by Judith Curry
So, what’s going on with the sun? The latest research was presented at the Nagoya Workshop on the Relationship between Solar Activity and Climate Changes.
WUWT has a post on this Workshop, which included presentations by Judith Lean and Leif Svalgaard, and Henrik Svensmark. Ithe following four presentations seem to be the most relevant to climate change:
- Judith LEAN: Variations in Solar Irradiance and Climate
- Leif SVALGAARD: The Long-term Variation of Solar Activity
- Martin BODKER ENGHOFF & Henrik SVENSMARK: Effects of Cosmic Ray Decreases on Cloud Microphysics
- Hiroko MIYAHARA: Effects of Galactic Cosmic Rays on Weather and Climate
Judith Lean
Some highlights from Judith Lean’s presentation:
The following paper is referenced: Kopp and Lean (2011) GRL, summarizing total solar irradiance measurements from space and the nontrivial discrepancies in the baseline measurements from different satellites with overlapping time periods.
Sources of solar irradiance variability are spectral dependent, which is much more difficult to measure than TSI. Spectral variations are seen on the 27 day solar rotation cycle and also on the 11 year sunspot cycle.
IPCC AR5 climate model simulations are using the reconstruction from Wang, Lean, Sheeley (2005). Other recent estimates of long term solar variability: Kirova et al. 2011, Shapiro et al. 2011.
NRL’s general linear climate model: ENSO + volcanic aerosols + solar activity + anthropogenic effects explains 85% of the CRU temperature variance for the period 1979-2010.
Natural components account for <15% of warming since 1890. Claims that the sun has caused as much as 70% of recent warming presents fundamental puzzles. It requires that
- the sun’s brightness increases more than current understanding allows
- Earth’s climate be insensitive to well-measured increases in greenhouse gases at the same time that it is excessively sensitive to poorly known solar brightness change
How and why will temperature change in the next few decades? Future near-term climate change will vary because of both natural and anthropogenic influences. Her model predicts a warming of 0.4C by 2030.
Predicts solar cycle 24 will be less active than cycle 23
A pending maunder minimum? Well everyone is predicting a solar cycle decrease, with most other studies predicting more of a decrease than Wang, Lean, Sheeley 2005.
Summary points:
- Decadal trends in solar irradiance are not yet detectable from uncertainties caused by instrument instabilities in observations: historical irradiance reconstructions are very uncertain
- Natural influences, including solar irradiance variations, alter Earth’s surface temperature, atmosphere and ozone
- Natural influences and anthropogenic influences have different strengths in the stratosphere relative to the surface
- Surface temperatures will continue to increase Lower stratospheric temperature will remain at about current levels Total ozone will increase, exceeding 1980 levels as soon as 2025
- Improved CCM & GCM ability to reproduce responses to solar cycle: validation and improvements still needed
Climate model response to radiative forcing:
- Current understanding assumes that climate response to solar radiative forcing is thermodynamic
- Empirical evidence suggests it is dynamic, rather than (or as well) as thermodynamic
- Engages existing circulation patterns (Hadley, Ferrel and Walker cells) and atmosphere ocean interactions (ENSO)
- Involves both direct (surface heating) and indirect (stratospheric influence) components
Three different TSI measurement composites (since 1980) provide diffrences in absolute scale, temporal structure, solar minimum levels, long-term trends.
- Irradiance decrease from 1996 to 2008 solar minimum claimed to produce global cooling . . . but decrease in PMOD and ACRIM composites could be instrumental
- Irradiance increase from 1986 to 1996 solar minimum claimed to produce 20-30% of recent global warming . . . but increase in ACRIM composite could be instrumental
Solar cycle irradiance modulates:
- stratospheric vortex
- tropospheric circulation
- NAO (solar min) AO (solar max) (Kodera 2003)
An actual Maunder Minimum can take > 100 years – not 10 years – to eventuate. A new Maunder Minimum will NOT cause another Little Ice Age.
Svalgaard
Svalgaard’s ppt file is less easy to interpret in stand alone form, with little text, but I reproduce his conclusions here:
- Solar activity is now back to where it was a century ago (Shouldn’t TSI also not be?) Note: Shapiro et al. (2o11) find major increase relative to 100 years ago (~5 W m-2)
- No Modern Grand Maximum (in sunspot numbers)
- Cosmic Ray Modulation discordant
- Solar influence on climate on shaky ground if we don’t even know solar input
Der Spiegel
Der Spiegel has an article on this topic, an interview with German electric utility executive Fritz Vahrenhold, entitled “I feel duped on climate change.”
Will reduced solar activity counteract global warming in the coming decades? That is what outgoing German electric utility executive Fritz Vahrenholt claims in a new book. In an interview with SPIEGEL, he argues that the official United Nations forecasts on the severity of climate change are overstated and supported by weak science.
JC comments:
There is significant uncertainty, not only in solar reconstructions, but in the interpretation of satellite measurements since 1980. There is a 6 W m-2 discrepancy in the baseline measurements across different satellite systems, plus significant differences in trends since 1980. There is 5 W m-2 discrepancy in the reconstructions in the first few decades of the 20th century. For reference, the 20th century CO2 forcing is 1.7 W m-2.
While this uncertainty seems generally acknowledged in the solar community and by Judith Lean (who has been the main solar person involved in the IPCC), I have to say I’m concerned that the CMIP climate model experiments for the IPCC uses only one solar reconstruction.
The IPCC has framed the climate change problem in the context of anthropogenic forcing, and national funding has followed suit. There has been far too little emphasis on understanding the sun and solar-climate interactions, I see a few signs that this situation is improving.
Re AR5, I haven’t checked to see who the solar authors are or what the ZOD has to say?
Moderation note: comments will be moderated for relevance.
It’s the stupid sun, fils et filles.
===============
Yes of course, Earth’s heat source is the Sun! That is reality.
The world’s most powerful leaders cannot control reality, even by banding together with self-serving scientists and economists to control (rather than to serve) the public by using public funds, computers, honors, and models of reality to deceive themselves.
Blinded to reality by self-deception and false pride (trapped in ego cages of their own making), they simply assumed that the intrinsic value of a model was enhanced by
a.) Bestowing Nobel prizes on the scientists, economists or politician promoting their favorite model, and
b.) Using expensive computers to forecast the future from Nobel-prize winning models.
Today society is crumbling worldwide and we are all trapped, like rats on a sinking ship, with the politicians, scientists and economists that led us here because they believed the output from expensive computers based on Nobel-prize winning models of Economics, Climate, the Sun and Interactions between Neutrons and Protons.
Why? Fear of mutual nuclear annihilation – probably driven by the total vaporization of Hiroshima in 1945 and the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 – convinced world leaders to unite nations under a one-world government guided by the the “best models” of democracy, economics and science that money could buy.
Unfortunately the models turned out to be unrealistic [1,2] and now we must find a way to return to reality.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Summary_of_Career.pdf
Correct Link:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Climategate_Roots.pdf
Unreal Models:
1. The Sun is a giant H-fusion reactor.
2. Earth’s atmosphere is Earth’s heat source.
3. Economic recovery requires spending more public funds.
4. Neutral pion exchange produces attractive n-n interactions.
5. Democracy means letting people choose between two political parties.
Reality (as revealed by experimental measurements):
1. Earth’s heat source is a pulsar, the same nuclear furnace that made our elements. That conclusion is based on data from hundreds of analyses of meteorites, planets, the Sun, the Moon, and solar emissions.
2. The Sun and its heat and particle emissions come from
a.) Neutron-repulsion & -emission of the solar core (60%),
b.) Neutron-decay of the product to Hydrogen (5%),
c.) Fusion of the product to Helium (35%).
That conclusion is based on data from analyses of atomic rest masses of the 3,000 atoms that comprise the entire visible universe and Einstein’s conclusion (E = mc^2).
NASA and DOE have selectively hidden, avoided, or manipulated the data for decades to help politicians avoid reality #1 and #2, respectively.
But reality will not be avoided.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/NeutronRepulsion.pdf
Today others note that UK’s Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, the UN’s IPCC and the research organizations and publications that they control assisted the unholy alliance of politicians, scientists, and economists wrecked havoc on the world’s society.
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/royal_society.pdf
Now we need wise leadership to guide these organizations as well as politicians, scientists, and economists back to their intended roles as servants of society.
The sad history of Climategate apparently began in the Bilderberg Hotel in April of 1967 when it was decided that Earth’s heat source operates “in equilibrium” – like the thermostatically controlled furnace in modern homes [“The Bilderberg Model,” Solar Physics 3, 5-25 (1968)].
Former President Eisenhower warned of the potential danger to our form of government in his Farewell Address to the Nation on 17 Jan 1961 if a government-sponsored ‘scientific-technological elite’ ever took control of public policy.
That seems to be essentially what happened six years later.
Members of NAS, RS and IPCC cannot deny the obvious:
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews12No7.pdf
Those like Piers Corbyn who consider changes in the Sun are better able to predict changes in Earth’s weather and climate than those who ignore changes in the Sun.
O. Manuel
Please stop replying to yourself.
I no longer read your chronic repetitious responses.
TSI? Why do they always ignore bright sunshine?
http://i40.tinypic.com/xgfyok.jpg
they dont.
Yes, they do.
“The time series component comprises all variables except sunshine per cent, frost frequency and wind speed. These are still under development.”
http://www.ipcc-data.org/obs/cru_climatologies.html
Hmmm. They mention sunshine a couple of times, but for the most part they ignore a real discussion.
“decreased sunshine duration over China (Kaiser and Qian, 2002)”
“In the warm season over continents, higher temperatures accompany lower precipitation amounts and vice versa. Hence, over land, strong negative correlations dominate, as dry conditions favour more sunshine and less evaporative cooling, while wet summers are cool.”
https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf
Totally Pathetic
The sun controls climate? You shinin’ me on?
I would like for all of you to read Pope’s Climate Theory and give me your thoughts. My significant contribution is the explanation for why the climate temperature has been so extremely stable for ten thousand years and why that will not change in the next thousands of years.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/
My thought is it doesn’t appear to have much to do with the topic of this post….. Unless your theory reconsiders the role of the sun.
Hi Judith,
The First Order Draft is out and you have 1 day left to comment on it! I am just finishing my review of the radiative forcing chapter (the one I was an author on in AR4).
Actually I have a question for people here, which will need an answer before noon tomorrow UK time.
