Rushing to Judgment (Global Warming Questioned

The biggest remaining problem is quantifying the effects of variable cloud cover

Clouds have a hundred times stronger effect on weather and climate than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Even if the atmosphere’s CO2 content doubled, its effect would be cancelled out if the cloud cover expanded by 1%, as shown by H. E. Landsberg: Man-made climatic changes. In: Proceedings of the symposium on physical and dynamic climatology of the World Meteorological Organization 347 (1974), 262.

and how cloud cover responds to an increase in global temperature.

We know quite well how cloud cover relates to cosmic flux:

Cosmic ray flux modulated by solar activity, from Svensmark & Friis-Christensen:

The thin curve in Figure 6 presents the monthly mean counting rates of neutrons measured by the ground-based monitor in Climax, Colorado (right scale). This is an indirect measure of the strength of galactic and solar cosmic rays. The thick curve plots the 12-month running average of the global cloud cover expressed as change in percent (left scale). It is based on homogeneous observations made by geostationary satellites over the oceans. The two curves show a close correlation. The correlation coefficient is
r = 0.95.

Not much residual left for Temperature effect is there?

Though you are welcome to use the Climate Data Library to figure out the residual correlation of global temp vs global cloud coverage for us:

http://ingrid.ldeo.columbia.edu/index.html

(It's somewhat amusing to me that many of your references and supporting arguments come from the CO2science Web site. They are presenting their skeptical case, and it's obviously a one-sided presentation. When one investigates what other data and information can be assessed, it is clear that the CO2science Web site is excluding quite a bit.)

I use them among other's in my searches via GOOGLE, for good and sufficient reason. The lessthan-skeptic sources have a clear UN global political agenda to grind of their own. That is why sites like CO2science and Daley's exist, to present the counter views demonstrating the weaknesses and failures of global warming models of the UN/IPCC.

The Politician's use of global warming, Tim Wirth (1990):

"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing - in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
as quoted in NCPA Brief 213; September 6, 1996

and Steven Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado:

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).

Make very clear the stance of those supporting the anthropogenic source theories of the global warming community and why they are willing to hold up their flawed analysis as if it were a scientific "fact".

Obviously I don't have time to reply to everything until next week, but I wonder where Hoyt gets his information. By the way, I don't think that page has changed since 1997.

3) The models predict that cloud cover should be decreasing, and, in fact, such a decrease is crucial to amplify the greenhouse effect so it becomes the "enhanced" greenhouse effect. All measurements show cloud cover is increasing. ***

I did a quick Web search.

From What happens if we double CO2 in a climate model? (from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change site)

"In most models cloud cover increases in a warmer climate. This affects the energy budget in two opposing ways. Clouds reflect sunlight, reducing the amount of energy reaching the surface. They also act as a "blanket", reducing the earth's energy losses to space. As the total cloud cover increases, the first effect acts to reduce the warming (a negative feedback) while the second effect acts to increase it (positive feedback). Clouds are a major source of uncertainty. If clouds are allowed to change (and changes in sea-ice are suppressed), different climate models give answers ranging from 1.5 to 4.5 C for the warming due to doubling CO2. If the effects of cloud feedbacks are eliminated, this range is reduced to 1.7-2.3 C."

It's old (dated 1993). Did the models change that much in four years that "most" of them predict the opposite of what they predicted in 1993? That's hard for me to believe.

Look at figure 1 in this PDF paper:

Cloud representation in climate models:

It shows 10 models responding to a doubling of CO2. Five models show a decrease in top-of-the-atmosphere cloud radiative forcing, five show an increase. (The increases predicted are greater than the decreases, in general.) I'm not sure how increase or decrease in radiative forcing translates to increase or decrease in actual cloud cover, but clearly there's no majority agreement in the models!

So this quick survey indicates to me that point 3 is questionable. If you can find some additional support for the statement of that point, feel free. But as it stands it doesn't appear to reflect the state-of-the-science.

More next week.

So this quick survey indicates to me that point 3 is questionable. If you can find some additional support for the statement of that point, feel free. But as it stands it doesn't appear to reflect the state-of-the-science.

As far as I can determine, the Holtz statement may have been rooted in a limited set of models as his chart of scoring results, refers to cloud cover being inconsistent among the models instead of generally one direction.

