- #51
Xnn
- 554
- 0
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf
See page 30 to 31:
See page 30 to 31:
New paper in GRL confirms link between sun and clouds on global scale
AI Thread Summary
A recent paper in Geophysical Research Letters establishes a global link between solar activity, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds. The discussion highlights that even a small modulation of clouds by solar activity could account for observed warming since 1900, challenging the role of CO2. However, some participants argue that increased cloud cover has led to a decrease in sunlight reaching the Earth's surface, resulting in slight cooling, contradicting the paper's conclusions. The debate also touches on the lag time for cloud cover changes to affect atmospheric temperatures, with various studies suggesting different time frames. Overall, the conversation reflects ongoing contention regarding the influence of solar activity versus greenhouse gases on climate change.
- #52
Saul
- 271
- 4
Xnn said:
Xnn,
The IPCC authors and the RealClimate authors appear to have not read the Palle or Tinsley papers on electroscavenging. This is only one of a set of papers.
As noted in this paper, depending on the sensitivity assumed for the planet's response to forcing due to a change in planetary cloud cover by both increased GCR and by solar wind bursts that remove ions via the process of electroscavenging, solar changes to cloud cover can account for 50% to 75% of the 20th century warming.
Now as the IPCC models have no solar modulation of planetary cloud cover, there is obviously a fundamental problem in the base GCM. Understanding what the fundamental error is and following the process of its discovery will be interesting.
http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf
- #53
sylas
Science Advisor
- 1,647
- 9
General note: please limit the size of images. Very large images don't fit on the page and break the normal sizing of posts.
Realclimate authors are certainly aware of the electroscavenging hypothesis, and have mentioned it a couple of times, with reference to Palle and to Tinsley. But realclimate is not a valid source for the forum. It is, however, usually well referenced and you can use it as a way to identify possiblity relevant primary literature, which is okay for use in PF. The IPCC 4AR does describe this briefly but indirectly, with reference to other articles. The magnitude of the effect is still mostly hypothetical, and not well established as a significant factor.
It's worth emphasizing something about publication in scientific literature. It does NOT mean that the research therein has been found to be correct. It means it has been found to be worthy of consideration.
I'm thinking of putting together a better review of the relevant research; point and counter point, with a summary of claims and counter claims. By and large, the GCR linkage is still being argued, but has more problems than success. It may have a role in some cases. There's some indication of that, but the case is incomplete at best. The case for a role in the strong warming since the latter half of the twentieth century is weak at best. The electro-scavenging notion is a hypothesis for a possible way to get an effect, and not well established as a major factor as yet.
It's legitimate research for an unusual idea and the electroscavenging hypothesis is an open question; neither confirmed nor refuted, and with the extent of the linkage between GCR and the proposed electroscavenging process also unclear.
Saul said:
Realclimate authors are certainly aware of the electroscavenging hypothesis, and have mentioned it a couple of times, with reference to Palle and to Tinsley. But realclimate is not a valid source for the forum. It is, however, usually well referenced and you can use it as a way to identify possiblity relevant primary literature, which is okay for use in PF. The IPCC 4AR does describe this briefly but indirectly, with reference to other articles. The magnitude of the effect is still mostly hypothetical, and not well established as a significant factor.
It's worth emphasizing something about publication in scientific literature. It does NOT mean that the research therein has been found to be correct. It means it has been found to be worthy of consideration.
I'm thinking of putting together a better review of the relevant research; point and counter point, with a summary of claims and counter claims. By and large, the GCR linkage is still being argued, but has more problems than success. It may have a role in some cases. There's some indication of that, but the case is incomplete at best. The case for a role in the strong warming since the latter half of the twentieth century is weak at best. The electro-scavenging notion is a hypothesis for a possible way to get an effect, and not well established as a major factor as yet.
It's legitimate research for an unusual idea and the electroscavenging hypothesis is an open question; neither confirmed nor refuted, and with the extent of the linkage between GCR and the proposed electroscavenging process also unclear.
- #54
Xnn
- 554
- 0
Saul;
Notice:
It's not enough to simply show that cosmic rays are going up or down.
Cosmic rays impart very little energy to the earth.
Since the proposed mechanism is that they somehow alter cloud cover,
then one ought to be able to find multiple peer reviewed
articles in reputable journals that show this on a global level.
The problem with limiting studies to particular region is
that it smacks of cherry picking.
We know that changes in total solar radiance has a small
effect, but by my calculations it's equivalent to about 3-5 years
of changes in CO2 levels. Global warming is expected to continue
at about 0.015C/year with significant variations due to El Nino an La Nina.
Long term, once the oceans stop absorbing 90% of the energy, we will
experience even greater warming and CO2 levels are expected to accelerate
since the oceans won't be absorbing CO2 either.
Notice:
It's not enough to simply show that cosmic rays are going up or down.
Cosmic rays impart very little energy to the earth.
Since the proposed mechanism is that they somehow alter cloud cover,
then one ought to be able to find multiple peer reviewed
articles in reputable journals that show this on a global level.
The problem with limiting studies to particular region is
that it smacks of cherry picking.
We know that changes in total solar radiance has a small
effect, but by my calculations it's equivalent to about 3-5 years
of changes in CO2 levels. Global warming is expected to continue
at about 0.015C/year with significant variations due to El Nino an La Nina.
Long term, once the oceans stop absorbing 90% of the energy, we will
experience even greater warming and CO2 levels are expected to accelerate
since the oceans won't be absorbing CO2 either.
- #55
Saul
- 271
- 4
Xnn said:
Xnn,
The Palle paper looked at planetary cloud cover for the entire planet.
You and the writers at Real Climate talk only about higher or low GCR. Actually you only talk about TSI. The GCM do not model planetary cloud cover. The IPCC reports states that modeling planetary cloud cover is the largest uncertainty in the AWG hypothesis and the GCM.
Modulation of planetary cloud cover is how solar changes and large changes to the geomagnetic field intensity cause the planet to warm and to cool.
You do not understand electroscavenging. Solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions. That process is called electroscavenging. If GCR is high, for example at the end of the solar cycle, and there are solar wind bursts then the solar wind bursts remove the ions and there is less clouds not more clouds.
The solar wind bursts have increased by a factor of 4 at the end of the 20th century.
I see articles in Real Climate claiming the sun does not effect planetary temperature that talk about sunspot number or GCR which state that planetary temperature is not correlated with GCR. The debating technique is to create an incorrect strawman and then disprove the incorrect strawman hypothesis.
Svensmark's and Marshall's actual data shows planetary temperature is highly correlated with GCR up until around 1996 at which time there is a massive increase in the number of solar wind bursts. From 1996 on there is a reduction in planetary cloud cover particular over the tropics which results in a calculated increase in planetary forcing of 2.5 watts/m^2.
You and those writing at Real Climate appear to not understand the significance of that statement. Solar wind bursts are starting to abate. GCR is 19% higher than any period measured in the last 50 years. The planet is about to abruptly cool.
Based on the AWG hypothesis the planet cannot abruptly cool. The 20th century warming is asserted to have been due to the 30% increase in CO2, rather than due to an decrease in planetary clouds due to electroscavenging.
The GCM models assert that CO2 has caused an increase in forcing of 2.7 watts/m^2. That cannot be correct if the planet abruptly cools. If the planetary temperatures abruptly cools there must be something fundamental incorrect with GCM and the CO2 hypothesis. The CO2 hypothesis has CO2 increasing planetary temperature 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The CO2 mechanism is logarithmic. The first 30% increase in CO2 causes 73% of the temperature increase which does not match observations.
I can make that statement as abrupt cooling has happened before and there are concurrent cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent with the abrupt climate changes. There is paleoclimatic data that supports the mechanism. There is 20th Century data that supports the mechanism.
This paper shows the 20th century planetary changes are highly correlated with the geomagnetic index Ak which changes in response to solar wind bursts.http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
- #56
sylas
Science Advisor
- 1,647
- 9
Saul said:
You pack a large number of basic errors into a small space.
It is not GCM models that give the forcing for CO2. The forcing is determined by basic radiative and thermodynamic physics, entirely independent of the models. This is known to about 10% accuracy and with very high confidence. It's basic physics. I gave the references in thread [thread=307685]Estimating the impact of CO2 on global mean temperature[/thread]. See especially Myhre et al., (1998).
You've got the forcing wrong in any case. The CO2 forcing is about 1.7 W/m2 since pre-industrial times. You appear to be thinking of the total greenhouse forcing, including a whole pile of other gases, which is about 2.63. The other main contributors are CH4, N2O, and halocarbons. Numbers can be found in the IPCC 4th AR, for the forcing from 1750-2005, in table 2.12 on page 204. Note that there are also a whole pile of other non-greenhouse forcings as well, which are generally much less well known.