Can anyone point to any evidence in the peer-reviewed literature that the effect of galactic cosmic rays is large enough to influence global concentrations of cloud condensation nuclei, or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle?
Thanks!
Richard
Richard Betts –
I’m not sure if you’re looking for negative answers, but FWIW, no I can’t.
That doesn’t mean to say there isn’t some evidence buried out there somewhere!
Richard,
I strongly suspect that most “galactic cosmic rays” and all of our elements actually came from the Sun’s pulsar core, not from remote regions of the galaxy.
That would explain experimental evidence that:
i.) Minerals in iron meteorites were irradiated prior to compaction, and
ii.) The cosmic-ray exposure ages of iron meteorites are generally much greater than those of stone meteorites that formed further away from the pulsar [1]
1. “Composition of the noble gases in Canyon Diablo,” Geochemical Journal 16, 157-178 (1982) http://www.journalarchive.jst.go.jp/english//jnlabstract_en.php?cdjournal=geochemj1966&cdvol=16&noissue=4&startpage=157
Anteros,
Does Richard mean, if the information is not in the peer reviewed material submitted, the scientific method of the IPCC is rigorous enough to deal with partial arguments?
Henrik Svensmark would probably be the bloke who has the answer for Richard Betts. But why should he put his science into an international politic seeking to influence policy? Wouldn’t be an influence for me.
Should sceptical scientists even consider Richards request?
Richard asks “is the effect of galactic cosmic rays large enough to influence”, is that really a question for IPCC to be asking now, rather than a decade ago?
Or, is the phenomenon of energy flow through our galaxy, and other major effects on our climate, only now receiving due consideration because the consensus of co2 radiative forcing as the main cause of climate change, is now recognised as unsustainable in the consequential science community?
Go figure.
Warmists practice so-called “gate keeping” at major journals, trying
to keep Skeptics out…..this is to ensure “paper quality”…..
…….lets wait a couple more years, when it will be obvious that AGW supplied
the false, low quality scientific work and the Skeptics are the real scientists…. then we will occupy the gate keeping posts….. and
Hansen et al will be published in Micronesia, if anywhere at all….
JS
“lets wait a couple more years”
I know a Black Swan that will not wait for man made global warming.
Markus –
I think you may be a little paranoid here. I make the assumption – as usual, with no evidence to do otherwise – that prof Betts is asking without any nefarious purposes in mind…
What agenda do you think he might have? And why?
Give the chap a break!
Anteros
I’m not paranoid about the collective that has been involved in nefarious data manipulation resulting in social hardship and mitigation polices that have wrecked havoc on societal structures and its progress. Am I paranoid to think that damage is actually being done?
The collective that have propitiated AGW need to answer to non-scientists how they had unconvertible evidence that latter was not. To have highlighted the casual manner in which the collective have in regard to obtaining valid scientific evidence id disturbing.
Why shouldn’t I be determined that they are made accountable in the face of my perception of their malfeasance. Would a good man but look on after he considers such things.
Professor Richard Betts. my apologies if you are offended, I do not attack you personally but, I have a message for the collective and I am determined to make it heard.
Many of us are disappointed that persons in positions previously respected, have used their privileged position to further an argument, that on the face of it, never had a strong scientific basis.
Just how much evidence do I need to accumulate before I take serious action against what I perceive to be a evil amongst us?
Richard, like Anteros, I have not seen any. And I have looked. The problem is that all the research in this field has been starved of money, because it goes contrary to the religion of CAGW. The CLOUD project was delayed for 10 years because of lack of funding. Svensmark had enormous difficulty getting enough money to do his classic experiment reported in ( I believe) 2006.
This is one of the black marks against those who support the religion of CGAW. They prevent others from getting money and having their work published in scientific journals.
I remembered. Not stricly what you are looking for, but try
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3836-new-paper-on-cosmic-rays-and-diurnal-temperature-change.html
This is the effect on diurnal temperature range during Forbush Decreases. So it is solar wind and coronal mass ejections, not GCRs. But the effect on the earth is similar. HTH.
First Wang 2005 is incorrect in so far as the minima of 22/23 is the same as 23/24.The degradation of the PMO6V radiometer has been well identified eg Frolich, Svaalgard,discussions and more recently Krivova 2011 ie the minima 22/23 is overestimated by 0.2wm2 or to put it another way the ar5 models are already wrong,
Second the distraction of looking for cloud nucleation correlations in GCR tends to reduce the importance of energetic particles effects on both dynamics and surface climate ie a distraction.
The importance of energetic particles of differing energy on atmospheric chemistry has been well described in the literature eg Crutzen 1975,Thorne 1977,and the background levels (persitence) through the solar cycle need to be taken into account.
The influence of GCR and EEP on surface weather is discussed in a recent paper M. Calisto et al.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/653/2011/
Richard Betts asked, “Can anyone point to any evidence in the peer-reviewed literature that the effect of galactic cosmic rays is large enough to influence global concentrations of cloud condensation nuclei, or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle?”
No, there is a paper I noticed on the shift of the tropical belt that may be germane. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00244.1
and also http://www.marine.usf.edu/PPBlaboratory/paleolab_pdfs/Poore_GRL04.pdf
With Spencer and Braswell’s recent “Cloud Forcing” dust up this looks like a likely candidate for amplifying solar impact.
GCR change may play a role, may not.
Hi RIchard,
Please see “Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds”, Harrison and Stephenson 2006
Proc. R. Soc. A 8 April 2006 vol. 462 no. 2068 1221-1233
The authors analysed daily land-based insolation (diffuse fraction) measurements spanning decades at ten different sites in the UK.
The analysis is only local to the UK, but it does at least establish(?) the existence of a GCR-cloud link. A process, of course, does not need to be manifest globally to have a global effect (eg. on the Earth’s energy budget).
Another paper finding a positive result :
“Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes”, Laken, Kniveton and Frogley 2010
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10941–10948, 2010
Nigel Calder may be able to answer your question.
http://calderup.wordpress.com/category/3b-the-svensmark-hypothesis/
Have you seen Shaviv’s paper. Link in the bibliography.
http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity
Does CERNs cloud experiment count, even though not published yet that I have seen.
Richard,
The cosmic ray question is much less interesting than the mistaken
calculations of the Earth’s orbit: Since you contributed to AR4-wg1-chapter 2 of Mr. Piers Forster, you most probably participated at the crucial
LA-meeting in 2006, where all rejoiced with “great Happiness”, when
is was colluded to keep the Earth’s orbit constant on a less than milleniums scale. (check: chapter 2: we “assume” the Earth’s orbit to be “INVARIANT”)…… This is the great ERROR of the IPCC, because the supporting Louvain papers (Cruzifix, van Yperselen, Goosse etc) do NOT analyze
Orbit oscillations, osculations and Librations…… leaving them out completely in models, as well left out in all GCMs…..
The IPCC error report TSU agreed with me on those aspects but they
refuse to study the orbit any further…… due to the obvious danger: An orbital forcing on a less than milleniums scale will show up…..and cut into the share of CO2-RF……
But time has come in AR5 to clarify the orbit in detail……
Please look into this major aspect, this would be a real advance of science…
JS
Good point JS. If orbital forcings actually cause ice ages and inter-glacial periods, via some as yet unknown mechanism, then there is no known lower bound on the pace of that influence. Moreover, these orbital parameters are chaotic.
That was a #1 point….I never used that argument, very good, self-explanatory…..
The IPCC AR4 just maintains in chapter 2: We all keep “ASSUMING”
that there is a “INVARIANCE” of the orbit and “SOLELY” study
the eccentricity parameter variation, but this is primitive 8th grade
geometry….moving the Sun from the center into one focus point
…….and that was all the orbital analysis, saying: ALL to CO2,
Nothing to the Orbit…… amazing that this “ASSUMING” worked until recently…and nobody cared to stop this CAGW-ASSUMING….
JS
Richard Betts
What are your criteria for “any”?
Following are some examples of the growing evidence:
“Svensmark cosmic solar” gives 1560 hits on google search, with 274 citations to:
Svensmark, H. 1998. Influence of cosmic rays on earth‘s climate. Physical Review Letters 81: 5027–5030.
Clouds – Cosmic rays/Forbush events
The Svensmark presentation above shows > 2 sigma effects on cloud parameters for Forbush events caused by Coronal Mass Ejections. See:
Effects of cosmic ray decreases on cloud microphysics J. Svensmark, M. B. Enghoff, and H. Svensmark
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 12, 3595–3617, 2012
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/12/3595/2012/
doi:10.5194/acpd-12-3595-2012
Physics experiments
Lab experiments are beginning to provide evidence. e.g. see Cern’s CLOUD
Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation, Jasper Kirkby et al. Nature 476,429–433 (25 August 2011) doi:10.1038/nature10343
Svensmark et al. of DTU have a number of earlier lab papers.
Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds H Svensmark, T Bond . . . – Geophys. Res. Lett, 2009 – dsri.dk (cited by 52)
Based on: Influence of Cosmic Radiation on Aerosol and Cloud Formation over Short Time Periods, Torsten Bondo PhD Thesis, December 2009, DTU Space National Space Institute. See his literature review.
Hale Cycle & Runoff
See particularly correlations between the 21 year Hale solar cycle and runoff in the very extensive statistics > 100 year data for the Southern Africa region compiled by WJR Alexander in his opus magnum.
ALEXANDER, WJR, BAILEY F, BREDENKAMP DB, VD MERWE A and WILLEMSE J (2007). Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development. Technical paper. Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineers Vol 49, No2,.p32-44.
Alexander supports FULL transparency (in contrast to much of the secrecy and withheld data from paleo evidence.):
Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays and regional climate time series, Charles A. Perry, (USGS)
Advances in Space Research 40 (2007) 353–364
See publications by Nir Shaviv
For a non-thermal solar role see:
Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Shlomi Ziskin, Nir J. Shaviv, Advances in Space Research Available online 17 October 2011 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2011.10.009
Shaviv N., “On Climate Response to Changes in the Cosmic Ray Flux and Radiative Budget” JGR-Space, vol. 110, A08105, 2005, (PDF).
Shaviv cites:
U. Neff et al.,”Strong coherence between solar variability and the monsoon in Oman between 9 and 6 kyr ago”, Nature 411, 290 (2001).
