veizer

The situation is entirely different for the CO2 scenario. For the Phanerozoic, the estimates of atmospheric pCO2 levels are not only internally inconsistent, but they also do not show any correlation with the paleoclimate record (Fig. 5, bottom). In that case, what could be an alternative driving force of climate on geological time scales?

Ján Veizer is a specialist on the Carbon cycle. I watched an interview with Veizer. During that interview Veizer specifically stated that Berner's inferred CO2 levels in the deep past does not correlate with planetary temperature change. The RealClimate criticism of Veizer's paper questions Svensmark's mechanism. RealClimate notes in their article that post 2000 there is no longer correlation of neutron counts and planetary cloud cover (there was 95% correlation prior to 2000). There were however solar wind bursts post 2000, It is hypothesized that solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions via the mechanism electroscavenging. There is a published paper by Enric Palle that notes planetary cloud cover is reduce post 2000 and the reduction in planetary clouds is at the latitude that is predicted by Tinsley to be reduced by solar wind bursts. Palle calculates that 75% of the late 20th century warming is due to the reduction in planetary clouds.

There are also published papers by solar specialists discussing the anomalous solar wind bursts that occurred in the late solar cycle during that time period.

[William]

What I do not understand is the paleoclimatic data indicates there are cycles of warming and cooling. The past cycles of warming and cooling were not caused by CO2 changes. There is correlation of cosmogenic isotopes with the past temperature changes. There is a non CO2 mechanism in published papers that explains both past and the late 20th century warming.

What is ATM?


http://www.climate4you.com/images/GI...CA%20DomeC.gif

http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256

Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures

The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles. The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years. The relations between the length of a solar cycle and the mean temperature in the following cycle, is used to model Svalbard annual mean temperature, and seasonal temperature variations. Residuals from the annual and winter models show no autocorrelations on the 5 per cent level, which indicates that no additional parameters are needed to explain the temperature variations with 95 per cent significance. These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity.

Additional variables may contribute to the variations. These models can be applied as forecasting models. We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5ą2 oC from solar Cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 20) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 oC.

[William]

There seems to be significant amount of observational evidence in published papers to support the assertion that a significant portion of the 20th century warming was caused by solar changes. The above were new papers that support that assertion. The following are other papers that support the mechanism.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JA014342.shtml

If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.

Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle's Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle's WSM campaign.

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760.....76..969G.pdf

Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov

We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

[William]

The following is a link to Palle’s earthshine paper that provides data to support a reduction in planetary albedo (due to less planetary cloud cover) 1994 to 2001, which Palle states is equivalent to a forcing of 7.5W/M^2, based on observations. The reduction in planetary cloud cover (as shown in Palle’s satellite paper) is at the specific latitudes and over the ocean as predicted by Tinsley. (The atmosphere over the ocean is ion poor as compared to the continents, as the continental crust is slightly radioactive. The solar wind bursts create a potential from ionosphere to earth’s surface at a specific latitudes.)

Earthshine paper.

http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf

“Our simulations suggest a surface average forcing at the top of the atmosphere, coming only from changes in the albedo from 1994/1995 to 1999/2001, of 2.7 +/-1.4 W/m2 (Palle et al., 2003), while observations give 7.5 +/-2.4 W/m2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1995) argues for a comparably sized 2.4 W/m2 increase in forcing, which is attributed to greenhouse gas forcing since 1850.”