The CO2 forcing is used by skeptics and supporters of AGW alike. I am speaking here of scientifically literate skeptics of the AGW hypothesis.
The major uncertainty is not the forcing, but the response, or climate sensitivity -- also discussed in that thread. There is also uncertainty about OTHER forcings, especially those relating to cloud. The role of GCR in this is still speculative and not at all confirmed. It is not possible to calculate a GCR forcing from basic physics at this point, and measurements are ambiguous. The notion of electroscavenging has some good support, but it is also not well understood as yet -- and it is not exclusively about GCR in any case. The effect of GCR on electroscavenging processes is not well confirmed. Some time I'd like to put together a proper literature review on this interesting proposal.
As has been pointed out to you before, your 24 hours a day 7 days a week remark is a strawman. AGW does not rule out the normal natural variation which proceeds all the time, nor does it rule out all kinds of forcings beyond CO2 and greenhouse effects. Indeed, "anthropogenic" covers quite a range of different forcings. You repeated invocation of this "continuity" stawman is absurd. You are inventing it out of the whole cloth. You'll never find anything so silly in the scientific literature.
Your basic algebra is also incorrect. An increase from 280 to 380 ppm would be log2(380/280) = 0.44 of a doubling. The first 30% of this rise would be from 280 to 310 ppm, which is log2(310/280) = 0.15 of a doubling... or about 33.3% of the forcing. Not 73%.
Your stuff on GCR is interesting, though you are not presenting any of the literature that looks at the problems with this hypothesis. You should.
Your claims with respect to anthropogenic forcings and greenhouse forcings are completely incorrect.
Cheers -- sylas
- #57
Xnn
- 554
- 0
Saul;
Here's the conclusion from the Palle paper:
In other words, if they focus on just part of the data, they can find a correlation.
But when they include more data, the correlation falls apart.
That is just cherry picking.
Looking at figure 8 in their report, it becomes even more apparent
just how much the correlation has fallen apart since the mid 80's.
They predicted flat to falling temperatures since then, while
the globe and oceans have continued to warm.
and then there is this statement...
Got that?
Good agreement from 1870 to 1910; progressively worse since then.
Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
Here's the conclusion from the Palle paper:
In other words, if they focus on just part of the data, they can find a correlation.
But when they include more data, the correlation falls apart.
That is just cherry picking.
Looking at figure 8 in their report, it becomes even more apparent
just how much the correlation has fallen apart since the mid 80's.
They predicted flat to falling temperatures since then, while
the globe and oceans have continued to warm.
and then there is this statement...
Got that?
Good agreement from 1870 to 1910; progressively worse since then.
Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
- #58
Xnn
- 554
- 0
I should probably add that while greenhouse gases have been on a steady rise for a long time, it's only been the last 60 years that they have clearly become dominate.
- #59
Skyhunter
Saul,
For a little better understanding of the problems with Shaviv 2003 I suggest http://es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Rahmstorf_etal_2004.pdf"
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmReplyReply.pdf" to Rahmstorf's critique does not address the fundamental errors. They simply argue that they can employ their statistical method to low resolution proxies and arrive at a robust conclusion.
The GCR/cloud hypothesis is still highly speculative. If there is a connection, and I believe there is, it's effect is as yet undetermined. Since most of the warming is already accounted for by known physical processes, the amount of forcing, if any, will be small compared to anthropogenic forcings.
For a little better understanding of the problems with Shaviv 2003 I suggest http://es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Rahmstorf_etal_2004.pdf"
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmReplyReply.pdf" to Rahmstorf's critique does not address the fundamental errors. They simply argue that they can employ their statistical method to low resolution proxies and arrive at a robust conclusion.
The GCR/cloud hypothesis is still highly speculative. If there is a connection, and I believe there is, it's effect is as yet undetermined. Since most of the warming is already accounted for by known physical processes, the amount of forcing, if any, will be small compared to anthropogenic forcings.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #60
Saul
- 271
- 4
I note Rahmstorf did not reply to Shaviv's reply to Rahmstorf et al criticism. The RealClimate blog comment by Rahmstorf also did not respond to Shaviv's comments. Shaviv's analysis shows there is correlation of all of the past ice epochs with high GCR as the solar system passed through the galaxy's spiral arms. There is also a mechanism by which high GCR increases planetary cloud cover and cools the planet.
This is only the comments of the analysis of the iron meteoroids and passage of the the solar system through the galactic arms. The RealClimate blog stated the solar system could not have passed through the galaxy's spiral arms. I provided a link to an independent Astronomical paper that supported Shaviv's analysis.
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmstorfDebate.pdf
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmReply/RahmReply.htmlDetailed Response to “Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide and Climate” by Rahmstorf et al.
This is only the comments of the analysis of the iron meteoroids and passage of the the solar system through the galactic arms. The RealClimate blog stated the solar system could not have passed through the galaxy's spiral arms. I provided a link to an independent Astronomical paper that supported Shaviv's analysis.
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmstorfDebate.pdf
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmReply/RahmReply.htmlDetailed Response to “Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide and Climate” by Rahmstorf et al.
Last edited:
- #61
Saul
- 271
- 4
The other explanation for the 20th century warming is a decrease in planetary clouds rather than AWG, in particular CO2.
The observations do not show a steady increase in the base line planetary temperature about which planetary temperature oscillates. Planetary temperature has in fact cooled slightly post 1998.
If the 20th century warming was due to a decrease in planetary clouds then it is reversible, if there is a sudden increase in planetary clouds.
The competing hypothesis is increased AWG will cause a 1000 years of warming. Obviously the CO2 warming if that hypothesis were correct could not be reversed in a couple of years.
We do not need to argue which hypothesis is correct as observational data can be used to decide.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:2009.8/normalisehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/04/uah-global-temperature-down-in-august-181%C2%B0c-sh-sees-biggest-drop-of-0-4%C2%B0c/As I noted further up in the this thread planetary temperature in the 20th century has strongly correlated with geomagnetic field change measured by the parameter Ak that is in turn modulated by solar wind bursts. The solar wind burst remove cloud forming ions by a process called electroscavenging. The sudden warming events in planetary temperature records and the longer term warming and cooling trends correlate with Ak.http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/5/172...1721-2005.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090819/sc_mcclatchy/3295216
The observations do not show a steady increase in the base line planetary temperature about which planetary temperature oscillates. Planetary temperature has in fact cooled slightly post 1998.
If the 20th century warming was due to a decrease in planetary clouds then it is reversible, if there is a sudden increase in planetary clouds.
The competing hypothesis is increased AWG will cause a 1000 years of warming. Obviously the CO2 warming if that hypothesis were correct could not be reversed in a couple of years.
We do not need to argue which hypothesis is correct as observational data can be used to decide.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:2009.8/normalisehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/04/uah-global-temperature-down-in-august-181%C2%B0c-sh-sees-biggest-drop-of-0-4%C2%B0c/As I noted further up in the this thread planetary temperature in the 20th century has strongly correlated with geomagnetic field change measured by the parameter Ak that is in turn modulated by solar wind bursts. The solar wind burst remove cloud forming ions by a process called electroscavenging. The sudden warming events in planetary temperature records and the longer term warming and cooling trends correlate with Ak.http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/5/172...1721-2005.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090819/sc_mcclatchy/3295216
Last edited by a moderator:
- #62
Saul
- 271
- 4
This paper is interesting as it is in reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich and it provides 30 years of data that supports the assertion that GCR is causing the polar see-saw.
As most are aware the recent finding that there is not a great ocean conveyor system, rules out the the competing hypothesis that ocean currents were somehow causing the arctic to warm when the antarctic ice sheet cools cyclically.
It should be noted that change is simultaneously which ocean current mechanism could not explain as there is a delay of roughly a 1000 years for one hemisphere to affect the other. Another problem with the ocean hypothesis is the is no mechanism to change the ocean currents cyclically. It should be noted Gerald Bond found evidence of 30 cycles of cosmogenic isotope changes which correlate with the planetary temperature changes.
The GCR mechanism has an increase in GCR which causes an increase in planetary cloud cover at high latitudes both hemisphere. In the antarctic because the albedo of ice is higher than the clouds an increase in clouds causes the antarctic ice sheet to warm when the arctic cools. The antarctic ice sheet is isolated by the southern hemisphere polar circular winds which the arctic is not and is hence significantly affected by the temperature of the surrounding oceans.
Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich –The persistent role of the Sun in climate Forcing by Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E.
http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4ruQ7t4zr...AAIw/nysaWGBykKk/s1600-h/svensmark-correl.JPG
This is Svensmark's overview of the GCR research and cosmological climatology. It should be noted that Svensmark's Sky experiment proved the GCR mechanism in a laboratory setting.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/larsil/SDOC2681.pdf
These papers were deleted as I inadvertently posted a image that was too large. There are both good papers and germane to this discussion.
Nir Shaviv Faint Sun
Attached are additional two papers by Nir Shaviv:
The first provides an explanation for the faint sun paradox (Solar irradiation was roughly 30% less for a young sun. A reduction in irradiation of 30%, would have, all else being the same as current planetary conditions, meant all liquid water on the planet would have been frozen.) Shaviv’s hypothesis is the younger, faster rotating younger sun had a stronger solar wind and that the stronger solar wind shielded the Earth from galactic cosmic rays, which other researchers in addition to Shaviv have shown affect the amount of low level clouds. Less clouds, warmer planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_sun_paradox
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0306477
The second paper by Shaviv provides data from examining iron meteoroids to determine the long term changes in GCR as the solar system moved in an out of the galactic arms. Shaviv makes a case that the ice epochs, correlate with GCR changes, and that the ice epochs were caused by changes in GCR.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0209252
As most are aware the recent finding that there is not a great ocean conveyor system, rules out the the competing hypothesis that ocean currents were somehow causing the arctic to warm when the antarctic ice sheet cools cyclically.
It should be noted that change is simultaneously which ocean current mechanism could not explain as there is a delay of roughly a 1000 years for one hemisphere to affect the other. Another problem with the ocean hypothesis is the is no mechanism to change the ocean currents cyclically. It should be noted Gerald Bond found evidence of 30 cycles of cosmogenic isotope changes which correlate with the planetary temperature changes.
The GCR mechanism has an increase in GCR which causes an increase in planetary cloud cover at high latitudes both hemisphere. In the antarctic because the albedo of ice is higher than the clouds an increase in clouds causes the antarctic ice sheet to warm when the arctic cools. The antarctic ice sheet is isolated by the southern hemisphere polar circular winds which the arctic is not and is hence significantly affected by the temperature of the surrounding oceans.
Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich –The persistent role of the Sun in climate Forcing by Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E.
http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4ruQ7t4zr...AAIw/nysaWGBykKk/s1600-h/svensmark-correl.JPG
This is Svensmark's overview of the GCR research and cosmological climatology. It should be noted that Svensmark's Sky experiment proved the GCR mechanism in a laboratory setting.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/larsil/SDOC2681.pdf
These papers were deleted as I inadvertently posted a image that was too large. There are both good papers and germane to this discussion.
Nir Shaviv Faint Sun
Attached are additional two papers by Nir Shaviv:
The first provides an explanation for the faint sun paradox (Solar irradiation was roughly 30% less for a young sun. A reduction in irradiation of 30%, would have, all else being the same as current planetary conditions, meant all liquid water on the planet would have been frozen.) Shaviv’s hypothesis is the younger, faster rotating younger sun had a stronger solar wind and that the stronger solar wind shielded the Earth from galactic cosmic rays, which other researchers in addition to Shaviv have shown affect the amount of low level clouds. Less clouds, warmer planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_sun_paradox
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0306477
The second paper by Shaviv provides data from examining iron meteoroids to determine the long term changes in GCR as the solar system moved in an out of the galactic arms. Shaviv makes a case that the ice epochs, correlate with GCR changes, and that the ice epochs were caused by changes in GCR.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0209252
- #63
Xnn
- 554
- 0
http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf
Saul;
The Palle paper, a link that you originally provided shows that
extraterrestrial influences have become progressively less
important since 1910!
My impression is that they are being extremely kind to themselves.
Figure 8 from the report shows just how poor the correlation really is.
They totally missed the warming of the 1930-40's. Instead they predicted
it for the late 1960's. Also the 2 re-searchers (Leon and Lockwood) have divergent
predictions for the 1990's. One thought it'd warm while the other predicted a flat response.
The reality is that the climate has continued to gradually warm from GHG's
(2005 is the warmest instrumented year on record) while La Nina/El Nino
provides significant short term random cooling/warming pulses.
Sunspots and GCR's was a factor in the past that has become
progressively less important since 1910.
Saul;
The Palle paper, a link that you originally provided shows that
extraterrestrial influences have become progressively less
important since 1910!
My impression is that they are being extremely kind to themselves.
Figure 8 from the report shows just how poor the correlation really is.
They totally missed the warming of the 1930-40's. Instead they predicted
it for the late 1960's. Also the 2 re-searchers (Leon and Lockwood) have divergent
predictions for the 1990's. One thought it'd warm while the other predicted a flat response.
The reality is that the climate has continued to gradually warm from GHG's
(2005 is the warmest instrumented year on record) while La Nina/El Nino
provides significant short term random cooling/warming pulses.
Sunspots and GCR's was a factor in the past that has become
progressively less important since 1910.
- #64
Saul
- 271
- 4
Xnn said:
Xnn,
Did you miss this paragraph in Palle's paper?
Comment:
I will move the conversation concerning GHG to another thread so we can concentrate on the problem of GWG theory vs observations. Do to the hype around that topic there was been very little critical examination of both the GHG predictions (What is scientific basis for the predicted magnitude of the planetary temperature rise for CO2 increases? i.e. Scientific is not just a statement in a report that has only been peer reviewed by the report writers and that does not consider data that disproves the magnitude of the increase predicted.) and the observations.
Do you agree with this statement?: If the solar modulation of planetary cloud theory is correct then there should be significant drop in planetary temperature due to the current solar change. That is not possible based on the GHG theory and the assertions that GCR and electroscavenging do not affect planetary temperature. You cannot have your cake (the assertion that GCR is not a first order climate forcing function) and eat it to (You need an explanation for the sudden abrupt cooling). We likely need a thread to discuss current planetary temperature measurements.
Did you miss the paper (see my comments above) that shows an decrease in tropical cloud reflected sunlight? Less sunlight reflected into space warmer planet. Warmer planet due to clouds however rather than GHG.
The point is the tropical reflected sunlight paper used a direct measurement to determine the amount and frequency of the reflected sunlight. There is ample evidence that planetary temperature correlates with solar wind bursts and GCR changes. The problem explaining why. Measuring clouds using satellites is difficult which is why there is still scientific discussion concerning this issue.
What it appears is higher GCR decreases high altitude cloud and increases lower level clouds. The GCR mechanism has a greater effect at high latitudes and over oceans which are are ion and particle poor.
The electroscavenging mechanism effects both high and low latitudes. See the paper I have linked above Once More About Solar and Global warming that shows there is high correlation of the geomagnetic field variations caused by solar wind bursts and planetary temperature.
http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf
- #65
Saul
- 271
- 4
This is a good review paper of the science of Cosmic Rays and Climate by Jasper Kirkby. Kirkby is involved in the CERN experiment to understand the GCR mechanism.
As the sun appears to be moving to a deep magnetic minimum there will in addition to the CERN experiment be planetary observations that should help to validate or invalidate the GCR mechanism.
In the past the cyclic abrupt climate changes have correlated with cosmogenic isotopes changes and abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field.
Scientific breakthroughs occur when a connection is made to observations and theory discrepancies. (i.e. There is no explanation for the cyclic abrupt climate changes.)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
As the sun appears to be moving to a deep magnetic minimum there will in addition to the CERN experiment be planetary observations that should help to validate or invalidate the GCR mechanism.
In the past the cyclic abrupt climate changes have correlated with cosmogenic isotopes changes and abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field.
Scientific breakthroughs occur when a connection is made to observations and theory discrepancies. (i.e. There is no explanation for the cyclic abrupt climate changes.)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
- #66
Skyhunter
Saul,
Shaviv 2003 is a joke.
Their correlation is based on several arbitrary adjustments to the CRF data. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.pdf"
And they also fail miserably in their attempt to disprove the CO2 as a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect and paleoclimate data. http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2009/110115royer/ndx_royer.pdf"
The reason that Rahmstorf did not address their response to their critique is because they could not get it published. In other words, their response to Rahmstorf et al 2004 could not pass the peer review process.
And please stick to the forum guidelines and stop citing denier blogs as legitimate sources!
Shaviv 2003 is a joke.
Their correlation is based on several arbitrary adjustments to the CRF data. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.pdf"
And they also fail miserably in their attempt to disprove the CO2 as a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect and paleoclimate data. http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2009/110115royer/ndx_royer.pdf"
The reason that Rahmstorf did not address their response to their critique is because they could not get it published. In other words, their response to Rahmstorf et al 2004 could not pass the peer review process.