G. Bond et al., “Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene”, Science, 294, 2130-2136, (2001).
Agriculture, isotope concentrations/solar cycles
Over medieval periods, see the correlation between the price of wheat and solar cycles noted in numerous papers. e.g.,
INFLUENCE OF SOLAR ACTIVITY ON STATE OF WHEAT MARKET IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND, Lev A. Pustilnik, Gregory Yom Din, Solar Physics Volume 223, Numbers 1-2, 335-356, DOI: 10.1007/s11207-004-5356-5
That shows a lot higher statistics that certain paleo temperature graphs previously highlighted.
They find similar statics in the 20th century. Possible influence of heliosphere Dynamics on Prices from medieval England to modern USA 29th International Cosmic Ray Conference Pune (2005) 00, 101-104
There are 2,410 google scholar hits for wheat price cosmic rays
Note regional N/S differences.
Space Weather Influence on the Earth Climate: Possible Manifestations in Wheat Markets Reaction, Pustilnik, Lev; Yom Din, Gregory; Zagnetko, Alexander 38th COSPAR Scientific Assembly. Held 18-15 July 2010, in Bremen, Germany, p.4
Richard
There are correlations between climate and solar cycles or cosmic rays which which infer cloud influence. See the review:
Gray, L. J., et al. (2010), Solar influences on climate, Rev. Geophys., 48, RG4001, doi:10.1029/2009RG000282.
Markonis, Y., D. Koutsoyiannis, and N. Mamassis, Orbital climate theory and Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics, 11th International Meeting on Statistical Climatology, Edinburgh, International Meetings on Statistical Climatology, University of Edinburgh, 2010.
Oscillatory modes of extended Nile River records (A.D. 622–1922) D. Kondrashov, Y. Feliks, and M. Ghil GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2005, DOI:10.1029/,
For further detailed review regarding radiative forcing, See the 2009 and 2011 NIPCC reviews.
2.3 Solar forcings, Ch 2, Forcings and Feedbacks NIPCC 2011 interim report.
Chapter 5 Solar Variability and Climate Cycles, 2009 Report: Climate Change Reconsidered (2 June 2009) NIPCC
See further links in the posts under: Scafetta on climate oscillations and Cyclomania
Richard
For implied correlations via hydrology, see publications by
Demetris Koutsoyiannis
Climate change, the Hurst phenomenon, and hydrological statistics D Koutsoyiannis Hydrological Sciences Journal 48 (1), 3-24 etc. (115 citations)
No I cant.
Whats the probability that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
That is, how does one assign a probablity to the statement that GCR may
influence the climate? I think there may be a way, not sure though.
pondering
Possibilities do not have probabilities. That is, you can ask about the probability that it does, but not the probability that it might. And even the former is a subjective probability, a measure of our uncertainty, not the probability of an event. That the concept of probability even works in this context is questionable.
Richard Betts
For further papers cited regarding cosmic rays and climate see:
Evidence-Based Climate Science by Don Easterbrook ISBN 9780123859563
“Cosmic” is mentioned 58 times on 28 pages. e.g.,
Svensmark & Friis-Christensen 1997
Marsh & Svensmark 2000
Svensmark & Calder 2007
Svensmark et al. 2007
Correlations/causation between cosmic rays (and thus cosmogenic isotopes) with clouds have been hypothesized. Note numerous papers cited correlating cosmogenic radionucleotide isotopes 10Be and 14C with climate. See: “Cosmogenic” is mentioned 23 times on 14 pages. See:
2 Evidence for Synchronous Global Climatic Events: Cosmogenic exposure ages of glaciation p 53
12 Total solar irradiance Satellite Composites and their Phenomenological Effect on Climate. Nicola Scafetta p 289
7. TSI Proxy Secular Reconstructions.
8. Phenomenological solar signature on climate
Section 8.1 Global Temperature Change, Sunspots, Solar Irradiance, 10Be, and 14C Production. p 44
e.g., Lockwood 2010 (Proc. Roy. Soc. A466 p 303-329) projects an 8% chance of another Maunder minimum within the next 50 years based on declining rages of cosmogenic isotopes.
Phillips et al. 1997
Goss & Phillips 2001
Heyman et al. 2011
etc.
Richard Betts
For further reviews/citations for cosmogenic isotopes and climate see:
Ian Plimer, Heaven and Earth, 360 pages, Quartet Books Ltd (May 1, 2009) ISBN-10: 0704371669/ISBN-13: 978-0704371668.
Prof. Plimer provides 2,300 references to peer-reviewed scientific literature. He gives 48 mentions of “cosmic”, 5 for cosmogenic, with citations for 10B and 14C, 59 to clouds etc. See especially
Ch 3: The Sun
Given the recency of the hypothesis (especially since the CERN ‘CLOUD’ report) it’s unlikely much would have made its way through the gatekeeping gauntlet so far. But keep “peering” though that straw; you may find something!
I think many people point will be, such has been the focus on AGW, there has been relatively little work, or ‘excitement’ in other areas. Especially the sun.. oceanic, etc
If no one is investigating, there will be no peer reviewed papers (an oversimplification, to make the point)
I had a bit of a back and forth with Dr. Svalgaard on WUWT recently, and I appreciated his willingness to engage with a non-scientist, and a wise-guy climate skeptic to boot.. He did go so far as to say that if we do get substantial cooling in tandem with the upcoming grand solar minimum (I think if it’s greater than 1 degree c.), he’d be open to changing his mind re solar influence.
I still don’t understand his willingness to dismiss what to my untrained eye seems an obvious correlation of solar minima with colder global temps.
This non-scientist had the same reaction to the same graph and correlation as you did. It must be my lying eyes.
poker guy, I think he will be rethinking, but if it is greater than 0.25 C, 1 C would take a looong time. There is only 1 Wm-2 change at the TOA with only about 0.7Wm-2 making it through, which would only average 0.175Wm-2 impact or 0.1% change at the surface. Only a tenth of a percent, but that tenth would produce 0.4% change in the tropics at noon. Not much, but enough to mess with circulation patterns. I think it can produce .25C change if it the minimum is long enough, just by moving the intertropical convection zones a degree closer the the equator.
Small average changes don’t do much, small unbalanced changes can do a lot. I am looking at the long term impact of milliwatt changes, which given enough time, add up. Non-linear dynamics is pretty interesting.
capt. dallas
You might also consider the correlation between solar cycle length to temperatures in the following solar cycle. See:
Quantifying the Solar Cycle 24 Temperature Decline
Citing: “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24” by Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum.
I try to understand what is happening to the sun. There is no doubt in my mind that the sun’s magnetic effects drive climate on earth. How this happens, I have no idea. I am sure Henrik Svensmark is on the right track, but he is a long way from understanding all the details.
What seems to be generally accepted is that we are approaching a new solar grand magnetic minimum. And I hope to God that it will be called the Eddy minimum. If Livingston and Penn are right, then sunspots will start disappearing around 2020 or 2025. With modern instrumentation we will, hopefully, find out what happened during the Maunder minimum. If history repeats itself, somewhere around 2060, the earth will be in the depths of a cold spell. Luckily I wont be around, and nor will many of those who might read this. Then we might be able to sort out precisely how the sun’s magnetic effects control climate. Until then, we can only hypothesise. One thing I am sure of. No amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to make any differenc to the earth’s climate.
For anyone who might be interested in this subject, may I suggest Stuart Clarke’s book, The Sun Kings.
As a final note, I have tried to follow precisely what is happening to the sun’s magnetic effects during Solar Cycle 24. All I think I understand is what is happening has never been observed before. And I think that that is probably the most interesting aspect of all.
A model [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1968SoPh….3….5G] has blocked the natural evolution of knowledge about the Sun for four (4) decades, Jim, since 1968. For example
1. The Bilderberg (standard solar) model does not explain cycles of deep-seated magnetic fields poking through the photosphere as sunspots, but there is absolutely no doubt that the Sun’s deep-seated magnetic fields drive Earth’s climate [“Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate”, Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002)]: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501441
2. Those deep-seated magnetic fields accelerate H+ upward from the solar core. Those H+ ions are the “carrier gas” that maintains mass fractionation in the Sun and an outer envelope consisting almost entirely of the the two lightest elements (91% H and 9% He) [“The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass”, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, 1847-1856 (2006)]: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509
3. Not surprising, the degree of mass fractionation depends on the magnetic fields reaching the photosphere. A survey of hundreds of stars thought to be ordinary Sun-like stars experiencing a stellar minima analogous to the quiet period our Sun experienced ~300 years ago from 1645 until 1714, ended in 2004 with the surprising conclusion that the stars were not Sun-like at all but “either evolved stars or stars rich in metals like iron and nickel.” [“Was 17th century solar funk a rarity?” UC Berkeley News (1 June 2004)]: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/06/01_maunder.shtml
This illustrates how politics and the Bilderberg model of the Sun [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1968SoPh….3….5G] blocked the evolution of knowledge about the Sun since 1968.
These might also be of some interest. Leif Svalgaard has been following Livingston and Penn fairly closely. Also, he has been investigating the methods used to calculate the sunspot number. That includes a conclusion that we have not experienced a solar grand maximum.
Leif Svalgaard’s Research Page: http://www.leif.org/research/
And: EOS (Earth Observing System?) and Eddy
Svalgaard, Lief. “Index of /EOS/Eddy”, n.d. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Eddy/
skeptical approach. gotta love it
you are sure, but you dont know
The solar person on AR5 is Blanca Mendoza, one of the lead authors of chapter 8, with Joanna Haigh as a contributing author.
The leaked ZOD devotes just two and a half pages to the topic (there’s slightly more in the FOD) with zero citations of Lean,
Svalgaard or Svensmark.
If the FOD is similar (my lips are sealed) there may be critical comments from reviewers.
When the solar page count equals the CO2 page count we will be halfway home. Objective discussion will begin.
One thing which isn’t often discussed is the annual cycle in incoming solar radiation. The typically quoted values of 1360 or 1365 W/m^2 represent the amount received at a hypothetical Earth which is always 1 Astronomical Unit away from the Sun. In reality the Earth’s orbit is slightly elliptical so is receiving different amounts at different times of the year.
The SORCE data suggests that solar energy received at Earth distance varies from about 1400 W/m^2 in the SH summer to about 1310 W/m^2 in the NH summer. The trade off for the SH is that their Summer period is shorter at present orbital and axial configurations.