The increase in the electroscavenging is due to the increase in solar magnetic storms, in the 20th century. As solar magnetic storms cause pulsations in the earth’s magnetic field, the record of magnetic field disturbances can be used to determine inferred number of solar magnetic storms. The following is a link to a150 year record in the pulsation of the earth’s magnetic field. Note the number of solar magnetic storms has doubled in the 20th century as compared to the 19th century (see figure 12 in the attached link.) Also note the reduction in the number of magnetic storms in 1956 to 1972 which correlates with a period of planetary cooling.

http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/earthmag.html#_Toc2075550

[William]

My point is other papers by other independent researchers also support the assertion that a significant portion the 20th century warming was due to solar changes not increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pd.../0409123v1.pdf

On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
By Nir J. Shaviv

We examine the results linking cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations to global climate change. We then proceed to study various periods over which there are estimates for the radiative forcing, temperature change and CRF variations relative to today. These include the Phanerozoic as a whole, the Cretaceous, the Eocene, the Last Glacial Maximum, the 20th century, as well as the 11-yr solar cycle. This enables us to place quantitative limits on climate sensitivity to both changes in the CRF, _CR, and the radiative budget, F, under equilibrium. …

….The CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.37ą0.13◦K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature of 0.16ą0.04◦K.

[William]

This is the news release for the CERN Cloud experiment results which supports Svensmark's mechanism.

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/press.../PR15.11E.html

CERN’s CLOUD experiment provides unprecedented insight into cloud formation
Geneva, 25 August 2011. In a paper published in the journal Nature today, the CLOUD1 experiment at CERN2 has reported its first results. The CLOUD experiment has been designed to study the effect of cosmic rays on the formation of atmospheric aerosols - tiny liquid or solid particles suspended in the atmosphere - under controlled laboratory conditions. Atmospheric aerosols are thought to be responsible for a large fraction of the seeds that form cloud droplets. Understanding the process of aerosol formation is therefore important for understanding the climate.

The CLOUD results show that a few kilometres up in the atmosphere sulphuric acid and water vapour can rapidly form clusters, and that cosmic rays enhance the formation rate by up to ten-fold or more. However, in the lowest layer of the atmosphere, within about a kilometre of Earth's surface, the CLOUD results show that additional vapours such as ammonia are required. Crucially, however, the CLOUD results show that sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays - are not sufficient to explain atmospheric observations of aerosol formation. Additional vapours must therefore be involved, and finding out their identity will be the next step for CLOUD.

[Torsten]

Berner's data does not support Berner's comment. A separate paper by specialist on atmospheric CO2 notes that there is not correlation of planetary temperature and CO2.

http://www.sciencebits.com/files/art...2No1Veizer.pdf

And two years later Veizer is co-author of Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era.

Our results indicate that tropical sea surface temperatures were significantly higher than today during the Early Silurian period (443–423 Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been relatively high, and were broadly similar to today during the Late Carboniferous period (314–300 Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been similar to the present-day value. Our results are consistent with the proposal that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive or amplify increased global temperatures

This one was brought up here in 2008, and I recall waiting to get a paper copy of it. In the meantime, you can find a PDF easily enough by searching on the title. It seems to ask as many questions as it answers. I wonder what his position is this week, or last week, or tomorrow.

And, if you feel that Veizer's statement about the modelled estimates of pCO2 being "internally inconsistent" is true, why would you present them as an argument against the relationship between CO2 and temperature? You can't have it both ways.

[Torsten]

What I do not understand is the paleoclimatic data indicates there are cycles of warming and cooling. The past cycles of warming and cooling were not caused by CO2 changes. There is correlation of cosmogenic isotopes with the past temperature changes. There is a non CO2 mechanism in published papers that explains both past and the late 20th century warming.

What is ATM?

http://www.climate4you.com/images/GI...CA%20DomeC.gif

Been there, done that.

That's a purposely deceptive graph. Its creator lies by omission.

[William]

And two years later Veizer is co-author of Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era.



This one was brought up here in 2008, and I recall waiting to get a paper copy of it. In the meantime, you can find a PDF easily enough by searching on the title. It seems to ask as many questions as it answers. I wonder what his position is this week, or last week, or tomorrow.

And, if you feel that Veizer's statement about the modelled estimates of pCO2 being "internally inconsistent" is true, why would you present them as an argument against the relationship between CO2 and temperature? You can't have it both ways.

