[cogitator]

My, you're talkative today.

I rather doubt that, as that "~0.9 C." figure is a climate sensitivity factor assuming an aprior existance of empirically unconfirmed atmospheric feedback operating on direct radiative forcing, and is not the value of direct radiative forcing which is solely of function of the Stefan-Boltzman relation.

No, it's not. 0.9 C is from the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship; that's how I found it.

650,000 years of greenhouse gas concentrations

Read response #85 in the comments (which responds to earlier comments 51, 57, 79, and 83). If you think this is wrong, take it up with the author of the posting, not me. As I said, you're distinguishing between the surface radiative forcing and the global radiative forcing. We've been over this before. The difference is the usage of 4 w m-2 forcing vs. 1.5 w m-2 forcing. (I have never determined if Ellsaesser's "submission" was used by the IPCC.)

That's good of you especially considering that the UN/IPCC modellers consider cloud cover to be unchanging and not a forcing at all.

I replied to you about this already. There are no "UN/IPCC modelers". Cloud cover is not a forcing, it's a feedback.

Certainly a consideration which just underscores that the atmospheric feedbacks on which that 0.9oC climate sensitivity factor you have quoted is rooted in is essentially a WAG with no empirical confirmation.

Again, this is inaccurate. It's certainly not a WAG.

The "feedback" in thermal terms is not the issue in what the Svensmark research is indicating. Cloud cover variation due to modulation of cosmic ray flux is an induced external factor not a thermal feed back.

OK, I understand your point. There is a long way to go to demonstrate conclusively that this process is a significant factor in climate. I.e., steps 1-5 as described in RealClimate.

Tell me does that risk assessment factor and risk-aversion include the risk of no essential result in whatever costly "rapid and dramatic action" you would impress upon the rest of us? In fact does that risk assessment factor include that anything done to decrease warming operates against those natural factors in the works headed in the the opposite direction?

Good question. As you might perceive, I am in agreement with the current scientific understanding of climate change. Because our nation's (and the Western world's) fossil fuel energy dependence is critical to the economy and national security, my choice of preferred action is one that shifts us to alternate sources of energy with a correspondingly reduced climate impact. I believe that this is the best course of action, and will yield the most benefits for the economy, national security, and the environment. I believe that there is sufficient justification (on multiple fronts) to pursue this course of action while climate change science addresses the current uncertainties.

I for one expect that mankind has much more to worry about in adjusting to ice-ages than it does in any global warming scenario under the current geophysical factors in place limiting warming that this Earth may undergo in the geological short term.

I don't share that concern. On the basis of Milankovitch forcing factors, the next Ice Age is not expected to commence for about 50,000 years. Increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations are expected to enhance/prolong the interglacial conditions.

References: CO2 and astronomical forcing of the late Quaternary

An exceptionally long interglacial ahead? (Science, subscription required)

I'm more concerned about the short-term.

[ancient_geezer]

No, it's not. 0.9 C is from the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship; that's how I found it.

Ahh, the top of the troposphere effective value that some folks use, that does not take surface albedo (i.e. surface reflection) nor does it take IR re-radiation upward into account.

In fact that flux measure is an effective value for computational purposes only (an equivalency with solar radiation intercepted by the earth.) Since CO2 is mixed throughout the atmosphere acting as a sink for IR re-radiating both upward and downward toward the suface from the atmosphere after being generated at the surface converted from visible solar radiation, and not an external source of IR in space radiating downward from the top of the atmosphere.

The IR value at the surface of 0.2^oC for each doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is for the hypothesized 1.5 watts increase in surface IR flux hypothesized for CO2. Not the approximately theoretical 4 watts generally calculated as an value applied the top of the troposphere as an effective flux externally applied downward for CO2.

I suggest if you are going to look at the effect on surface tempertures, which supposedly is the value of concern in global warming effects on the Earth's surface, you should use the surface flux measure, not the top of atmosphere measure that does not implement albedo nor the re-radiation of thermal radiation upward.

Refer to #12 for the at the surface measure of 0.2^oC direct radiative effects on Earth's surface temperature which is what the concern is really about as regards the hypothetical "Global Warming" effects like melting icecaps, warming oceans, extermination of species, coastal flooding wiping out population centers, destruction of mankind with massive hurricanes and violent weather from surface heating, etc. ...

[ancient_geezer]

On the basis of Milankovitch forcing factors, the next Ice Age is not expected to commence for about 50,000 years.

There are of course many unanswered problems with the Milankovich forcing factors, most of which are related to the fact that those factors are out of phase with actual ice ages, with insufficient variation in radiant flux to account for ice ages and only have a frequency similar to more significant orbital parameters which are in appropriate phase as well as being much closer in cyclical period to the observed ~100k deep ice age cycle.

It is not suprizing at all that Milankovitch factors are not expected to initate another ice age, they are simply based a wrong assumption that eccentricity and variation in distance from the sun is the driver to begin with.