I think it was Chief Hydrologist who posted a graph showing an ENSO reconstruction over the past 10000 years. The changes in ENSO appeared to correlate quite nicely with the changes that would have happened to this annual cycle over the period. That is, about 10,000 years ago the cycle would have been flipped such that the NH was receiving the maximum solar dose in its summer. I don’t know if there has been much published research on this.
Der Spiegel . . .hmm, did Fritz present in Nagoya, or was that thrown in for some reason??
In any case, Lief’s point is simple, sunspot numbers have to be corrected for method, and if you do so (and he has) recent solar activity does not reach a maximum between 1950 and 2000, but has been rather constant since 1700. This throws a spanner into the little ice age and it must be the sun arguments.
Eli,
No, it possibly throws a spanner into the sunspot-as-indicator of solar activity theory.
And there is the additional factor that possibly Lief, as good as he is, could be mistaken.
and Eli thinks we have good data on sunspot activity since 1700 huh?
sunspots have been counted since the invention of the telescope
In any case, Lief’s point is simple, sunspot numbers have to be corrected for method, and if you do so (and he has) recent solar activity does not reach a maximum between 1950 and 2000, but has been rather constant since 1700. This throws a spanner into the little ice age and it must be the sun arguments.
ER’s argument would then allow one to conjecture that climate is indeed random ,as there is no reason (volcanics are limiting) for the velocity inversion of the LIA ,
LS argument that TSI is constrained by the the solar radius is a legitimate argument,so TSI is similar to what was operating in the LIA.
Arguments on the SSI however are uncertain both in the instrumental age and in reconstructions (evidence suggests that the SSI is not invariant eg SIM) so large errors would be expected.
Proxy evidence in 14c suggest that CR attenuation was still operative in the maunder ie B was working,but that 14c was larger.
The argument LS 2007 that their was a floor in B was incorrect updated 2010,this may be still high but a floor would still be required if the solar wind blew of around 3.3nt eg Ahluwalia 2011.
For the present day some problematic issues now arise eg Van allen
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL022629.shtml
in the comments
We wish to revive an earlier conjecture [Van Allen
and Webber, 2002] that unmodulated interstellar GCR may
have at least partial access to the outer heliosphere along
lines of force that interconnect the interplanetary magnetic
field with the magnetic field in the nearby interstellar
medium. Frisch [2003] adopts B = 5 microgauss as the
magnetic field strength in the nearby interstellar medium, a
value that is about an order of magnitude greater than that
measured by V1 at 75 AU – a remarkable fact, if true, and
one that may contribute some plausibility to our intercon-
nection conjecture.
Observations suggest that either the Heliosphere has shrunk,or the Voyagers have been captured by some alien tractor beam increasing their speed by 300%.
Interesting problem if GCR is a mechanism,
A while back, someone wrote a paper relating cloudiness to sunspot number, concluding no correlation. I did not capture it; shame on me :-( . Anyhow, I do not recall mention of Lief’s corrections, nor any recognition that the heliopause is some 90 AU distant. If it takes 4 days for the solar wind to reach earth (a CME is faster), that would lag the most distant effect of any change to GCR up to a year. Closer in, a quicker and stronger effect.
So, it would appear to this bear of little brain that comparing rapidly varying cloud cover to the lagging effect of variable solar activity would be quite a challenge. Add a spiral pattern to the sun’s effects after the first exercise.
Here a couple of interesting Solar Wind model displays of solar wind relative to earth’s orbit.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/wsa-enlil/ambient/
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/wsa-enlil/cme-based/
Lief’s point is actually simpler and more basic, that the folk who provide the counts have changed methodologies (aka multipliers) over time in ways which have not been taken into account when TSI series based on sunspots were constructed. See his links for details
There are 25 odd year Pacific regimes. This is beyond doubt as they show up in hydrology, fisheries and ocean surface temperature. The proximate cause is more or less upwelling of cold bottom water in the eastern Pacific. In the region of the Humboldt Current in the South Pacific and in the region of the PDO in the north. The upwelling is influenced by the depth of overlying warm water – which in turn is a function of cold currents from the polar regions pushing along the coast. – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=pacificcurrents.jpg –
It can be seen here – http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2012/anomnight.2.9.2012.gif –
What’s this got to do with the Sun? The strength of the currents pushing into lower latitudes is related to the sea level pressure which appears to be connected to UV and ozone interactions above the polar vortices. Hence the cold NH winters that Mike Lockwood and colleagues have relatively recently written about.
Would a correlation of the 11,000 year ENSO proxy with an 11,000 year sunspot proxy mean anything? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspots_11000_years.svg
Oh – while Sol may be interesting enough the data limitations don’t allow much of any significance to be deduced. In may be more useful to consider trends in anomalies and bring in ocean and atmosphere data to close the energy budget.
I think I will just mosey along now on my little blue pony – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=blue_horse.jpg – be sein’ y’all
I have a horse that is sort of that color in the right light (speaking of the sun). His name is Blue and he is a very nice Tennessee walking horse, fun to ride.
To stay on topic – speaking of the sun – good morning David. Your Tennessee walking horse sounds like a very fine horse.
Dr. Curry,
I would like to ask you to re-link to the Solar Cycle 24 discussion forum, where Dr. Leif Svalgaard regularly posts:
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?
And the informational website that sponsors this forum:
http://solarham.com/
I was surprised at how much higher the uncertainty was than the claimed imbalance on which IPCC claims 90% confidence.
i.e. the discrepancy is 350% of the CO2 forcing.
Judith Lean further observes that the modeled unrealized global warming is 0.85 Wm-2 (Hansen et al.) – or less??*
The uncertainties and calibration between satellites are also remarkably high. This can give little or major TSI trends over the satellite period. For further discussion see:
N. Scafetta, “Total Solar Irradiance Satellite Composites and their Phenomenological Effect on Climate,” chapter 12, pag 289-316. (In “Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming” edited by Don Easterbrook, Elsevier) (2011). PDF
Reducing uncertainty.
The UK National Physical Lab has developed a system to give a tenfold reduction in uncertainty. That would give a three fold reduction in the time required to distinguish between models. See:
Orbiting standards lab could improve climate predictions etc.
Improving satellite uncertainty would appear to be a far more critical investment than running more model projections with such large uncertainties, especially in light of Hansen’s prognostications.
I must admit that I find the correlation between lake levels and the solar cycle baffling. I have no idea what process can be the link, but I suspect that the levels of various bodies of water have little effect on thermonuclear reactions within Sol, so my guess is that solar output changes must cause a change in rainfall patterns.
DocMartyn
Correlations have been found between the 22 year Hale cycle and runoff in Southern Africa. Alexander et al. argue causation by planetary impacts on solar cycles and thence to rainfall – which is not present in evaporation data. see:
ALEXANDER, WJR, BAILEY F, BREDENKAMP DB, VD MERWE A and WILLEMSE J (2007). Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development. Technical paper. Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineers Vol 49, No2,.p32-44.
Similar arguments are presented by Perry:
Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays and regional climate time series, Charles A. Perry, USGS
There appear to be a number of processes that have 11, 22 or 33 episodity; all solar or harmonics of solar cycles.
One would think the cause and effect would be easy to spot; but so far not really the case.
Doc, the problem is that both the Earth and the Sun have independent harmonics. It is like tuning a guitar with another. If they are it a little out of tune and it doesn’t. So you only “see” some peaks in the noise.
Then those peaks are not sustainable. Since the frequencies of both the Sun and Earth are close, but not close enough, they will never synchronize for any significant period of time relative to the frequency of of the common oscillation. Velman has some pretty interesting stuff on non-ergodic systems.
The Sun’s output is heat source for the Earth…..but how much of it
reaches the Earth depend on the Earth’s orbit…..
The IPCC+ AGW keep the orbit CONSTANT or “INVARIANT”….on a
millenium scale…..this is the “INVARIANCE LIE ” of Mr. Forster in AR4-wg1-chapter 2…….see yourself…….the lie is repeated in chapter 9, Mrs. Hegerl, based on Goosse et al 2005 (only taking eccentricity of Berger (1978- out of-date- into account)….
……. but the real trajectory of the Earth’s orbit has more to it than simplistic eccentricity : Plenty of oscillations, osculations, Librations, which
was just recognized in a IPCC TSU reply to me, end of 2011…..
The AGW/IPCC reject further Orbital studies to be made because they know there
is an enormous amount of RF radiative forcing “in the pipeline”, [which
Warmist Hansen tries to hide on the bottom of oceans… nonsense]
….but it is the orbit, which decreases received net energy on Earth….
… and the present temp plateau since 2001 is the observed result……see my unrefutable, detailed and transparent booklet…..
JS
IJ. Seifert | February 9, 2012 at 3:54 pm | Reply NVARIANCE LIE ” of Mr. Forster
Seifert, everybody lies here, including you. If the sunspots were controlling the climate; would have being same climate in Sahara and Brazil / Vietnam and Namibia; but is not! SAME SUNSPOTS AFFECT BRAZIL AND SAHARA!!! Because H2O controls / regulates the climate; not sunspots, or the ”believers” in sunspots. Therefore, trees have more intelligence / knowledge than the big city commenters, ask the trees about the climate. P.s. don’t tell the trees that sunspots control the climate, if you have too, tell it to a dead log or to a fake Skeptic. Because of the stupidity of fake Skeptics, the Warmist still continue with their propaganda. Nothing personal, just a fact
The IPCC-AR4 lie of the Invariance of the Earth’s orbit (i.e. the orbit
is constant in its shape+effect) is the big lie…..
…… I am concerned about the Orbit lie ….. the orbit is the orbit, and
sunspots are something completely different…..the sunspots do not
influence the orbit and I never pointed to the sunspots as having
any or some little effect……
JS
Slightly O/T; but people might enjoy the collection of (mostly) solar-related papers that are gathered here:
http://www.chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html
Chas
Links to some other solar studies that are interesting (some may be on your list, as well):
Stockwell (2011)
http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0020v1.pdf
Shapiro et al. (2011)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.4763v1.pdf
Scafetta (2010)
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
Stott et al. (2003)
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf
Geerts and Linacre (1997)
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html
Lean et al. (1995)
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/lean1995.pdf
Scafetta + West (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/334163/Phenomenological-solar-contribution-to-the-19002000-global-surface-warming
Solanki et al. (2004)
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html
Max
J. Lean slide cynically says “It’s the sun stupid”, I ironically say it should be:
“It’s the MAGNETIC sun stupid”
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Spc.htm
as far as the global temperatures are concerned.