And please stick to the forum guidelines and stop citing denier blogs as legitimate sources!
Last edited by a moderator:
- #67
Saul
- 271
- 4
Skyhunter said:
Skyhunter,
Your above statement is not correct. Shaviv's response was published. It appears based on the tone of your comment, that your mind is made up. It appears you do not want to discuss the subject of cosmic ray climatology or solar modulation of planetary cloud cover. You want me to stop discussing the subject.
Shaviv's meteoroid analysis supports his assertion that the solar system passed through the spiral arms of the galaxy. I have a recent astronomical paper that supports Shaviv assertion that the solar system passed through the spiral arms of the galaxy.
Shaviv provides a detailed analysis supporting his meteoroid analysis refuting Rahmstorf criticism. You did not respond to the detailed meteoroid analysis, nor did Rahmstorf, nor did the discussion in RealClimate. The discussion there were a one sided diatribe that made astronomical assertions that were not correct. As I said, I responded in RealClimate with a link to a recent astronomical paper that supports Shaviv.
You did not read Kirby's published review paper (that includes a long listed of published papers) because your mind is made up. I am following Kirkby's line of reasoning. That is science. Comparing one scientific hypothesis to another.
As I said if the solar modulation of planetary cloud hypothesis is correct, we should see significant planetary cooling as the solar wind bursts have abated and GCR is 19% higher than anytime in the last 40 years.
Let's wait until there is more data.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #68
Saul
- 271
- 4
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/626/2/844/61945.web.pdf?request-id=456de547-63dc-4761-aec0-890d75249de5
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
Kirkby’s published review paper includes a reference list of 167 published papers that he discusses in the review paper. Kirkby's paper is scientific (Provides reference papers that support the hypothesis and discusses papers that challenge the hypothesis such as the Laschamp magnetic minimum by providing new data and logic to refute the challenge.), no name calling or sarcasm.
The comment(s) that the data that indicates GCR changes and solar changes are a first order climate forcing function is from denier blogs is not accurate.
I would be interested in debating or better yet discussing Kirkby's review paper in a scientific manner. If that is not possible we can wait for new observational data and papers.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
Kirkby’s published review paper includes a reference list of 167 published papers that he discusses in the review paper. Kirkby's paper is scientific (Provides reference papers that support the hypothesis and discusses papers that challenge the hypothesis such as the Laschamp magnetic minimum by providing new data and logic to refute the challenge.), no name calling or sarcasm.
The comment(s) that the data that indicates GCR changes and solar changes are a first order climate forcing function is from denier blogs is not accurate.
I would be interested in debating or better yet discussing Kirkby's review paper in a scientific manner. If that is not possible we can wait for new observational data and papers.
- #69
Xnn
- 554
- 0
Saul;
Notice that this is approximately the same amount of warming that Long Lived Greenhouse gases have caused during the 20th century. However, the difference is that solar/galatic ray cloud ionization is cyclic, while CO2 emissions (a long lived greenhouse gas) are accelerating.
This is why the paper also states that the connection between solar cycles and global temperatures has gradually become less correlated since 1910.
Last I checked, we have been in something of a solar minimum for about 2 years. In fact, it appears to be the deepest solar minimum since about 1913. Of course we also experienced a recent La Nina too, but the point is that all that this has done is temporarily mask the warming from CO2 emissions. In response, global temperatures are just below record levels and over the long term, global temperatures are going to continue to rise to new records.
Notice that this is approximately the same amount of warming that Long Lived Greenhouse gases have caused during the 20th century. However, the difference is that solar/galatic ray cloud ionization is cyclic, while CO2 emissions (a long lived greenhouse gas) are accelerating.
This is why the paper also states that the connection between solar cycles and global temperatures has gradually become less correlated since 1910.
Last I checked, we have been in something of a solar minimum for about 2 years. In fact, it appears to be the deepest solar minimum since about 1913. Of course we also experienced a recent La Nina too, but the point is that all that this has done is temporarily mask the warming from CO2 emissions. In response, global temperatures are just below record levels and over the long term, global temperatures are going to continue to rise to new records.
- #70
Saul
- 271
- 4
Xnn said:
This is no fun. You do not understand the mechanisms or the nuances of the solar papers.
Try reading Kirkby's paper. Kirkby summarizes the data that shows evidence of the mechanism affecting planetary temperature over the last 100 years, the last 1000 years, the last 100,000 years, the last 600,000 years, the last 500 million years. Kirkby includes 167 papers to support the mechanism.
In the 20th century planetary temperature is highly correlated with Ak which is changed by solar wind bursts. The solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions by electroscavenging which inhibits the GCR increase at the end of each solar cycle from increasing cloud cover and cooling the planet. In the 1900 and 1800 century there were no solar wind bursts. (The geomagnetic index has been monitored for roughly 200 years. It is clearly evident in the data.) At that time there was significant planetary cooling at the end of each solar cycle. It was noted that the price of wheat followed the solar magnetic cycle.
If your mind is made up, do not comment. The sun is rapidly moving toward a deep minimum. Based on what has happened before (See Kirkby and his referenced 167 papers), the planet is about to abruptly cool.
Come back when you have some evidence the planet is warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/...-now-competitive-with-the-baby-grand-minimum/
If you are not interested in a scientific discussion find a different thread. I have provided links to dozens of papers. I have read and understood the papers.
You repeat your mantra about AWG. Please start your own thread and supply scientific data to support that assertion.
The sun was at its highest activity level in 10,000 years during later half of the 20th century.
Palle's paper was based only on satellite measurement of planetary clouds. He then calculates the effect on planetary temperature based on that measurement. The satellite measurement of planetary clouds does not measure the entire effect. The radiation measurements (see the paper I linked to above on radiation reflected from the tropics.) show significant drop in short wave reflected energy from the tropics. (i.e. Reduction in planetary cloud cover.)http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml
Last edited:
- #71
Xnn
- 554
- 0
Saul;
Here is what Kirby concluded:
In other words, Kirby can't really say whether or to what extent the climate is influenced by solar and comsic ray variability. No place in the paper does he quantify what the impact may be and for good reason since warming/cooling the oceans leads to more/less CO2 and we know what that does.
Palle suggested that there is a small influence, but had to admit that it has gradually become less and less important since 1910. I see nothing in Kirby's work to suggest other wise.
I'm not doubting that solar and maybe even cosmic rays have played a role in the past. However, going ahead it will continue to become less important than it was in the past since CO2 levels are rising independantly.
Finally, a correction. Earlier I stated that global warming from long lived greenhouse gas was comparable to the (generous) 0.2C value cited by Palle for Solar and Cosmic ray influence on globla temperatures. I went back and have found that greenhouse gases have contributed closer to 0.4C of warming. So, the value is actually twice as much and accelerating.
Here is what Kirby concluded:
In other words, Kirby can't really say whether or to what extent the climate is influenced by solar and comsic ray variability. No place in the paper does he quantify what the impact may be and for good reason since warming/cooling the oceans leads to more/less CO2 and we know what that does.
Palle suggested that there is a small influence, but had to admit that it has gradually become less and less important since 1910. I see nothing in Kirby's work to suggest other wise.
I'm not doubting that solar and maybe even cosmic rays have played a role in the past. However, going ahead it will continue to become less important than it was in the past since CO2 levels are rising independantly.
Finally, a correction. Earlier I stated that global warming from long lived greenhouse gas was comparable to the (generous) 0.2C value cited by Palle for Solar and Cosmic ray influence on globla temperatures. I went back and have found that greenhouse gases have contributed closer to 0.4C of warming. So, the value is actually twice as much and accelerating.
- #72
Wagmc
- 27
- 0
If you put forth the claim that a recent PDO cool shift and recent decline in solar activity are "masking" the warming from CO2, you imply acceptance that the PDO warm shift (1977) and modern grand (1,000 year) solar maximum are responsible for at least part of observed warming.
And the more warming attributable to "natural" factors, the less warming attributable to CO2.
There is a significant body of work indicating that GCR is related to global temperatures on long time scales. Likewise, it is well established that GCR affects cloud cover on global scales. The only doubt remains on the physics of the mechanism, which was the point of the OP. And a modulation of as little as 2% in global cloud cover will account for all observed warming without invoking CO2.
Dergachev, V.A., Dmitriev, P.B., Raspopov, O.M. and Jungner, H. 2006. Cosmic ray flux variations, modulated by the solar and Earth's magnetic fields, and climate changes. 1. Time interval from the present to 10-12 ka ago (the Holocene Epoch). Geomagnetizm i Aeronomiya 46: 123-134.