This analysis method removes two of the four ice house periods. That is odd. I thought there was geological evidence to support the existence of the ice houses. The new analysis methodology does make atmospheric CO2 to correlate with planetary temperature however to make it correlate two of the four ice house periods must be removed.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...e06085_F2.html

P.S. Thank-you for the link to the more recent paper. I has not aware of it.

[William]

Been there, done that.

That's a purposely deceptive graph. Its creator lies by omission.

Perhaps you could be more specific. Your comment is empty of logic. (i.e. What is the author omitting?)

[William]

Torsten,

I am curious what happen to the two ice houses epochs in the paleoclimatic record. I believe there is analysis that supports the assertion that GCR increased and decreased due the solar system passing through the galaxy's spiral arms which in turn is alleged to create the change in planetary clouds to cause the ice house periods. Eliminating the ice house periods does make atmospheric CO2 correlate with planetary temperature however as I stated I thought there was agreement that the ice house epochs did occur other geological analysis.

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/I...s/GSAToday.pdf

Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?

Atmospheric levels of CO2 are commonly assumed to be a main driver of global climate. Independent empirical evidence suggests that the galactic cosmic ray flux (CRF) is linked to climate variability. Both drivers are presently discussed in the context of daily to millennial variations, although they should also operate over geological time scales. Here we analyze the reconstructed seawater paleotemperature record for the Phanerozoic (past 545 m.y.), and compare it with the variable CRF reaching Earth and with the reconstructed partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 (pCO2). We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy.

Assuming that the entire residual variance in temperature is due solely to the CO2 greenhouse effect, we propose a tentative upper limit to the long-term “equilibrium” warming effect of CO2, one which is potentially lower than that based on general circulation models.

[William]

This is an interesting subject. I found the analysis that showed correlation between long term GCR and the ice epochs to be compelling. There appears to be some work between the scenes.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2007/09/...s-own-results/

First, Veizer reluctantly told me the “text” of the Nature study, that is, the above-quoted conclusion, represented a “compromise” between the study’s disagreeing authors where Veizer’s side apparently did all the compromising for reasons that had little to do with the science.

While Veizer didn’t want to elaborate on the politics of the Nature study, he told me “not to take the tone of the paper as the definitive last word.”
Veizer went on to say that the new Nature study has not refuted his original study. The new study, in fact, appears to have confirmed the original study with respect to its most important point that the historical sea surface temperature data indicate atmospheric carbon dioxide does not drive global temperature. Even if the new study proves to be valid, Veizer says, at most it reduces the statistical variation in sea surface temperature estimated by the original study. This correction, however, has little bearing on the nature of the carbon dioxide-temperature relationship.

Veizer says the basic pattern of reconstructed sea surface temperatures in both his original study and the new study remain inconsistent with notion that atmospheric carbon dioxide drives global temperatures.

If it turns out that the new study reconstructs historical sea surface temperatures more accurately than his original study, Veizer added, it would only represent an increase in the impact of cosmic rays on the climate that was reported in the 2003 GSA Today paper.

[William]

I am still not sure why people believe the assertion that solar magnetic changes were responsible for a significant portion of the 20th century planetary warming is ATM.

There is in the paleorecord cycles of warming and cooling that correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes and that do not correlate with CO2 changes.

Is there agreement that there was unusual solar magnetic activity during the later half of the twentieth century?

http://www.climate4you.com/images/GI...CA%20DomeC.gif

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 - 1087, 28 October 2004.
Here we report are construction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.