Graph shows very little response to the sunspot 11 year cycle, however at the 22 year the response suddenly shoots up.
Why is that?
Sun changes its magnetic polarity with the Hale cycle (22 years), so for 11 years the sun and the Earth have same magnetic polarity, and for following 11 the opposite, creating the sun-Earth magnetic link (reflected in the global temperature) as a 22 year cycle.
This topic and the comments are most interesting and indicative of way too much focus being placed on anthropic CO2 and way too much neglect of solar and other influences in climate research over the past 20 years.
This is really true…..
especially studying the Earth’s orbit, which the IPCC is seeking to
suppress ……. by collution of AGW-activists……by declaring
there were no orbital forcing on a centennial scale….. pointing to only 2-D Keplerian parameters and keeping silent of other orbital processes, suppressing Libration, osculation, perturbation and “J_2-motions” of
the orbit trajectory…..
JS
Peter,
The CO2 obsession of AGW believers has cost us in direct costs and opportunity costs.
Judith Curry
Thanks for posting some good stuff.
The Lean presentation is very interesting. It’s always interesting to see what solar scientists are thinking, and she appears to be one of the best.
It goes into significant detail on how solar activity is measured, how it has correlated in the past with global surface temperature, plus impacts on the troposphere as well as the stratosphere.
One slide near the beginning caught my eye, which showed the (K+T) energy budget cartoon and stated:
This tells me that Hansen’s model-estimated “unrealized” past warming (i.e. the warming that is “hidden in the pipeline”) – a number that was derived by the a bit of “circular logic” – is only one-eighth of the estimated “uncertainty” in the budget!
Then there is the slide: “How – and Why – will Climate Change in the next few decades?”
This slide shows a sine curve that very much resembles the curve posted by Girma.
To the question: Did China’s coal burning REALLY offset global warming in the past decade? the conclusion is NO
Lean concludes that there will NOT be another period of major cooling, such as occurred during the Maunder Minimum (LIA) – and that ”an actual Maunder minimum may take more than 100 years – not 10 years – to eventuate”
The last slide compares the Wolf number (sunspots) with surface temperature, showing a good apparent correlation.
It also has the statement:
[This is much different than the IPCC or Hansen estimate of 7% attributed to solar forcing, but checks with several solar studies, which conclude on average that around 50% of the past warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (highest in several thousand years).]
Max
‘Average solar activity has declined rapidly since 1985 and cosmogenic isotopes suggest an 8% chance of a return to Maunder minimum conditions within the next 50 years (Lockwood 2010 Proc. R. Soc. A 466 303–29).’
One of those things Max – was thre a Grand Solar Max last century – and are we in rapid decline?
Instead of funding filing cabinets full of junk science all the government had to do was subscribe to the Old Farmer’s Almanac–they predicted global cooling years ago before the UN-lovers of the AGW consensus were caught red handed stacking the deck.
I am forced to point out that
//”There is a 6 W m-2 discrepancy in the baseline measurements across different satellite systems, plus significant differences in trends since 1980. . . .For reference, the 20th century CO2 forcing is 1.7 W m-2.”//
is misleading in its present form, since it implies that these two numbers are remotely comparable. They are not, as I’m sure Judith knows very well, and so it is not a “reference” whatsoever. It appears to have confused at least some people.
A revision of the absolute scale for TSI has the same percent impact on radiative forcing as it does TSI, which for the SORCE results is about 0.3%, and is thus negligible in terms of impact on RF.
SUN, NOT GUILTY!!! They will blame everybody and everything but themselves. When the sun is less active > troposphere shrinks > releases less heat for 3-4 minutes and equalizes. Unless my formulas / the ”SELF ADJUSTING MECHANISM” is considered – is same misleading in different packaging.
2] Stratospheric temp has nothing to do with the warmth on the planet. Gases in the stratosphere, aerosol, helium, ozone; just spin there,.and never bring any coldness to the ground. Oxygen + nitrogen are regulating to be same temp overall in the troposphere at any time. Stratosphere cannot ”overheat” the velocity the planet travels; it’s a joke to take stratosphere in consideration, but not ”the change in speed of the vertical winds” ”EH>AE>ECI” (Extra Heat > Atmosphere Expands > Extra Coldness Intercepts) ”EC>AS>LHR” (Extra Coldness > Atmosphere Shrinks > Less Heat Releases)
When the ground warms up, for ANY REASON, vertical winds speed up > take extra heat to dispose on the edge of the lower stratosphere – all fixed in minutes. When troposphere gets EXTRA cooled, AS IN SOLAR ECLIPSE, vertical winds slow for few minutes and equalize. The moon reflects lots of sunlight never to reach to the ground, but ZERO COOLING overall, even for a day. That will prove that ”that back-door exit” has being closed!!! The reports from those 3 Swindlers use the usual tricks: the sun / in 100 years (not before they retire and squander the money). TROPOSPHERE CAN DOUBLE IN SIZE AND COOL DOUBLE AMOUNT OF HEAT. Extra heat in the troposphere is NOT cumulative!!! The phony GLOBAL warming is not happening – now, blame the sun. If anybody believes that the sun can get cooler / warmer in days / years; cannot comprehend the size of it.
Solar, galactic, CO2 influences are only the ”kicking and screaming” on the way to the ”confession box” The truth will win!!! Planet wasn’t warming, planet is not cooling!!! If is cooler in Europe now; there is a reason for it. I was explaining that reason for over a year. That reason can be minimised; only when is taken the truth in consideration, not more misleading, instead.
It’s all on my website, proven beyond any reasonable doubt: demolishing the ice on the Arctic waters > exposed water absorbs extra coldness > with double strength as lipless intercepts the moisture south = more coldness + more snow south – no moisture left for renewal the Arctic’s ice. That ice seats on salty seawater with strong currents, MUST HAVE EXTRA MOISTURE, FOR REPLENISHING THE DEFICIT!!! Otherwise, midi ice age for the N/H is inevitable, thanks to the Conspirators. The sooner the truth is faced, less damages will be done.
I have adopted a new mode for communicating challenging ideas. Here is the SAM the Southern Annular Mode doggy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-S-YmE-Lkc
It is thought that solar UV and ozone are implicated in SAM being on the leash or off. So this is another solar factor that is resulting in cold NH winters for instance. Cold and clouds and snow and rain pushing into lower latitudes.
Just while I’m here – forcing is a power flux. It has units of Watts or more typically W/m2. 1 Watt for one second is one Joule – so it is all about energy.
Energy at the top of the atmosphere is equal – energy in equals energy out – unless the planet is warming or cooling – so according to the 1st law of thermodynamics:
Energy in – Energy out = dS/dt – where dS/dt = the change in energy warming or cooling the planet.
Th trouble with that is that it isn’t terribly usefull because the absolute values of energy in and energy out are not known with any precision. Before SORCE, CERES and ARGO barely anything is known with much certainty – and the records of the latter are too short to say much. What we can say in the case of the satellites is that the measurement of change is much more accurate than the measurement of absolutes.
So it is thought that the world has warmed in the ARGO ocean record to 2008 or 2009. The TSI dropped a little in the 11 year cycle. The net trend in anomalies in CERES (energy out) were positive – outweighing the drop in TSI. So we can say that the world warmed as a result of less energy leaving the planet – exactly as the theory would predict.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=CERES-BAMS-2008-with-trend-lines1.gif
I’ll just mosey along now on my beautiful blue pony called Provocateur. – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=blue_horse.jpg –
Chief,
Great video and great explanation. Thanks.
Sorry-hit post too soon.
Your blue pony is not only provacative, but is also clearly a very smart horse.
Chief Hydrologist | February 10, 2012 at 1:18 am | wrote: “[…] the measurement of change is much more accurate than the measurement of absolutes.”
Tip: Earth does not have an internal ~11 year cycle, so if you’re looking for solar-terrestrial markers, look at dominant terrestrial modes. People get so focused on first moments (i.e. mean) that they seem largely or more commonly wholly ignorant of higher ones (e.g. variance). The “uniform 0.1K” solar-terrestrial-climate narrative pushed by alarmist solar scientists is pure fiction. For example, in this falsely abstract conception, time of year is assumed irrelevant, but geophysical data indicate that this is absolutely not true. It is argued that the assumptions are “physical”; the assumptions may be “physical” in someone’s abstract conception of reality, but they most certainly are not physical in reality since they are flatly contradicted (analogous to 1+1=3) by simple observations. Solar science distortion artists easily get the wool over naive public eyes only because functional numeracy is currently so low in our society & civilization. A more generous or collegial assessment would be that alarmist solar scientists themselves lack the functional numeracy to explore data sufficiently carefully and apply appropriate diagnostics to (easily) rule out (on the basis of absolute logic) their patently false abstract conception. Whether it’s severe deception or severe naivety is inconsequential in the immense shadow of the severe ugliness either way: 1+1=3 “logic” is equally intolerable whether it arises via naivety or deception. The dictatorial campaign being waged by solar-terrestrial-climate “authorities” is downright creepy, earning its proponents a maximal score on the distrust scale. The “uniform 0.1K” solar-terrestrial narrative is mercilessly razed (not as in rising but as in razor) by observational data. There will never be anything anyone can do or say that will make the “uniform 0.1K” solar-terrestrial-climate narrative admissible under the data.
Paul – the quality of data is not strained to paraphase. While EOP seem neglected in theoretical models – the simple attributions such as Judith Lean’s seem primitive – etc. The change in radiant flux at TOA measured from space gives data with which to work.
Look at the timing Chief. The data adjusters &/or vandals can flatten out solar records all they want, but then they’ll eventually learn (if they have sufficient functional numeracy) that they’ll also have to doctor the timing. Mother Earth isn’t always equally receptive to father sun; she has her own dominating spatiotemporal cycles. More details on this simple educational analogy several months from now…
I am interested in real world data and what it means – SAM, ENSO, PDO, NAO, AO, IOD, PNA, ocean temperature, currents, biology, hydrology – as well as energy trends. The world of natural philosophy. Anything but simple climate physics – some radiative theory, the 1st and 2nd laws, theories of complex dynamical systems – is lost on me.
I find that theory that strays too far from data puts a strain on my mind. Thus relativity was built on the invariance of the speed of light. Quantum mechanics is built on the double slit experiment and Planck’s measurements of energy emissions.