You and the UN/IPCC modelers really should start paying attention to what the astro and geophysics are trying to tell you. Unfortunately the "not invented here" syndrome seem to be operating overtime while climate change hypothesis are concerned.

 

A little review of the problems involved with the Milankovich forcing factors and a long over due but very necessary relook at the basics.

 

Spectrum of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity
Richard A. Muller^* and Gordon J. MacDonald

Figure 2. Spectral fingerprints in the vicinity of the 100 kyr peak: (a) for data from Site 607; (b) for data of the SPECMAP stack; (c) for a model with linear response to eccentricity, calculated from the results of Quinn et al. (ref 6); (d) for the nonlinear ice-sheet model of Imbrie and Imbrie (ref 22); and (e) for a model with linear response to the inclination of the Earth's orbit (measured with respect to the invariable plane). All calculations are for the period 0-600 ka. The 100 kyr peak in the data in (a) and (b) do not fit the fingerprints from the theories (c) and (d), but are a good match to the prediction from inclination in (e). return to beginning


Far more important to our present analysis, however, is the fact that the predicted 100 kyr "eccentricity line" is actually split into 95 and 125 kyr components, in serious conflict with the single narrow line seen in the climate data. The splitting of this peak into a doublet is well known theoretically (see, e.g., ref 5), but in comparisons with data the two peaks in the eccentricity were merged into a single broad peak by the poor resolution of the Blackman-Tukey algorithm (as was done, for example, in ref 8). The single narrow peak in the climate data was likewise broadened, and it appeared to match the broad eccentricity feature.

***

Figure 3. Variations of the inclination vector of the Earth's orbit. The inclination i is the angle between this vector and the vector of the reference frame; Omega is the azimuthal angle = the angle of the ascending node (in astronomical jargon).. In (A), (B), and (C) the measurements are made with respect to the zodiacal (or ecliptic) frame, i.e. the frame of the current orbit of the Earth. In (D), (E), and (F) the motion has been trasformed to the invariable frame, i.e. the frame of the total angular momentum of the solar system. Note that the primary period of oscillation in the zodiacal frame (A) is 70 kyr, but in the invariable plane (D) it is 100 kyr.

 

 

There is evidence from the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (ref 39) of a narrow dust band extending only two degrees from the invariable plane. The precise location of these bands is uncertain; they may be orbiting in resonant lock with the Earth (ref 40, 41). It is not clear that these bands contain sufficient material to cause the observed climate effects. We note, however, that even small levels of accretion can scavenge greenhouse gases from the stratosphere, and cool the Earth's climate through the mechanism proposed by Hoyle (ref 30). The dust could also affect climate by seeding the formation of much larger ice crystals. The accreting material could be meteoric, originating as particles too large to give detectable infrared radiation.

Data on noctilucent clouds (mesospheric clouds strongly associated with the effects of high meteors and high altitude dust) supports the hypothesis that accretion increase significantly when the Earth passes through the invariable plane. As shown in Figure 6, a strong peak in the number of observed noctilucent clouds occurs on about July 9 in the northern hemisphere (ref 41, 42) within about a day of the date when the Earth passes through the invariable plane (indicated with an arrow). In the southern hemisphere the peak is approximately on January 9, also consistent with the invariable plane passage, but the data are sparse. The coincidence of the peaks of the clouds with the passage through the invariable plane had not previously been noticed, and it supports the contention that there is a peak in accretion at these times. On about the same date there is a similarly narrow peak is observed in the number of polar mesospheric clouds (ref43) and there is a broad peak in total meteoric flux (ref 44). It is therefore possible that it is the trail of meteors in the upper atmosphere, rather than dust, that is responsible for the climate effects.


Fig 6. Frequency of noctilucent clouds vs. day of year, in (A) the northern hemisphere, and in (B) the sourthern hemisphere (ref 41, 42). The arrows indicate the dates when the earth passes through the invariable plane. The coincidence of these dates with the maxima in the noctilucent clouds suggests the presence of a thin ring around the sun. Peaks on the same dates are seen in Polar mesospheric clouds (ref 44) and in radar counts of meteors.