What I also find it interesting the sun appears to be entering a Maunder minimum. The paleo climatic record and a set of papers by Tinsley, Svensmark, and so on indicates the planet will cool during a Maunder minimum. My point is cooling or not cooling will resolve this question.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...605L..81B

Long-Term Solar Variability and the Solar Cycle in the 21st Century
We have examined the long-term trends in the solar variability that can be deduced from some indirect data and from optical records. We analyzed the radiocarbon measurements for the last 4500 years, based on dendrochronology, the Schove series for the last 1700 years, based on auroral records, and the Hoyt-Schatten series of group sunspot numbers. Focusing on periodicities near one and two centuries, which most likely have a solar origin, we conclude that the present epoch is at the onset of an upcoming local minimum in the long-term solar variability. There are some clues that the next minimum will be less deep than the Maunder minimum, but ultimately the relative depth between these two minima will be indicative of the amplitude change of the quasi-two-century solar cycle.

[William]

The IPCC general circulation models assume the planet amplifies forcing changes. If there is no amplification of forcing changes the predicted warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 1.2C.

The following paper asserts that the planet's response to a change in forcing is negative (planet resists the forcing change by increasing or decreasing clouds in the tropical region.)

Torsten or Ari, we have discussed this paper. What was the objection to this paper?

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...-Choi-2011.pdf

On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications

We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. We demonstrate that our new method does moderately well in distinguishing positive from negative feedbacks and in quantifying negative feedbacks. In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone - though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.

[Geo Kaplan]

Torsten or Ari, we have discussed this paper. What has the objection to this paper?

William, are you able to state succinctly what your ATM hypothesis is? Is it that you don't accept GW, or AGW, or a particular model, or set of models, or conclusions based on a certain model...what? You link to large numbers of papers offsite, but it would be far better if you were to circumscribe the scope of your ATM claims to something that can be stated and defended by you here, so that the thread doesn't devolve uselessly into hurled assertions until the clock runs out.

[William]

William, are you able to state succinctly what your ATM hypothesis is? Is it that you don't accept GW, or AGW, or a particular model, or set of models, or conclusions based on a certain model...what? You link to large numbers of papers offsite, but it would be far better if you were to circumscribe the scope of your ATM claims to something that can be stated and defended by you here, so that the thread doesn't devolve uselessly into hurled assertions until the clock runs out.

Thank-you for your advice.

I am not sure what is or is not ATM so I have brought all of my comments to ATM.

The skeptics accept that increased CO2 will cause some warming. I do not dispute that assertion.

The question is how much warming. I assert that the evidence indicates planetary feedback is negative not positive. See this paper. If planetary feedback is negative rather than positive a doubling of CO2 will result in less than 1.2C of warming. I believe that this issue is not settled. Does anyone dispute that assertion and if so why?

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....71#post1974271

There are a series of papers that assert a significant portion of the twentieth century warming has due to solar changes. I believe the observation evidence and paleoclimatic record supports that assertion. If that assertion is correct the planet will cool due to the solar cycle 24/25 change. I believe that this issue is not settled. The assertion that a significant portion of the 20th century warming was caused by solar changes can be tested and proved to be correct or incorrect based on future temperature changes.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....22#post1974222

It is asserted that AGW will not cause an increase in the magnitude or frequency of hurricanes. That assertion is accepted by the IPCC and is not ATM. Does anyone dispute that assertion?

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....78#post1974178

I stated that atmospheric CO2 did not correlate with the past ice epochs. There is a new paper that has eliminated two of the four ice epochs. If two of the four ice epochs did not occur atmospheric CO2 may correlate with planetary temperature. I do not have any data or papers to refute that assertion and will remain silent on it in the ATM section and in the science section.

[Tensor]

I am still not sure why people believe the assertion that solar magnetic changes were responsible for a significant portion of the 20th century planetary warming is ATM.

There is in the paleorecord cycles of warming and cooling that correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes and that do not correlate with CO2 changes.

Is there agreement that there was unusual solar magnetic activity during the later half of the twentieth century?

http://www.climate4you.com/images/GI...CA%20DomeC.gif

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 - 1087, 28 October 2004.
Here we report are construction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.