If there is no data – but just a stream of consciousness then I have to be sceptical. Even if there is data – if it is such a tenuous link to data that it seems like castles built on fairy floss I hold grave fears of inevitable collapse. Worse still is the neo-Procrustean fitting all and any data to a theory.
Oh – yes – and returning obsessively to the same obscure point. At some point we need to reinvent ourselves – step back from a narrow focus and look at things from a different perspective.
Chief, plain & simple:
The “uniform 0.1K” alarmist solar-terrestrial-climate narrative is NOT admissible under the data. (Clarification: That’s REAL OBSERVATIONAL data, so it’s not at all clear what you’re saying &/or suggesting…)
ftp://ftp.iers.org/products/eop/long-term/c04_08/iau2000/eopc04_08_IAU2000.62-now
ftp://ftp.iers.org/products/geofluids/atmosphere/aam/GGFC2010/AER/
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/INTERNATIONAL/daily/RIDAILY.PLT
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/RELATED_INDICES/AA_INDEX/aaindex
SAM is an unreliable climate dog. Hah! Love it. :-)
Is it warming or is it cooling?
I came across one of the guys who seems to think “heat” dams up in the atmosphere. If it were to, then the “valley” at the tropopause should show some sign of warming.
Take a look at what’s really going on up there around the tropopause above which the temperature then starts to rise with increasing altitude in the stratosphere, so there’s a nice little “valley” for all your extra “heat”.
Check out what NASA satellites found up there at say 56,000 feet. Then compare 2003 with 2011 – both almost precisely the same around the -63 deg.C value. Here’s the link: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
Check all the records available (for every year since 2002) and see how little variation there has been. Then tell me what would happen on Earth if it warmed up to, let’s say, -60 deg.C.
Doug,
I don’t think you understand the nature of the tropopause. It doesn’t necessarily get warmer as the energy within the air below it increases; it raises in altitude. You know, convection; that’s kind of the definition of where the tropopause is located, where convection ends. And, lo and behold, the tropopause has been rising.
https://www.llnl.gov/str/March04/Santer.html
So, Doug, if there is no extra energy in the system, what is raising the ocean temperature, shifting climate zones and Hadley cells poleward, and causing ice mass loss, etc?
I looked at your web site and some of your comments here and there. You are one of those guys who believe that a photon (in wave form if you prefer), at some wavelength x, has some sort of conscience, or magic, that prevents it from from being absorbed by a body if that body happens to be emitting more photons at a shorter wavelength than the body it was emitted from.
It’s magic because that exact same photon could have come from a hotter or a colder body, and somehow that photon has knowledge of, and remembers, the mean wavelength of all the other photons being emitted by the body that emitted it (and perhaps some intuition about Plank’s Law), and after having traveled across nanometers or light years, it then decides whether to be absorbed or not, based on it also knowing the mean wavelength of all the photons being emitted by the mass that intercepts it. That is an awful lot of awareness for a single photon.
Or, maybe you think the mass that intercepts it has an awareness across, potentially, light years of the mean wavelength of all the photons coming out of the other mass. Or, maybe when the photon meets the mass they have a conversation,
“Hi, the body that I came from had a photon emission distribution that looked like this.”
“Sorry, I like you well enough, but my emission distribution has a peak at a shorter wavelength. I’m just not attracted to you in that way. If you had come from a shorter wavelength neighborhood, things would be different.”
Your knowledge of physics is only exceeded by, IDK, the average engineering or science freshman. You are what I call a symbol manipulator, you can push math symbols around, but you are like computers that do the same thing; you have no real understanding of what they mean. But, based on what I read, you will never allow yourself to admit this. It is far easier to believe you and Claes are some sort of super-geniuses, and the rest of us are just not smart enough to understand you.
BTW, I would guess that your posts are deleted at some sites not because the owner can not answer your question, but because they already have, probably more than once, and they are attempting to keep the signal to noise ratio at acceptable levels.
Here is a gem where you claim that O2 and N2 emit more photons as they approach absolute zero, somewhere near the top of the atmosphere.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=106&&n=865#5989
So, since then, have you learned that the tropopause is the coldest part of the atmosphere, and that near TOA, the atoms/molecules actually are quite energetic? Because here, you say that the tropopause is the temperature “valley”, but there, you say that it is near absolute zero near the TOA. I’m curious; what is downhill from absolute zero?
I had also assumed that you were aware that convection stops at the tropopause, but I’m wondering if that is correct, because there you seem to think convection occurs clear to TOA.
Hmm, it occurs to me that I’m probably one of the last to realize that Doug Cotton isn’t worth responding to. Oh well.
I have to admit – that’s not an answer I was expecting. Let’s stipulate that there wasn’t much change in atmospheric temp.
More in the oceans – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=vonSchuckmann-OHC.gif
In light of some of the above posts and especially the increasing realisation that some aspect of solar behaviour has an impact on the polar vortices this seems apt:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645
“How The Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”
Is it just the polar vortices?
It’s NOT the CO2 (stupid). To be clear, the major driver of climate is not CO2 and that’s why we are here (topically).
The role of the Sun is fundamental in controlling climate change, but not necessarily the Sunspot activity. There are orbital considerations which affect the distance and thus intensity of radiation. To explain this more I am pasting below a detailed post I wrote elsewhere which demonstrates this role of the solar intensity.
You are obviously unaware of the results of mathematical calculations by Claes Johnson (well-publish Professor of Applied Mathematics) in his Computational Blackbody Radiation” which is linked and summarised on the ‘Radiation’ page of my site http://climate-change-theory.com .
There is no physical process whereby atmospheric impedance to heat dissipation can cause thermal energy to be transferred back to the surface, (or even the air we stand in) other than, to a negligible extent, contained in precipitation. As Johnson and I have stated many times, radiation cannot transfer thermal energy from a cooler source to a significantly warmer surface or atmospheric layer.
I am not ruling out any accumulation of thermal energy in the atmosphere, but I am saying that such will not affect climate. If there had been any such accumulation, then it would surely show up in the tropopause – the temperature “valley” where temperatures stop declining and start to rise with increasing altitude. Check NASA satellite data at 56,000 feet for every year since 2002 on their site http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ and you will see that it has been consistently around -63 deg.C every year with less than a degree of variation and certainly no rising trend.
The atmosphere does more in the way of cooling the Earth’s surface (by insulating it from solar radiation) and even the carbon dioxide actually also insulates and thus cools the surface. You have only to consider that the Moon’s surface can go about 100 deg.C to realise this. (I know it also goes below -150 deg.C but that is partly to do with not having core heat like the Earth and also the long 13 day cooling off period in the Moon’s night.) http://www.universetoday.com/19623/temperature-of-the-moon/
The earth’s adiabatic lapse rate is primarily determined by the mass of air in the atmosphere and the relative humidity, both of which mankind has no control over. This rate sets a temperature trend line in the atmosphere. That trend is actually an extension of the trend from the core to the surface. If the atmospheric trend were to rise to a new equilibrium at the surface end for some reason, probably greater solar radiance due to orbital variations, or variations in cloud cover, then the whole temperature plot from the core would also have to rise at the surface end because thermal equilibrium will be maintained at the surface/atmosphere interface. It would take a huge amount of energy to fill the gap under the new sub-surface plot, wouldn’t it. So, for a start, we would be seeing net flow into the surface rather than out of it as is currently observed. I am not saying it could not happen, and it obviously does in long natural cyclic patterns, but I am saying it takes a long time.
So, I repeat that there is no mechanism whereby any warming of the atmosphere will then warm the surface. All surplus energy above the well-embedded temperature trend line will be simply radiated away. Only when the surface itself is warmed, by stronger solar insolation or even by variations in thermal energy generated under the surface, and only when a new equilibrium is established in the core to surface plot will be see a new equilibrium at a higher surface temperature. Processes like this appear to happen naturally in long term natural cycles beyond the control of man.
All the above has been expanded upon in my book Greenhouse Land soon to be published.
We have seen here at WUWT that there has been a reduction in relative humidity this century which should indicate that there is no radiative feedback from water vapour having any positive effect. That in itself demonstrates what Prof Johnson is saying that any radiation from a cooler atmosphere cannot transfer thermal energy to the warmer surface or to any (significantly) warmer atmospheric layer. This does more than just negate any amplification of any carbon dioxide forcing: it also negates the possibility of any GHG forcing whatsoever, which is in accord with what Johnson has proved. If WV does not warm with “backradiation” neither will any GHG.
I have written in other posts explaining how thermal energy merely appears to transfer only from warm to cool. It does not actually itself travel at the speed of light. Only radiated energy does so. Radiated energy only gets converted back to thermal energy when it meets a target which responds appropriately and converts the radiated energy to thermal energy. For this to happen the peak frequency of that radiation has to be above the cut-off frequency for the target itself, as Johnson explains. If it is below cut-off, the radiation (if not already reflected) will be transmitted or scattered and no energy left behind in the target. The very fact that thermal energy only ever appears to go from warm to cold is fully explained by Johnson’s result and no other process. If it could go from cool to warm there would be no end to the process and infinite spontaneous adiabatic warming would be a theoretical possibility by just surrounding a small object with numerous cooler radiating bodies.
If and only if there is conversion to thermal energy will there be any effect on the rate of warming or cooling of the target. So climate cannot be affected by radiation from the atmosphere.
Now, finally, there is considerable doubt that the capture of photons by carbon dioxide will necessarily lead to sharing of that energy among O2 and N2 molecules. These have different quantum energy steps for a start. Collisions may appear to transfer KE, but they in themselves can generate low amounts of radiation due to acceleration of electrons. What happens appears to depend very much on temperature also. If there is warming then there will be a greater propensity to radiate anyway. So, either radiation happens before any warming, or any warming causes more radiation. All radiation from the atmosphere eventually gets to space because the surface and warmer molecules lower down will not accept it.
“”All radiation from the atmosphere eventually gets to space because the surface and warmer molecules lower down will not accept it.””
Is there not a equal and opposite force on the molecules lower down that will reject radiation away from the electromagnetism used in their original construction?
Markus,
Did you say you come from Miriam Vale? With all due respect and in the best Australian sense – you are a crazy old coot who shoudn’t be allowed out in polite society.
You are conflating Newton and Maxwell – neither or whom have ever done anything to you. I was sure that you were pulling our legs but after the less than lucid opinions of Doug I am not so sure.