 

 

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9228-mysterious-glowing-clouds-targeted-by-nasa.html

Mysterious glowing clouds targeted by NASA
26 May, 2006

High-altitude noctilucent clouds have been mysteriously spreading around the world in recent years (Image: NASA/JSC/ES and IA)

 

http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.252.html#1

INTERPLANETARY DUST PARTICLES (IDPs) are deposited on the Earth at the rate of about 10,000 tons per year. Does this have any effect on climate? Scientists at Caltech have found that ancient samples of helium-3 (coming mostly from IDPs) in oceanic sediments exhibit a 100,000-year periodicity. The researchers assert that their data, taken along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, support a recently enunciated idea that Earth's orbital inclination varies with a 100-kyr period; this notion in turn had been broached as an explanation for a similar periodicity in the succession of ice ages. (K.A. Farley and D.B. Patterson, Nature, 7 December 1995.)
Farley & Patterson 1998, http://www.elsevier.com/gej-ng/10/20/36/33/37/32/abstract.html
Farley http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~farley/
Farley http://www.elsevier.nl/gej-ng/10/18/23/54/21/49/abstract.html

 

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr96/dec96/noaa96-78.html

ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE DURING LAST GLACIAL PERIOD COULD BE TIED TO DUST-INDUCED REGIONAL WARMING

Preliminary new evidence suggests that periodic increases in atmospheric dust concentrations during the glacial periods of the last 100,000 years may have resulted in significant regional warming, and that this warming may have triggered the abrupt climatic changes observed in paleoclimate records, according to a scientist at the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Current scientific thinking is that the dust concentrations contributed to global cooling.

 

 

Increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations are expected to enhance/prolong the interglacial conditions.

LOL, and you call attempting to reverse that trend the least risky in your view? That certainly is not my assessment of the situation.

Because our nation's (and the Western world's) fossil fuel energy dependence is critical to the economy and national security, my choice of preferred action is one that shifts us to alternate sources of energy with a correspondingly reduced climate impact. I believe that this is the best course of action, and will yield the most benefits for the economy, national security, and the environment. I believe that there is sufficient justification (on multiple fronts) to pursue this course of action while climate change science addresses the current uncertainties.

Hyping global warming and very ill understood and ill based non-science is hardly conducive to achieving such goals, infact can be quite counter productive in terms of actually turning good science and good policy away for lack of credibility in the "Global Warming" alarmists camp.

If your concerns are actually "our nation's (and the Western world's) fossil fuel energy dependence is critical to the economy and national security," that concern I can share and work toward correcting such through utilization of real energy alternatives such as nuclear power taking the place of fossil fuel energy dependence. In fact such can be supported without any hype from the global warming, world crisis folks of the UN.

I wholly subscribe to the idea that nuclear energy should have been implemented yesterday, and lacking such having been done, it is all the more important to do so now to relieve our dependancing on foreign sources of fossil fuels which impact both our economy and security in our dependance of foreign souces. In the mean time, until broad implementation of nuclear power can be brought on line, we should be turning to alternatives to or current sources of fuel for maintaining and growing our economy in shale oil, oil sand technologies as well as developing our Alaskan and offshore resouces of oil and gas. Going domestic should be the primary goal for the economy as well as national security.

Global Warming hype through the UN/IPCC however is not the way to achieve either of the above for the reasons stated as well as many others involving national sovereignty and independance from foreign entanglements and global government generally.

[ancient_geezer]

Cloud cover is not a forcing, it's a feedback.

Hmmm, it certainly isn't a feed back to the climate modelling the UN/IPCC uses in their assessments. The assumption in the GCMs is no change in cloud cover.

Change as a consequence of thermal effects are the only factor climate models deal with in the sense of "feedback." In the case of GCMs this tends to be mainly their consideration of water vapor as a feedback mechanism from evaporation and effects of thermal variation on ice flows affecting albedo, as opposed to the water droplets of clouds forming as a consequence of cosmic ray interactions which are not a "thermal" effect.

The case of cloud variations due to cosmic ray modulation, is independant of atmospheric thermal factors in the sense of "feedback" used in climate modelling reviewed and incorporated into the conclusions of UN/IPCC folks.

Any variation in clouds inducing a temperature change due to external cosmic ray flux becomes a thermal forcing and the change in heat balance as a consequence would theoretically feedback in the hypothesized atmospheric processes of the climate change models same as any temperature change due to CO2 as a thermal forcing agent.

In short cloud cover changes due to factors outside the atmosphere are very definitely treatable as a forcing just a metorice dust, and aerosols in general are perceived to be in climate models.

The feedback factors of climate models operate on atmospheric and surface thermal changes, not externally induced forcings such as the CR factors operating on cloud cover.

[ancient_geezer]

As you might guess, I also favor development of biofuels -- but to get to a more stable energy system, utilzing tar sands, oil shales, and other sources may be necessary.

Then I would suggest you would do better to address those issues directly rather than trying to tie your kite on the "Global Warming" string.

In hanging on the Global Warming you only lose credibility due to the extreme tenor of its alarmists in exchange for more solid and acceptable arguments that would lead to substantive change towards your claimed strategic goals of national security and national economic health.

Even biofuels I will agree with you on insofar as such may be derived from cellulose waste products rather than usable food stocks. Dedicating arable acres to biofuels for the sake of such fuels, to the exclusion of that which could be used for food, would not however be too smart.

Remember pushing in the direction of cooling in terms of global climate change end up can reducing arable lands as opposed to increasing such which future generations also need.