Perry, C.A., Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays ..., J. Adv. Space Res. (2007), doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.02.079
Kirkby, J. 2008. Cosmic rays and climate. Surveys in Geophysics 28: 333-375.
And the more warming attributable to "natural" factors, the less warming attributable to CO2.
There is a significant body of work indicating that GCR is related to global temperatures on long time scales. Likewise, it is well established that GCR affects cloud cover on global scales. The only doubt remains on the physics of the mechanism, which was the point of the OP. And a modulation of as little as 2% in global cloud cover will account for all observed warming without invoking CO2.
Dergachev, V.A., Dmitriev, P.B., Raspopov, O.M. and Jungner, H. 2006. Cosmic ray flux variations, modulated by the solar and Earth's magnetic fields, and climate changes. 1. Time interval from the present to 10-12 ka ago (the Holocene Epoch). Geomagnetizm i Aeronomiya 46: 123-134.
Perry, C.A., Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays ..., J. Adv. Space Res. (2007), doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.02.079
Kirkby, J. 2008. Cosmic rays and climate. Surveys in Geophysics 28: 333-375.
- #73
Xnn
- 554
- 0
Wagmc;
Notice that Kirby is asking a question in your quotation.
Some of what he has found could be just a proxy.
In other words, a result not a cause.
Until a physical mechanism can be discovered for GCR, its impact remains speculative.
If a mechanism were discovered, then it'd be possible to quantify the direct impact.
However, I don't think we would see this distract from the warming due to Greenhouse
gases. Instead, we would probably see a change to the cloud albedo or ozone forcings.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf
Review page 32 of the above link.
Notice that the cloud albedo affect has a low level of scientific understanding
and it's attributed to aerosals.
If GCR have an impact on the climate it's probably by changes in cloud cover.
So, what would probably happen if there was a positive forcing for GCR's
is that the aerosal effect would become more negative (but better understood).
On the other hand, another possible change would be tropospheric ozone.
Notice, it has just a medium level of understanding.
So, I'd say it's possible that any GCR effect could be mixed up somehow with ozone.
Maybe some ozone change are really changes of GCRs.
So, maybe they'd narrow the error bars and attribute some of that forcing to GCRs.
The PDO and El Nino/La Nina are not global forcings.
They are short term fluctuations and may be temporarily masking or
enhancing long term climate changes.
Notice that Kirby is asking a question in your quotation.
Some of what he has found could be just a proxy.
In other words, a result not a cause.
Until a physical mechanism can be discovered for GCR, its impact remains speculative.
If a mechanism were discovered, then it'd be possible to quantify the direct impact.
However, I don't think we would see this distract from the warming due to Greenhouse
gases. Instead, we would probably see a change to the cloud albedo or ozone forcings.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf
Review page 32 of the above link.
Notice that the cloud albedo affect has a low level of scientific understanding
and it's attributed to aerosals.
If GCR have an impact on the climate it's probably by changes in cloud cover.
So, what would probably happen if there was a positive forcing for GCR's
is that the aerosal effect would become more negative (but better understood).
On the other hand, another possible change would be tropospheric ozone.
Notice, it has just a medium level of understanding.
So, I'd say it's possible that any GCR effect could be mixed up somehow with ozone.
Maybe some ozone change are really changes of GCRs.
So, maybe they'd narrow the error bars and attribute some of that forcing to GCRs.
The PDO and El Nino/La Nina are not global forcings.
They are short term fluctuations and may be temporarily masking or
enhancing long term climate changes.
- #74
Wagmc
- 27
- 0
I disagree. Follow me here.
It is well established that CO2 alone cannot account for all observed warming.
IPCC discounts indirect (magnetic) effects, even though there is significant observational evidence that something is modulating cloud cover over long time scales. This cannot simply be ignored - just because the understanding is "low."
Absent "other" forcings, IPCC and GCM's in general have assumed positive feedbacks to account for all observed warming. Unfortunately, observed feedbacks tend to be negative. So where's the extra warming coming from?
Well, a physical mechanism has been proposed, and studies are underway. Perhaps we'll soon know.
You think that a change in forcing attributed to GCR would be subtracted from aerosols? I think that it should be subtracted from feedbacks (which have been observed to be significantly less positive than modeled) thus attributing less warming to CO2.
Regarding ozone, it has been recently reported that polar ozone is destroyed by incoming UV, which has varied by up to 6%. I believe this process is exothermic, which could be a significant contributor to warming.
It is well established that CO2 alone cannot account for all observed warming.
IPCC discounts indirect (magnetic) effects, even though there is significant observational evidence that something is modulating cloud cover over long time scales. This cannot simply be ignored - just because the understanding is "low."
Absent "other" forcings, IPCC and GCM's in general have assumed positive feedbacks to account for all observed warming. Unfortunately, observed feedbacks tend to be negative. So where's the extra warming coming from?
Well, a physical mechanism has been proposed, and studies are underway. Perhaps we'll soon know.
You think that a change in forcing attributed to GCR would be subtracted from aerosols? I think that it should be subtracted from feedbacks (which have been observed to be significantly less positive than modeled) thus attributing less warming to CO2.
Regarding ozone, it has been recently reported that polar ozone is destroyed by incoming UV, which has varied by up to 6%. I believe this process is exothermic, which could be a significant contributor to warming.
- #75
Skyhunter
Feedbacks are decidedly positive, especially water vapor and albedo.
- #76
Andre
- 4,310
- 73
No, there is evidence that the total of all feedbacks is negative.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf
http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/ISPM-app2f.pdf
but we knew that for some time:
http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf
http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/ISPM-app2f.pdf
but we knew that for some time:
http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf
Last edited:
- #77
Skyhunter
Andre said:
This study focuses on the tropics. The authors do not identify the feedbacks, instead they analyze ERBE data to suggest that climate sensitivity is lower than suggested by the IPCC.
This is not an acceptable citation for this forum.
Karner has revised his opinion from that publication. Also he is describing a statistical model, not a physical one.
The water vapor and albedo feedbacks are positive. Statistical models and tropical studies of radiation budgets do not alter the fact that when the air warms it holds more water vapor, a positive feedback, and when the snow and ice melt albedo is lower, also a positive feedback.
- #78
Andre
- 4,310
- 73
Skyhunter said:
In the standard black body model, it can be calculated that the tropics as defined between the both tropics of Capricorn and Cancer should receive about 49% of the insolation (the poles beyond the Arctic circles receive about 4%), if I'm correct. It would be pretty hard to explain how much the area outside the tropics can add to turn this negative feedback into such a strong positive feedback to satisfy the desired climate sensitivity
Testing hypotheses is not about offering alternatives. The study is not about speculations what could cause feedbacks and such, it is just about observing the total effect of all feedbacks. it's just step 4 of the scientific method: test the claims and predictions.
Maybe a reference to back to that claim? The only thing I can think of that he had to use the available satellite datasets at that time, which were revised later. To see if his observations were still valid, he tested just about all available datasets as can be seen http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/.
What is the problem with applying statistics (to test actual data sets), aren't statistics anywhere else in climatology? karner just finds that the random walk behavior of the datasets is showing the characterisks of negative feedback (antipersistence), which are distinctly different from positive feedback (persistence) and his series are more than long enough to ensure a robust statistical relevance.
There is no doubt that there are positive feedbacks, but that does not alter the fact a overall total negative feedback is found using two totally different methods. Maybe some feedbacks have been overlooked, like perhaps the increase in rate of (latent) energy transport in the water cycle as well as albedo changes, which could be hinted by the results of Lindzen et al 2009.
Last edited:
- #79
Wagmc
- 27
- 0
and your simple model does not alter the fact that as air warms, it rises, where condensation releases heat at altitude where it radiates away, forms clouds that increase albedo, and rain that cools the ground. Hurricanes are a good example of this convective heat transport.
clouds are powerful sun shields. this is why a trivial 2% change in cloud cover accounts for as much warming or cooling as CO2.
- #80
Skyhunter
Andre said:
I find it quite easy, since the majority of the warming is taking place not in the tropics but in the higher latitudes. If I were going to make a case for low feedback I could not think of a better area to study than the tropics to find confirmation for my favorite conclusion.
Then why cherry pick the tropics for study and extrapolate the results for global conditions?
Here he backs off his claim that the IPCC conclusions are not supported by the data.
http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/cejpokfin.pdf
And this is still just a statistical model with no physical model or description to verify his results.
Nothing at all wrong with using statistical analysis to test an hypothesis. However, I don't need a statistical analysis to know that the Earth is warming, specific humidity is increasing, and the ice is melting. When someone tries to convince me otherwise with statistics, well I am reminded of the cliche, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
When considering radiative forcing from increased GHG the tropics is where one would go to find a low sensitivity.