As is said quite frequently down at the Great Western – self education is a marvellous thing if the teacher is not an idiot.
Robert I Ellison
Chief Hydrologist
It’s not about “force” – it’s about what Prof Claes Johnson explained, namely that warmer molecules will not convert radiated energy to thermal energy if the radiation came from a cooler source. I’m sure you’ll find I said that above.
Johnson’s stuff is pseudoscientific drivel and has no basis in any physics. At least get to the level of some of the skeptics people bother talking about, like Lindzen.
Johnson has in fact answered questions that baffled Einstein and which were incorrectly answered by Planck. Of course you will not find this in previously published physics. What you find are references to mass-less particles (?) and Planck’s wrong assumption that opposing radiation dampens other radiation. If that happened, car headlights would dampen each other and all our TV and radio broadcasts would get mixed up and dampened.
Johnson’s explanation of the observed fact that radiated thermal energy only ever appears to be transferred from warmer sources to cooler targets is, as I said above, the only feasible explanation.
I can understand why people who are indoctrinated with what Planck claimed are reluctant to change their views, but Johnson is correct as you will learn sooner or later. The Earth itself confirms such, and no one has ever been able to show empirically that radiation from the atmosphere slows the rate of cooling or increases the rate of warming of the Earth’s surface. Johnson’s result explain precisely why this is so.
Johnson proved mathematically why the Second Law of Thermodynamics also applies for heat transfer via radiation.
You and others should read what this peer-reviewed published paper says, as linked in my post here …
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-167872
Lindzen and Spencer have yet to come to grips with the fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics also applies to radiation, meaning there can be no radiative forcing by any GH effect. Hence, at night for example, the cooling of the surface cannot be slowed by any radiation from the cooler atmosphere. (In fact Prof Nahle’s experiment in Sept 11 proved the lower atmosphere cools faster than the surface at night, as I also found in my backyard.)
In order to slow the rate of cooling of the surface the radiation would have to add thermal energy, just as it would if it were to increase the rate of warming in the morning.
It cannot do this without heat transfer from cold to hot, which is against the Second Law. Johnson merely showed how and why the Second Law applies to radiation. I don’t ask you to accept any more than that simple statement which is also made by these German physicists in a peer-reviewed published paper over 100 pages in length which knocks the AGW conjecture for six.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
“Unfortunately, there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse effect is introduced in harmony with the scientific standards of theoretical physics.”
Lindzen and Spencer have still not come to grips with how Johnson has solved the puzzles that Planck and Einstein struggled with. When they do they will realise that there is no forcing at all by water vapour or trace gases.
Planck was not correct in assuming that opposing radiation dampened other radiation. If it did, car headlights would dampen each other and all our TV and radio broadcasts would get mixed up and dampened.
Johnson showed why there is no need to attach a mass-less “particle” nature to photons. His brilliant mathematical proof is at the forefront of physics, extending the work of Einstein and Planck and resolving an issue which troubled Einstein all his life.
Radiated energy from a cooler source (such as the atmosphere) cannot be converted to thermal energy when it strikes a (significantly) warmer target such as the Earth’s surface or molecules in a warmer layer of the atmosphere.
“”Chief Hydrologist says:
you are a crazy old coot who shouldn’t be allowed out in polite society.””
I give you more credit than first thought.
In reference to the Trenberth 0.85 Wm-2 I worked up a simple model comparing an ideal black body to what I call an Ideal Gray body.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/02/comparing-perfection.html
It of course needs some work, but it shows how you can come up with the energy imbalance of 0.9Wm-2 with a temperature measurement error of 0.2 degrees K.
For non-linear fans, I added large changes in temperature to show how radically the tropopause can adjust to temperature imbalances.
For Dr. Pratt, it may also provide some information on the Thermal conductivity impact on climate. Small change can do big things :)
You had better read http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
There you will learn a lot more about the use of SBL and the problems with its use in atmospheric physics.
It will probably discourage you, but you (and the IPCCetc) need to face reality one of these days.
See also my site http://climate-change-theory.com
Hi Doug, you seem to be determined to spam the entire internet with your pseudo-scientific hypothesis but that is not the way to get the Nobel Prize that Professor Claes Johnson and you seem to be hankering after. As I said on 8th Feb. on Professor Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread “ .. here’s a suggestion for you. Do some proper research, write your paper then submit it to a respected physics journal for peer review and publication .. Alternatively, you could offer co-author a paper with Claes and help him get that Nobel Prize that he seems to hanker after – if Al Gore and the IPCC can do it why not Claes and you .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-166932).
If your hypothesis is accepted by an appropriate number of recognised top physicists (but please don’t hold your breath) then you and Claes could be in for not only one but two Nobel Prizes (http://www.nobelprize.org/). I suppose that they will then have to posthumously remove Plank’s 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics and transfer it and the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize from Al Gore and the IPCC (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/) to Claes and you.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Hi again Doug, after looking at some more of your pontificating elsewhere on the Internet I have to wonder – is John O’Sullivan (who promotes his “Slayer” pseudo-science through his inconsequential association with the pretentious name Principia Scientific International) paying you to push this nonsense? You seem extremely keen to link to “slayer” blogs (http://climate-change-theory.com/). I’m going to speculate that it is only recently that John has recruited you into his band of “Slayers”. If you had been involved with him in October he would have included you in his list of associates. He really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel then after accusing me of lying by suggesting that his “Slayers” team was dwindling.
I had to laugh at your comment “ .. New physics (of Einstein-like significance) proves there is no mechanism by which imaginary “photons” from a cold atmosphere can warm the Earth.. ” (http://co2insanity.com/2011/12/21/bp-dumps-solar/) – watch out Plank, Gore and the IPCC, Doug has his eye on those Nobel prizes!!??!!
BTW, does anyone know who runs the “Slayer” supporting Co2 Insanity blog as there is no indication on the “about” page? Some people just don’t have the courage of their convictions.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Chris G (ref. your comment http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/09/aq/#comment-172659), I have to agree with your “ .. Doug, I don’t think you understand .. ” but that does not only apply to “ .. the nature of the tropopause .. ” or just to Doug. The processes that control the different global climates are so complex that they border on the chaotic, so even the “experts” have enormous gaps in their understanding and the honest ones are not afraid to admit it.
Hi again Doug, I’ve just been reading more of your pseudo-science, this time at the Science of Doom blog (another of those blogs where the owner seems reluctant to disclose his/her identity – anyone know who the owner is?). I couldn’t help laughing at your audacity in saying “ ,, Electromagnetic radiation does not exhibit a particle like nature. Planck’s suggestion of this (made in desperation) was wrong! The IPCC models depend upon an incorrect assumption that these fictitious “photons” from a cold atmosphere can warm the surface…[Moderator’s note – rest of “essay” deleted] ..It is pseudo-science. .. ” (http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/back-radiation/#comment-14588). I’m not surprised that the moderator of that blog lost patience with you so often (http://climate-change-theory.com/Science_of_Doom.html).
Having checked up on your background it appears to me that you are no more a scientist than I am (see my comment on Professor Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-172459).
In “The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Three” (http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/31/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-three/#comment-13483) you repeatedly asked about how oxygen and nitrogen molecules cool, suggesting that it is “ .. Not by radiation but by diffusion (due to molecular collision) to cooler molecules, some of which are GH gas molecules. GH gas molecules can emit far more radiation than O2 and N2 molecules. So there is a good argument that more GH gas could lead to more cooling than would occur if there were less GH gas .. ”. Just like the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) supporters do when promoting their propaganda, you take a little accepted and proven science and contaminate it with your own pseudo-scientific hypotheses. I can understand why IPCC and its supporters do so because they appear to be “in it for the gold” (e.g. see programmer Michael Tobis’s blog, which used to be http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/) but not why you do. After all, you claimed on the “Letter to the dragon slayers” that “ .. I can assure you my motives are only altruistic .. ”.
Back in Feb. 2011 I discussed this issue with award-winning Ottawa science teacher Roger Taguchi (I mentioned Roger several times on Professor Curry’s “Letter to the sky dragons” thread (e.g. see http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-131100). William J Pratt (http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/The_Diurnal_Bulge_and_the_Fallacies_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect.html) had previously said “ .. CO2 in the atmosphere is forced in to equilibrium by and with, the O2 and N2 .. ” and Roger’s response should be helpful for you
QUOTE: ..
CO2 is forced into equilibrium with N2 and O2, until a new, higher steady state temperature in the atmosphere is reached (“steady state” is used by me because with or without the greenhouse effect, there is a flow of heat from the Earth’s surface at 288 K to outer space at 3 K) .. the “hot” CO2 molecule formed when it absorbs an IR photon at 15 microns possesses more than twice the average kinetic energy of the air molecules (N2, O2, Ar, CO2, whatever). Thus heat flows from the “hot” CO2 molecule to all the others. Hence the air warms up.
Hence there is a greenhouse effect .. CO2 cannot store much energy .. The heat capacity is the product of the number of moles times the heat capacity per mole. If the no. of moles is small (as it is for CO2), the heat capacity is also small. But the “hot” CO2 molecule has transferred energy to N2 and O2 molecules and there are many more of these molecules, so the heat absorbed by the CO2 has been stored in those other molecules ..
N2 and O2 possess no permanent electric dipole moment, and no changing electric dipole moment on vibration (due to symmetry) .. so cannot absorb or emit dipole radiation (which is by far the most probable form – someone can nitpick that electric quadrupole radiation might be possible, but the lack of any N2 and O2 absorption bands in the actual spectrum says it is negligible). N2 an O2 can store energy and slow the rate of
temperature decline at night time as IR photons emitted by the solid and liquid surfaces of the Earth escape to empty space ..
CO2 bond bending automatically produces a changing electric dipole moment because the oxygen atoms are more electronegative than the carbon atom (they attract the bonding electrons more). Thus the oxygen atoms are slightly negative, with the carbon slightly negative. The vector sum of the two bond dipoles gives a changing electric dipole perpendicular to the O=C=O axis.
As for an electric dipole moment for CO2 created by “ionization”, this is not relevant near the Earth’s surface where the electronic energy state of the CO2 molecule is hugely most probable in the ground state (I don’t again want to nitpick with those who might claim that the decreasing Boltzmann exponential function allows for some ionization .. but consider a number like exp^(-100), which is essentially zero) ..
UNQUOTE.