You're not sure why? You did notice that the paper says "may have contributed" right? There is nothing in that paper that is definitive in showing that solar activity and warming are linked. In fact, I noticed that you left off the last part of the final sentence of that section. Quote: "we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades". And, later in the same paper, quote: "It was shown that even under the extreme assumption that the Sun was responsible for all the global warming prior to 1970, at the most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin". As usual, the very paper you provide for evidence of your ideas, actually contradicts it.

What I also find it interesting the sun appears to be entering a Maunder minimum. The paleo climatic record and a set of papers by Tinsley, Svensmark, and so on indicates the planet will cool during a Maunder minimum. My point is cooling or not cooling will resolve this question.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...605L..81B

That paper has nothing to do with cooling. It has everything to do with trying to match different cycles. The Gleissberg cycle of (80-100 yrs depending on source) and a ~200 year Suess cycle. The Gleissberg cycle coming along makes sense, since the minimum that occurred in the 1910-1920 period. According to the paper, the Suess cycle is in the downward side of the cycle. They are predicting a long term minimum, due to being in the declining phases of both cycles, but they do not predict a Maunder Minimum. As a matter of fact, they specifically state "However, the general activity rise, well seen in the GSN data, suggests that we might enter a variability regime in which the local long-term minima are less deep than the MM". The GSN are the optical General Sunspot Numbers over the last 400 years. MM represents Maunder Minimum. And again, the paper you present as support, contradicts your statement about a Maunder minimum.

[Swift]

<snip>
The question is how much warming. I assert that the evidence indicates planetary feedback is negative not positive. See this paper. If planetary feedback is negative rather than positive a doubling of CO2 will result in less than 1.2C of warming. I believe that this issue is not settled. Does anyone dispute that assertion and if so why?

William,

Thank you for clarifying your claims. But there is a problem with what I have bolded - you are making the ATM claims. It is not up to anyone else to dispute those claims and to explain why they dispute them (they may if they wish). But it is your responsibility to prove and defend your claims and answer all questions about them. The burden is on you, not on everyone else.

[Tensor]

The IPCC general circulation models assume the planet amplifies forcing changes. If there is no amplification of forcing changes the predicted warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 1.2C.

The following paper asserts that the planet's response to a change in forcing is negative (planet resists the forcing change by increasing or decreasing clouds in the tropical region.)

Torsten or Ari, we have discussed this paper. What was the objection to this paper?

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...-Choi-2011.pdf

Dessler 2011 points out some rather strong objections to this paper. For instance:

1. In their energy budget, Lindzen and Choi (LC) use ΔF_ocean (ocean heat) as one of the terms in the climate system. That term indicates the energy moved to/from the ocean. However, you end up with the situation where the heating of the ocean by the climate system, can cause the the ocean to heat the climate system. Which kinda, sorta violates the conservation of energy. LC do not provide enough information to determine whether or not the other terms in the equation compensate for the exchange.

2. LC use AMIP (Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project) models and discuss how well the observation plot matches the models when Δclouds lead Δtemp with a negative slope. LC conclude this is due to the clouds initiating the climate changes. However, the sea surface temperatures (SST) are specified in the AMIP models. This means the interaction in the models is oneway: clouds respond to SST changes, but SST does not respond to cloud changes. For AIMP models, it simply mean that clouds do not affect climate and data and plots support that and it doesn't appear that LC were aware of that. Which destroys their conclusion.

3. Another problem is that ΔF_ocean is dependent on ΔFT_s (surface temperature) as it affects atmosphere circulation, which affects ΔF_ocean heat transport by affecting the El Nino-Southern Oscillation. LC don't take this into account in any of their plots.

What in particular in the Dessler paper can you show to be wrong?

[William]

William,

Thank you for clarifying your claims. But there is a problem with what I have bolded - you are making the ATM claims. It is not up to anyone else to dispute those claims and to explain why they dispute them (they may if they wish). But it is your responsibility to prove and defend your claims and answer all questions about them. The burden is on you, not on everyone else.