There are probably many feedbacks that are missed in the current climate models, but they are not going to significantly alter what we already know. The more we learn the shorter the error bars. All in all, with what is known, climate sensitivity is 2.0C - 4.5C. The albedo and WV feedbacks dominate, making the net feedbacks positive not negative.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #81
Skyhunter
Wagmc said:
Convection is an integral component of the lapse rate. Even the simplest models account for it.
- #82
Andre
- 4,310
- 73
Skyhunter said:
Can't seem to find the passage where it says that. I can find:
Have you tried? It's after all a peer reviewed study, and the data and methods should be available.
Maybe I should try and tell what I think what Karner means with antipersistency and negative feedback. I made a small spreadsheet that claims to be nothing except the illustration of what I try to say.
The black line is a monte carlo one dimensional random walk that changes after each unit with a value anywhere between -x and +x, due to noise factors. This could be the forcing function a climate signal, detrended to make the average stationary value at zero.
If the value of the forcing at any moment is other than zero, a feedback signal is generated, which is added to the forcing function after the delay of that same unit. After all, feedback is generated after the process of input and output.
In case of positive feedback the added step is further away from the average balance zero, while the random noise signal can be either away or towards the balance position, statistically however, the forcing plus feedback will tend to persist moving away further. The persistence means also that reversals of the signal are more difficult and hence less than the statistical 50% of the noise. See the red line.
In case of negative feedback the added step is back towards the average balance zero, while again, the random noise signal can be either away or towards the balance position, statistically however, the forcing plus feedback will tend to return to the balance and NOT persist moving away further. The anti-persistence means also that reversals of the signal are easier and hence more than the statistical 50% of the noise.
See the blue line.
In the excel spreadsheet it shows that the original monte carlo random walk of 999 steps at this run had 493 reversals (should be 50% statistically) while the red positive feedback output had 363 reversals, the blue negative feedback output had 651 reversals.
Again this is only to illustrate that the behaviour of an signal can be judged on type of feedback, basically on any time constant, by comparing the number of reversals of the signal with the time constant
Note The graph shows the first 100 steps,
Note that the xls sheet recalculates everytime and the graph changes all the time but the principle remains the same.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #83
Xnn
- 554
- 0
Wagmc said:
Wagmc;
What jumps out to me about the IPCC chart (pg32)
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf
is that they don't break out water vapor. They have buried it most likely by including it in with the forcing for each of the greenhouse gases. We know that water vapor levels have increased, but are you suggesting that the increase should be credited to cosmic rays? My impression is that most cosmic ray theorist have thought that they somehow modulate clouds.
Also, I've noticed that you have repeatedly stated that 2% albedo shift could accout for global warming. However, notice that the cloud/albedo forcing is negative. This impresses me as another significant hurdle for cosmic ray believers. That is even if a physical mechanism could be found for cloud modulation, then the increase in clouds/albedo is going the wrong way anyways for warming. So, while a 2% albedo shift "could" account for the warming, the info so far is that cloud/albedo shift has actually cooled the planet.
The more I think about it, the solar ozone link makes sense with respect to a physical mechanism.
Notice, there is a difference between stratsopheric and tropospheric ozone.
Not many people pay attention to it and as I've pointed out, the level of understanding is medium and it's actually been credited as a significant positive forcing.
Ozone is produced by UV radiation and UV levels vary significantly during the solar cycle,
so at least there is the start of a physical mechanism.
- #84
Skyhunter
Andre,
Your chart looks nothing like the temperature record. I don't question that Karner knows what he is doing. I just think he is drawing broad unfounded conclusions. The Earth has warmed and is continuing to warm consistent with CO2 forcing with associated feedbacks.
Karner analyzes satellite data using the UAH extrapolation that was known to be in error. I wonder why he only used UAH when RSS was also available? That probably won't change his overall results, but I don't believe that his results, in error or not alter anything. Negative feedbacks could easily dominate. That doesn't change the physical reality. Karner fails to provide a physical mechanism to explain his conclusion that climate sensitivity is lower than observed.
It is just my opinion, but I see no reason to latch onto Karner's theory simply because of the patterns he detects in the temperature data and his interpretation. The pattern that I find important is the one that shows a strongly positive long term warming trend.
[edit]
The primary short term feedback is radiative equilibration, radiation escaping into space. So Karner is probably correct in his analysis of the data, he just seems to not understand the physical mechanism that results in the statistical conclusion. [/edit]
Your chart looks nothing like the temperature record. I don't question that Karner knows what he is doing. I just think he is drawing broad unfounded conclusions. The Earth has warmed and is continuing to warm consistent with CO2 forcing with associated feedbacks.
Karner analyzes satellite data using the UAH extrapolation that was known to be in error. I wonder why he only used UAH when RSS was also available? That probably won't change his overall results, but I don't believe that his results, in error or not alter anything. Negative feedbacks could easily dominate. That doesn't change the physical reality. Karner fails to provide a physical mechanism to explain his conclusion that climate sensitivity is lower than observed.
It is just my opinion, but I see no reason to latch onto Karner's theory simply because of the patterns he detects in the temperature data and his interpretation. The pattern that I find important is the one that shows a strongly positive long term warming trend.
[edit]
The primary short term feedback is radiative equilibration, radiation escaping into space. So Karner is probably correct in his analysis of the data, he just seems to not understand the physical mechanism that results in the statistical conclusion. [/edit]
Last edited by a moderator:
- #85
Saul
- 271
- 4
You do not understand how to analysis a scientific problem. Assume there is or could be something incorrect with the AWG hypothesis. (Amount of forcing or amount of feedback.).
Stop debating for a moment.
Look at Kirkby's paper as a story of what has happened before. There are cyclic abrupt warming and abrupt cooling periods in the paleoclimatic record. Kirkby provides data from 167 referenced papers which shows the cosmogenic isotope changes correlate with past planetary temperature changes.
Now logically analyze the observations to predict could be about happen. Then look for new observations to validate or invalidate the prediction.
Let's assume a significant portion of the 20th planetary warming was due to solar wind bursts removing cloud forming ions. (See K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov attached below. Planetary temperature changes (increases and decreases) do correlate with solar wind bursts. Also see quiet sun ringing planet, which explains why even though GCR has increased there has been no significant planetary cooling.)
Now the solar wind bursts have abated, but GCR has increased by 19% above the highest measured GCR in last 40 years. Theoretical calculations indicated GCR can increase another 11%, if the solar minimum continues.
Now what to look for to validate or invalidate the hypothesis.
The GCR low level cloud effect is greatest for North and Southern Latitudes 40 to 60 degrees and over the ocean. There should be over the next few months a cooling of the ocean, however, the time lag for the upper 150m of the ocean to cool is around 5 years, so the cooling will not all be seen in one year.
The GCR effect on low level clouds continues to increase in polar regions but there is less water vapor at higher latitudes to form clouds. Over the antarctic ice sheet the albedo of the ice is greater than clouds so an increase in low level clouds causes an increase in the Antarctic ice sheet temperature.
I have also read about increasing GCR causing a reduction in high altitude clouds. I do not understand the mechanism for the formation of high altitude clouds or how increasing GCR is hypothesized to cause a reduction in high altitude cloud, however, there is record cold temperatures during periods of high GCR in high latitudes. If GCR does reduce high level cloud cover it is expected there would be record cold temperatures particularly at night.
The atmosphere over land can cool very rapidly. Very cold land temperatures creates the conditions for a 1970's sever blizzard where extreme cold northern air mixes with warm gulf air creating a blizzard with hurricane force winds. There was the same phenomena in the 1800's. Sever blizzards this winter with hurricane force winds might be an indication that the planet is cooling.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml
Stop debating for a moment.
Look at Kirkby's paper as a story of what has happened before. There are cyclic abrupt warming and abrupt cooling periods in the paleoclimatic record. Kirkby provides data from 167 referenced papers which shows the cosmogenic isotope changes correlate with past planetary temperature changes.
Now logically analyze the observations to predict could be about happen. Then look for new observations to validate or invalidate the prediction.
Let's assume a significant portion of the 20th planetary warming was due to solar wind bursts removing cloud forming ions. (See K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov attached below. Planetary temperature changes (increases and decreases) do correlate with solar wind bursts. Also see quiet sun ringing planet, which explains why even though GCR has increased there has been no significant planetary cooling.)
Now the solar wind bursts have abated, but GCR has increased by 19% above the highest measured GCR in last 40 years. Theoretical calculations indicated GCR can increase another 11%, if the solar minimum continues.
Now what to look for to validate or invalidate the hypothesis.