One mechanism by which atmospheric Nitrogen, Oxygen and any other gases cool that you seem to overlook is when they are expanding into a larger space (such as a vacuum). There’s a simple cheap set-up that you can use to demonstrate the effect and I owe thanks to Will Pratt for helping me to find it. Will provided a link to a “simple” experiment (http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/AGW_Debunked_again.pdf) which he believes proves that the greenhouse effect is a myth although I suspect that he is misleading himself because the set-up is flawed. My 6 years old grandson and I repeated Will’s demonstration but initially using clear glass bottles with the fish tank thermometers inside, not stuck to the outside as in Will’s demo. We added to Will’s demonstration by having one bottle full of CO2, one full of air from outside and one evacuated using a wine bottle stopper/valve. After clearing up the broken glass from the bottle that my grandson knocked over we decided to use plastic bottles and then noticed that on removing the stopper from the evacuated bottle the thermometer immediately dropped by a couple of degrees – brilliant.
With your degrees in Applied Mathematics, Physics, Economics, a Diploma in Business Administration (the most important of your qualifications?) and all of those 45 years tutoring, doing your private research (and dabbling in all of those businesses) you should understand why.
This statement of yours “ .. You also forget about heat moving upwards by convection. You overlook energy considerations too in that, if a molecule is at a certain temperature then it has to emit a certain amount of energy in cooling to (near) absolute zero .. ” (http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/31/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-three/#comment-13509) suggests to me that you don’t really grasp that “heat” is just another form of energy. Perhaps you haven’t seen Josh Halpern’s “It’s a Krammie” article (http://rabett.blogspot.com/2012/02/its-krammie.html) which should help you to understand it better.
You have expressed concern about me “ .. treading close to the defamation line .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-172518). As usual, if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to do is misinterpret the evidence and present a misleading picture (like some CACC supporters appear to do) so that I can consider whether or not an apology is warranted.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
If this is taught at all in 9-12 curricula it should be taught as part of a larger “history of science controversies” course. Non-linear dynamics is well above the capabilities of students to understand and teachers to teach………..at least in the USA.
It belongs no where near K-8 education. It can serve but one purpose there, indoctrination, by which ever side is doing the indoctrinating.
Ok, I have to ask because this seems this seems obvious, but I haven’t seen any discussion on this. The sun produces solar wind (charged particles) that bombard the earth and solar wind is known to affect weather/climate ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/04/990412075538.htm ). High school physics shows charged particles are affected by magnetic fields. We also know that the intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field has dropped ~7-8% in the last 100 years.
Call me silly, but even if all other things remain constant (which obviously, they aren’t, but that doesn’t seem to deter anyone), the magnetic field drop should cause SOME non-ignorable effect by now (since the decline has been going on for at least 100 years), given the thing that it is effecting is a known influence on the climate. What am I missing?
Doug, I think that after this comment it will be time for me to call a halt to my futile exchanges with you. I make a final attempt to help you better understand the science of the incorrectly named “Greenhouse Effect” of the earth’s atmosphere (particularly the major constituents N2, O2 and H2O but also those minor trace gases like CO2 and there effect on the different global climates. Here is a link to an excellent introductory text book “Atmosphere, Weather and Climate” (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atmosphere-Weather-Climate-Roger-Barry/dp/0415271711) by geography Professors Roger Barry (U of Colarado at Boulder) and Richard Chorley (U of Cambridge but deceased).
I hope that you have the sense to drag yourself away from your futile blogging and make the time away from running your numerous businesses (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-172459) to read and understand it, although I do warn you that where the impact of “greenhouse gases” on the different global climates is concerned it contains numerous flaws, just like any text written by supporters of the CACC hypothesis. Maybe you’ll be able to spot a few of them as you learn more about the science.
An initial search for “Sellers” in that book will take you to the top of Page 33 where you should find Fig. 3.1 much more useful than the one that you linked to in your comment of 25th Feb. (at 12:54 am. NOT TO BE SENT).
Other than throwing a few pointless thought experiments into the argument you rely almost completely upon the hypothesis proposed by mathematician Professor Claes Johnson and offered in Chapter 19 “Computational Blackbody Radiation” of his two chapters in “Slaying the Sky Dragon”. That book (cobbled together by John O’Sullivan using articles written by a collection of bloggers now known collectively as “The Slayers”) was ludicrously heralded with “ .. Even before publication, Slaying the Sky Dragon was destined to be the benchmark for future generations of climate researchers (http://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-ebook/dp/B004DNWJN6). The most appropriate comment on that book that I have come across is by Ben Lawson (http://wottsupwiththat.com/2010/12/03/new-book-slaying-the-sky-dragon/), who runs the WottsUpWithThat blog.
In my opinion you and Ben display little understanding of any of the numerous scientific disciplines contributing to improving our very poor understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates yet insists, like you, in promoting his flawed interpretations).
I speculate that Professor Johnson regrets having agreed to co-author their book and become involved with the ”Slayers” and the setting up of their pseudo-science publishing company Principia Scientific International (PSI). Promotional material is still available which suggests that Professor Johnson is a member of the “Slayers” group (e.g. at http://slayingtheskydragon.com/de/blog/104-professor-claes-johnson-dissects-the-failed-greenhouse-gas-theory, http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/08/slaying-sky-dragon-of-greenhouse-effect.html and http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc to Professor Johnson has on several occasions declared that he has sensibly dissociated himself from the “Slayers”, e.g. see my comment on Professor Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-136427). The most recent occasion was on 21st Feb. (at 7:02 AM NOT TO BE SENT) on Dr. Roy Spencer’s “Yes, Virginia, the Vacuum of Space Does have a Temperature” thread (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/yes-virginia-the-vacuum-of-space-does-have-a-temperature/#comment-34667) when he said “ .. Of course outer space has a temperature, and it is cold around 3 K. I thus don’t support the view put forward by the group of Sky Dragon Slayers to which I no longer belong, if I ever did .. ”. That thread should also be helpful to you.
In making those statements Professor Johnson was directly contradicting his fellow-author of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and PSI’s CFO Hans Schreuder who made the ludicrous statements that “ .. Space .. has no temperature .. It is a vacuum and a vacuum has no temperature .. ” (“Slaying the Sky Dragon” Chapter 13 Page 190), “ .. Remember that space is not cold. Space has no temperature—there is not enough matter in the vacuum of space for it to have a ‘temperature’ .. ” (Page 196) and “ .. Space is void of matter and has no temperature of itself—we could not ask for a better insulation .. ” (Chapter 15 Pages 214/5).
On 20th Feb. (at 4:38 pm. NOT TO BE SENT) I said “ .. Hi Doug, please forgive me for getting the impression that you really are full of it, just like John O’Sullivan .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-172459). Since then you have said nothing that has changed that opinion. Here is my last link for you (http://jetjoshua.tumblr.com/post/4384749658/youre-full-of-it).
Of course, I am only expressing an opinion here based upon my interpretation of the information that I have researched. As usual, if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to do is misinterpret the evidence and present a misleading picture.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Roger (Fujii) I have little doubt that Doug Cotton will come up with some pseudo-scientific hypothesis that he claims proves that no such particles exist and that the earth has no magnetic field.
After a little more research I may now have a better understanding of from where Doug gets his inspiration. There may be some who would suggest a divine element “ .. God gave us nuclear power for constructive, not destructive purposes, because He knew the coal would not last for ever .. ” (http://theconversation.edu.au/ipcc-summary-report-on-extreme-weather-and-disasters-out-now-4374). “ .. FOR THOSE WHO HAVE DOUBTS I know there will be many reading this site who have doubts about the truth of all this .. ” (http://www.savedbythelamb.com).
I’m more inclined to believe in a financial motive but maybe that is because I have no conviction about there being a benevolent superpower (and punitive according to the Jehovah’s Witnesses who frequently call and refuse to consider any alternative to their own faith). My comment on Professor Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-172459) refers.
Doug does have his fingers in a lot of different money-earning pies but this one was a real surprise “ .. “ .. 2009/10/12 Buying Leads: .. sydney wholesaler wants s e x y women’s swimwear we are wholesalers in sydney, australia. please send price list for small quantities of swimwear (bikinis) that you stock. contact .. mr. doug cotton .. telephone 61-2-98733300 .. ” (http://www.tradinglot.com/en/html/20091012/2009101242834140.html). Some might be inclined to think that it could be a different Doug Cotton but if it is then he is using the ‘phone number used by our multi-talented Doug at http://www.ozmaths.com/ , at http://yophotography.homestead.com/index.html at http://acclaimsites.com/contact.html and at http://ageslowly.homestead.com/.
You may be interested in reading my comments on The Air Vent’s “The Cotton War” thread (starting at http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-69402). That thread is devoted to discussing Doug Cotton and his terrifying warnings about exposing Jeff Condon and Leonard Weinstein on his own thread and in his own book if they don’t pay more attention to his ramblings. Doug warned “ .. Don’t underestimate my marketing on such a book, nor the numbers that will be distributed free to media and influential people worldwide .. ”.
On 10th Feb. Chris Colose made reference to Professor Richard Lindzen and Doug came straight back with “ .. Lindzen and Spencer have still not come to grips with how Johnson has solved the puzzles that Planck and Einstein struggled with. When they do they will realise that there is no forcing at all by water vapour or trace gases .. ” then on 11th with “ .. Lindzen and Spencer have yet to come to grips with the fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics also applies to radiation, meaning there can be no radiative forcing by any GH effect .. Planck was not correct .. ”.
That was enough for me to conclude that exchanging opinions with Doug on the CACC hypothesis is just as effective as talking to a brick wall.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Thanks so much for giving everyone an exceptionally nice possiblity to read critical reviews from this web site. It really is so great and packed with a great time for me personally and my office colleagues to visit your website at minimum thrice every week to see the new guidance you have got. And of course, I’m also always impressed considering the excellent pointers served by you. Some 1 points in this article are really the most impressive I have ever had.
You made some clear points there. I looked on the internet for the subject matter and found most guys will consent with your blog.
Good web site! I really love how it is simple on my eyes and the data are well written. I’m wondering how I could be notified when a new post has been made. I’ve subscribed to your RSS which must do the trick! Have a nice day!… Lawanna @
Magnificent beat ! I would like to apprentice even as you
amend your site, how can i subscribe for a weblog web
site? The account helped me a acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided brilliant clear concept