It is not clear, however, what is or is not an ATM claim. Ari asserted I was making ATM claims in the science section. As he did not specify which comment was or was not ATM I moved all comments I had made to ATM to determine what is or is not ATM. If the assertion is ATM I will defend it if it can appropriately be thoughtfully defended using data or/and other papers.

If a member of the forum asserts that a comment is ATM there should be some responsibility to explain why. i.e. The assertion of ATM is not a debate tool.

I provided information from an IPCC study to support the assertion that AGW is not expected to result in an increase in magnitude or frequency of hurricanes. That statement is not ATM.

Tensor responded to my quoted 2003 paper concerning planetary temperature and past CO2 levels with a quoted 2005 paper to support his assertion that two ice age epochs have been eliminated from the paleorecord. I responded. I believe that issue is settled.

In the case of planetary feedback I am quoting a 2011 published paper. My assertion is the 2011 paper that provides data and analysis to support the assertion that planetary feedback is negative rather than positive is not ATM. I am asking if anyone disputes that assertion and if so to please explain why. If the 2011 feedback paper is not ATM it can be discussed in the science section rather than ATM.

[Torsten]

Perhaps you could be more specific. Your comment is empty of logic. (i.e. What is the author omitting?)

So, you didn't see that my first line is a link back to my comment the last time you posted that chart. And clearly you didn't read it then either, because it should have made an impression given that MikeMcc had also posted why that chart is misleading.

The chart should look more like this if Humlum were truthful.
Go ahead, click the thumbnail.

To say it yet again, he's grafted an estimate of the global anomaly change onto the regional temperature proxy represented by the GISP2 core to supposedly show what has happened in the modern era, because the GISP2 core ends more than a hundred years earlier. The red line I added in its place is based on the average of 12 years of data collected at the summit and ending in 1999. This short record is colder than it would have been because a substantial proportion of the period was affected by the Mt Pinatubo eruption. Interesting to me, it barely shows the effects of the 1998 El Nino. You can read the report from which I got the temperature information here. See Figure 10a for the mean temperature result. I don't know if there are later records for the site. I don't feel like looking.

On his chart he tacks on a bogus "approximate global temperature anomaly" on the right side as if to imply that the regional chart is a suitable proxy of global conditions. I've removed it.

And he completely ignores the rise in CO2 since the end of the EPICA core. I'm too lazy to show the actual curved, accelerating line over that period, but I'm really hoping you'll understand the gist of his misrepresentation now.

[Torsten]

Torsten or Ari, we have discussed this paper. What was the objection to this paper?

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...-Choi-2011.pdf

Actually, you and I have not discussed this paper. I told you I had neither the time to read it or experience to judge it. What I did do was show that some of your alleged facts were not true. I also asked a few other questions that were not answered.

[Tensor]

Tensor responded to my quoted 2003 paper concerning planetary temperature

snip....

I responded. I believe that issue is settled.

Tensor did no such thing. I simply showed that the paper you used to support the following:

Iam still not sure why people believe the assertion that solar magnetic changes were responsible for a significant portion of the 20th century planetary warming is ATM.

actually didn't support your statement. And, in fact, contradicts it.

In the case of planetary feedback I am quoting a 2011 published paper. My assertion is the 2011 paper that provides data and analysis to support the assertion that planetary feedback is negative rather than positive is not ATM. I am asking if anyone disputes that assertion and if so to please explain why. If the 2011 feedback paper is not ATM it can be discussed in the science section rather than ATM.

There is an entire post (post #26) showing why your quoted 2011 paper, and it's conclusions are not any good. I asked you point out specifically what was wrong with Dessler's paper, and it seems as if you didn't even see the post, much less read the paper. There are other papers that show that a possible negative feedback (see Dessler 2010, which Lindzen and Choi quote extensively), but the problem with the paper isn't so much the question of if they determined that there is negative feedback, it's their assumptions they use to get to that conclusion which allows them to draw their other conclusions (such as the clouds are the cause of warming) from it.