The GCR low level cloud effect is greatest for North and Southern Latitudes 40 to 60 degrees and over the ocean. There should be over the next few months a cooling of the ocean, however, the time lag for the upper 150m of the ocean to cool is around 5 years, so the cooling will not all be seen in one year.
The GCR effect on low level clouds continues to increase in polar regions but there is less water vapor at higher latitudes to form clouds. Over the antarctic ice sheet the albedo of the ice is greater than clouds so an increase in low level clouds causes an increase in the Antarctic ice sheet temperature.
I have also read about increasing GCR causing a reduction in high altitude clouds. I do not understand the mechanism for the formation of high altitude clouds or how increasing GCR is hypothesized to cause a reduction in high altitude cloud, however, there is record cold temperatures during periods of high GCR in high latitudes. If GCR does reduce high level cloud cover it is expected there would be record cold temperatures particularly at night.
The atmosphere over land can cool very rapidly. Very cold land temperatures creates the conditions for a 1970's sever blizzard where extreme cold northern air mixes with warm gulf air creating a blizzard with hurricane force winds. There was the same phenomena in the 1800's. Sever blizzards this winter with hurricane force winds might be an indication that the planet is cooling.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml
- #86
Xnn
- 554
- 0
Saul;
Please notice that Kirby stated that indications of GCR flucuations could be just a proxiy for other solar activity. In other words, GCR flucuations could be coincidental with something like the change in the UV spectrum. UV radiation generates ozone in the atomsphere, which is a greenhouse gas. Ozone is a greenhouse gas. So, there is a chance that changes in total solar irradiance impact the Earth's climate affecting the levels of greenhouse gas as well as the direct change in solar heating.
Anyhow, GCR affect on clouds is considered controversial since there is no demonstrated mechanism and besides cloud cover has actually increased over the recent past which has actually contributed to a negative forcing of the climate.
Furthermore, Palle has shown that solar influences on the climate have become progressively less important since 1910; and we should all understand why that is.
Please notice that Kirby stated that indications of GCR flucuations could be just a proxiy for other solar activity. In other words, GCR flucuations could be coincidental with something like the change in the UV spectrum. UV radiation generates ozone in the atomsphere, which is a greenhouse gas. Ozone is a greenhouse gas. So, there is a chance that changes in total solar irradiance impact the Earth's climate affecting the levels of greenhouse gas as well as the direct change in solar heating.
Anyhow, GCR affect on clouds is considered controversial since there is no demonstrated mechanism and besides cloud cover has actually increased over the recent past which has actually contributed to a negative forcing of the climate.
Furthermore, Palle has shown that solar influences on the climate have become progressively less important since 1910; and we should all understand why that is.
- #87
Saul
- 271
- 4
Xnn said:
Xnn,
You must be reading a different Palle paper. Perhaps you can provide a link and the full quote.
You are confused concerning what Palle is stating in the paper. In the 20th century solar wind bursts removed cloud forming ions which means TSI, GCR, and cloud modulation are no longer synchronized. In the 19th century there were no solar wind bursts to remove cloud forming ions late in the solar cycle.
Your comments seem to be denial on the basis that if the solar modulation of clouds caused say 50% of the 20th century warming then something is incorrect with the GWG hypothesis (say magnitude of the GWG forcing is less or planetary feedback is less or negative rather than positive.).
There appears to be no scientific discussion about the papers in this thread.http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf
The Palle paper I linked to states that conservatively 50% of the 20th century warming can be attributed to solar modulation of planetary cloud cover.
The "Once again about global warming and solar activity" paper by K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov shows there is 85% correlation of planetary temperatures changes and solar wind bursts over a two decade period.
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
The Kirkby paper shows that the past cold planetary periods correlate with periods of high GCR and with periods when the geomagnetic field intensity is low over the last 1000 years, 10000 years, 3 million years, and 550 million years. (The geomagnetic field and solar heliosphere help to shield the planet from Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR)).
Last edited:
- #88
Xnn
- 554
- 0
Saul;
Here is the exact quote from Palle:
The combined curves refer to figure 8 where the contributions of
the combined solar direct (irradiance) plus indirect (low cloud) forcing
are compared to the instrumental record. Here's a link to the paper:
http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf
Notice how the curves progressively diverge from 1910 onward.
Also, notice how pathetic the correlation is from 1980 to the present.
There has been significant global warming since 1980 and yet that is where
the correlation is at it's worst. So, it should be no surprise that credible
climate scientist don't consider GCR a significant factor for the near future.
Actually, looking at the figure, there wasn't much of a correlation before 1910.
It appears that they just forced it to fit around 1910.
In his own words "arbitrarily scaled." Think about it!
Here is the exact quote from Palle:
The combined curves refer to figure 8 where the contributions of
the combined solar direct (irradiance) plus indirect (low cloud) forcing
are compared to the instrumental record. Here's a link to the paper:
http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf
Notice how the curves progressively diverge from 1910 onward.
Also, notice how pathetic the correlation is from 1980 to the present.
There has been significant global warming since 1980 and yet that is where
the correlation is at it's worst. So, it should be no surprise that credible
climate scientist don't consider GCR a significant factor for the near future.
Actually, looking at the figure, there wasn't much of a correlation before 1910.
It appears that they just forced it to fit around 1910.
In his own words "arbitrarily scaled." Think about it!
- #89
Saul
- 271
- 4
Xnn said:
Did anyone notice Heliospheric Magnetic field strength is the lowest in 173 years!
Is the lowest heliospheric magnetic field strength in 173 years going to affect planetary climate?
Let's see if there is any indication of planetary cooling!
Will there be a change in planetary cloud cover?
http://www.leif.org/research/IDV09.pdf
The Heliospheric Magnetic Field Strength 1835-2009
Xnn,
You need to finish reading each paragraph in the paper or someone will accuse you of misquoting papers.
http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf
The following is the entire paragraph in question.
- #90
Xnn
- 554
- 0
Saul;
Yes, that line was also in the paper and it's a beauty!
READ IT CAREFULLY!
Notice that he is assuming that further data confirms the cosmic ray hypothesis. And if that were to happen, then there is the "potential" that it could amount to something.
He is also recognizing my point, which is that the correlation has totally broken down over the last 20 years. In total, it is a preposterous statement and I'm not impressed with it.
- #91
Saul
- 271
- 4
Xnn,
The correlation between GCR intensity and strength and planetary cloud cover appears to breaks down if solar wind bursts remove the ions via the process electroscavenging.
GCR increases and decreases due to the strength of the solar heliosphere. The solar wind bursts are produced by coronal holes that have formed at low latitudes on the solar surface such that the wind bursts that they produces strike the earth. The solar wind bursts create a space charge in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. Less clouds warmer planet.
(The solar wind bursts cause the planetary index (blue line in the graph) in this link to move up.)
http://www.solen.info/solar/
Normally to coronal holes form at the solar poles at the end of the solar cycle.
Now as noted above the solar heliosphere is the weakest in 170 years. The continues, however, to coronal holes at low latitudes on the solar surface.
The coronal holes strip of the magnetic field from the sun and are hence getting weaker.
There is something else going on in terms of the mechanism. There is a noticeable difference from perihelion and aphelion. Perihelion occurs in January.
This new paper by Svensmark proves the GCR mechanism.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038429.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090801095810.htm
The correlation between GCR intensity and strength and planetary cloud cover appears to breaks down if solar wind bursts remove the ions via the process electroscavenging.
GCR increases and decreases due to the strength of the solar heliosphere. The solar wind bursts are produced by coronal holes that have formed at low latitudes on the solar surface such that the wind bursts that they produces strike the earth. The solar wind bursts create a space charge in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. Less clouds warmer planet.
(The solar wind bursts cause the planetary index (blue line in the graph) in this link to move up.)
http://www.solen.info/solar/
Normally to coronal holes form at the solar poles at the end of the solar cycle.
Now as noted above the solar heliosphere is the weakest in 170 years. The continues, however, to coronal holes at low latitudes on the solar surface.
The coronal holes strip of the magnetic field from the sun and are hence getting weaker.
There is something else going on in terms of the mechanism. There is a noticeable difference from perihelion and aphelion. Perihelion occurs in January.
This new paper by Svensmark proves the GCR mechanism.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038429.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090801095810.htm
- #92
Xnn
- 554
- 0
Saul;
I don't think one can logically defend an excuse that applies for just the last 20 years.
It's funny to me that these guys think they are on to something while they admit
that it doesn't apply to the last 2 decades. Actually, it is getting to be hilarious.
Also, your link only goes back to July 2009.
It does not support any statements regarding the last 170 years.
You're more of an expert on this stuff than I am.
So, how much cooling are these guys predicting?
I don't think one can logically defend an excuse that applies for just the last 20 years.
It's funny to me that these guys think they are on to something while they admit
that it doesn't apply to the last 2 decades. Actually, it is getting to be hilarious.
Also, your link only goes back to July 2009.
It does not support any statements regarding the last 170 years.
You're more of an expert on this stuff than I am.
So, how much cooling are these guys predicting?
- #93
Xnn
- 554
- 0
Here's a paper that refutes any link between GCR and recent climate change.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml
- #94
Xnn
- 554
- 0
And here's a paper that refutes a cosmic ray link to the most recent warming:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml
Saul;
I think we are starting cycle 24.
That would make cycle 22 a while ago; correct?
I wonder what was found for cycle 23.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml
Saul;
I think we are starting cycle 24.
That would make cycle 22 a while ago; correct?
I wonder what was found for cycle 23.
- #95
Xnn
- 554
- 0
Here's another peer reviewed paper that concludes that correlation is not causation
when discussing Low Cloud Cover (LCC) and Cosmic Rays (CR).
Fancy that!
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.3959v2.pdf
when discussing Low Cloud Cover (LCC) and Cosmic Rays (CR).
Fancy that!
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.3959v2.pdf
- #96
Xnn
- 554
- 0
And then there is this... Less than 14% of recent warming from solar activity changes.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf
- #97
Saul
- 271
- 4
Xnn,Xnn said:
The paper you quote looks at solar cycle length and finds there is a period when there is no correlation. The mechanism we are discussing however is solar wind bursts that remove cloud forming ions.
Why does the author discuss solar length. What difference does it make if the length of solar cycle varies? You quote a paper that has nothing to do with solar wind bursts.
This is not religious studies where one can appeal to some sacred book that has a higher status or democratic where if 10 people agree with your statement and only 9 agree with what my statement, you win.
See the paper linked to below that specifically notes the Earth is ringing! for cycle 24.
What is the point of a scientific forum if we do not discuss the topic scientifically. You must accept the mechanism I proposing that explains the hump warming followed by slight cooling. The shape of the warming is relevant to the discussion. That observation is a fact. Start a separate thread if you would like to explain the warming trend with AWG.
I have explained the mechanism. Solar wind bursts create a space charge that removes cloud forming ions.
If there are solar wind bursts it does not matter if GCR is high and is creating a large number of ions as the solar wind bursts will remove the ions.
In addition GCR has a greater effect on the latitude 40 Deg to 60 Deg, whereas the solar wind bursts (electroscavenging) affect lower tropical latitudes in addition to higher latitudes.http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml
Cycle 24, Cycle 24, Cycle 24 Why is the Earth Ringing. What do the words "ringing" mean in this context?
Comments:
We are discussing a physical process. There is a cycle of glacial/interglacial periods. Interglacial periods are very short (around 12 kyrs) Glacial periods are long, around 100 kyr. There is obviously some massive forcing function that forces the glacial period. Insolation at the so called 60 Degree North is exactly the same as the coldest period of the last glacial period.
Insolation is not driving the glacial/interglacial cycle. This massive forcing function that I am alluding to is forcing the planet's temperature. I look at the paleoclimatic data, I have specific knowledge about system modeling and stability. It is obvious there is some external semi periodic function that is forcing the planet's temperature.
The sun is in a very unusual state. What do we know about the range of past solar unusual events? What do we know about other stars that are the same as our sun?
Last edited:
- #98
Skyhunter
Saul,
Why don't you read the papers Xnn linked, then you might be able to reply without ad hominem. You accuse others of not understanding and then demonstrate that you do not understand the paper you are commenting on.
The correlation to GCR and low cloud cover proves nothing. The reason that the solar cycle is being discussed is because GCR also correlates to the solar cycle. If ionization of particles was significant for cloud formation, there should also be a correlation with mid and high level clouds. What is found that mid level clouds decline while low clouds increase. Therefore the amount of clouds forming does not increase, only the level of the clouds.
Applying Occam's razor the authors determined that LCC correlation is due to cooler temperatures, due to lower solar irradiance. In other words the height of the clouds is what changes, not the amount, and that is more a function of convection than ionization.
Accusing others of religious fervor, while holding onto your fringe belief with vigorous zeal is quite telling.
Why don't you read the papers Xnn linked, then you might be able to reply without ad hominem. You accuse others of not understanding and then demonstrate that you do not understand the paper you are commenting on.
The correlation to GCR and low cloud cover proves nothing. The reason that the solar cycle is being discussed is because GCR also correlates to the solar cycle. If ionization of particles was significant for cloud formation, there should also be a correlation with mid and high level clouds. What is found that mid level clouds decline while low clouds increase. Therefore the amount of clouds forming does not increase, only the level of the clouds.
Applying Occam's razor the authors determined that LCC correlation is due to cooler temperatures, due to lower solar irradiance. In other words the height of the clouds is what changes, not the amount, and that is more a function of convection than ionization.
Accusing others of religious fervor, while holding onto your fringe belief with vigorous zeal is quite telling.
- #99
Saul
- 271
- 4
Science is the analysis of observation data to validate or invalidate hypotheses.
There is a significant solar event underway. How has the solar magnetic cycle changed?
Are there any unexplained climatic events or changes that correlate with the recent solar changes? Note the mechanism has solar wind bursts removing the ions that are hypothesized to increase planetary cloud cover, therefore the planet will not cool (planetary clouds increased due to high levels of GCR) until the the solar wind bursts abate and then stop.
As shown in the solar links below, the solar wind bursts are starting to abate. GCR is 19% higher than any period in the last 40 years.
Ocean heat content is starting to trend down. Why?
edit: removed link
This set of links shows the progress of the solar magnetic cycle.
The sun is spotless for this day in 2004 however there is significant magnetic activity.
edit: removed links
The solar magnetic cycle has not restarted. There continues to be coronal holes in low latitude locations on the sun, however, the affect on the geomagnetic field is less and less as the coronal holes are stripping of the sun's magnetic flux and the solar magnetic cycle has not restarted. (See coronal hole CH382.)
Today. (See coronal hole CH382.)
edit:deleted links
There is a significant solar event underway. How has the solar magnetic cycle changed?
Are there any unexplained climatic events or changes that correlate with the recent solar changes? Note the mechanism has solar wind bursts removing the ions that are hypothesized to increase planetary cloud cover, therefore the planet will not cool (planetary clouds increased due to high levels of GCR) until the the solar wind bursts abate and then stop.
As shown in the solar links below, the solar wind bursts are starting to abate. GCR is 19% higher than any period in the last 40 years.
Ocean heat content is starting to trend down. Why?
edit: removed link
This set of links shows the progress of the solar magnetic cycle.
The sun is spotless for this day in 2004 however there is significant magnetic activity.
edit: removed links
The solar magnetic cycle has not restarted. There continues to be coronal holes in low latitude locations on the sun, however, the affect on the geomagnetic field is less and less as the coronal holes are stripping of the sun's magnetic flux and the solar magnetic cycle has not restarted. (See coronal hole CH382.)
Today. (See coronal hole CH382.)
edit:deleted links
Last edited by a moderator:
- #100
Skyhunter
Saul said:
No it isn't. 20,000 years ago was the coldest part of the last glacial period and insolation at 65N was ~20Wm2 less than it is today.
Similar threads
Hot Threads
-
An article on Antarctic Eocene climate
- Started by snorkack
- Replies: 21
- Earth Sciences
-
Long term rain forecast, causes and implications?
- Started by mayflowers
- Replies: 16
- Earth Sciences
-
1831 CE mystery eruption - Zavaritskii caldera, Simushir Island (Kurils)
- Started by Astronuc
- Replies: 0
- Earth Sciences
-
-
Penguin poop seeds clouds
- Started by Frabjous
- Replies: 2
- Earth Sciences
Recent Insights
-
Insights Quantum Entanglement is a Kinematic Fact, not a Dynamical Effect
- Started by Greg Bernhardt
- Replies: 7
- Quantum Physics
-
Insights What Exactly is Dirac’s Delta Function? - Insight
- Started by Greg Bernhardt
- Replies: 0
- General Math
-
Insights Relativator (Circular Slide-Rule): Simulated with Desmos - Insight
- Started by Greg Bernhardt
- Replies: 1
- Special and General Relativity
-
Insights Fixing Things Which Can Go Wrong With Complex Numbers
- Started by PAllen
- Replies: 7
- General Math
-
Insights Fermat's Last Theorem
- Started by fresh_42
- Replies: 91
- General Math
-
Insights Why Vector Spaces Explain The World: A Historical Perspective
- Started by fresh_42
- Replies: 0
- General Math