I'll go with Richard S. Lindzen's overall assessment(2000) of the GCM's as more representative the the current-state-of-the-science.
From Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (March 2000) &
an interview with Tech Central Station (March 5, 2001, www.techcentralstation.com),

1) Water Vapor Feedback
The biggest uncertainty in climate science is how feedbacks affect the climate. Global warming theory posits that a rise in atmospheric CO2 will only cause a slight warming of the atmosphere, on the order of about 1 degree centigrade. This small amount of warming, according to standard global warming theory, speeds up evaporation, increasing the amount of water vapor, the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. This positive feedback is where most of the predicted warming comes from.
A new study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (March 2000) shows that the reverse is true. The authors find a negative water vapor feedback effect that is powerful enough to offset all other positive feedbacks. Using detailed daily observations of cloud cover from satellites in the tropics and comparing them to sea surface temperatures, the researchers found that there is an "iris effect" in which higher temperatures reduce the warming effect of clouds.
According to a NASA press release about the study, "Clouds play a critical and complicated role in regulating the temperature of the Earth. Thick, bright, watery clouds like cumulus shield the atmosphere from incoming solar radiation by reflecting much of it back into space. Thin, icy cirrus clouds are poor sunshields but very efficient insulators that trap energy rising from the Earth’s warmed surface. A decrease in cirrus cloud area would have a cooling effect by allowing more heat energy, or infrared radiation, to leave the planet."
The researchers found that a one degree centigrade rise in ocean surface temperature decreased the ratio of cirrus cloud area to cumulus cloud area by 17 to 27 percent, allowing more heat to escape.
In an interview with Tech Central Station (March 5, 2001, www.techcentralstation.com), Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the lead author, said that the climate models used in the IPCC have the cloud physics wrong. "We found that there were terrible errors about clouds in all the models, and that that will make it impossible to predict the climate sensitivity because the sensitivity of the models depends primarily on water vapor and clouds. Moreover, if clouds are wrong, there’s no way you can get water vapor right. They’re both intimately tied to each other." Lindzen argues that due to this new finding he doesn’t expect "much more than a degree warming and probably a lot less by 2100."

Yet another problem with the UN/IPCC global warming models:

Climate Models Fail to Reproduce Natural Temperature Fluctuations

Climate models that serve as the basis for global warming predictions fail to reproduce correctly the fluctuations in atmospheric temperatures over time scales of months and years, according to new research appearing in the July 8 [2002] issue of Physical Review Letters.
The study explains that large-scale atmospheric and oceanic dynamics are solved in the models using highly sophisticated numerical solutions, but that there are also "subgrid-scale processes" that are too small to be modeled. These are handled by "parameterization schemes," which amounts to little more than arbitrarily assigning a value to the particular process being considered. Some of these subgrid-scales includes, surprisingly enough, the roles of various greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and the effect of aerosols.
In earlier research, the authors discovered a universal mathematical relationship, known as a scaling law, which describes the correlations between temperature fluctuations. What they found was that temperature variations from their average values exhibit persistence that decays at a well-defined rate. "The range of this persistence law exceeds ten years, and there is no evidence for a breakdown of the law at even larger timescales," according to the study.
Using this scaling law, the researchers tested seven general circulation models, including the U.S.-based model at the National Climate for Atmospheric Research, against historical atmospheric temperature data from six representative sites. What they found was that the models, "fail to reproduce the universal scaling behavior observed in the real temperature records."
The researchers explain that, "It is possible that the lack of long-term persistence is due to the fact that certain forcings such as volcanic eruptions or solar fluctuations have not been incorporated in the models." But they cannot "rule out that systematic model deficiencies (such as the use of equivalent CO₂ forcing to account for all other greenhouse gases or inaccurate spatial and temporal distributions of sulfate aerosols) prevent the [climate models] from correctly simulating the natural variability of the atmosphere."
They conclude, "Since the models underestimate the long-range persistence of the atmosphere and overestimate the trends, our analysis suggests that the anticipated global warming is also overestimated by the models."

You left out: sulphate aerosols and black-soot aerosols.

Correct, as the modeled magnitude of sulphate aerosols are not supported in actual atmospheric mearsurements & black-soot aerosols effects tend to cancel out the model sulphate aerosol effects.

Sulphate aerosols were added to erroneous models to adjust their output to force fit them to historical temperature data but have failed in verification in regards to physical measurements on the atmosphere.

Global Warming Score Card

5) The models attribute the cooling from about 1940 to 1970 to sulfate aerosols. The quantity of aerosols they used are not based upon measurements, but are themselves model results. One prediction of this model is a maximum amount of aerosols in central Europe. Observations of atmospheric transmission in Davos Switzerland, right in the middle of the region where the model maximum in sulfates presumably existed, show no change in atmospheric transmission, contrary to the IPCC predictions. Observations in Belgium, Ireland, and other locations also falsify the IPCC modeled amounts of sulfate aerosols.
6) The models predict sulfate aerosols will cause a cooling forcing of 0.6 to 0.9 W/m². Actual field measurements of the scattering properties of sulfate aerosols show that the models overestimate their cooling potential by a factor of 3 to 5. These measurements falsify the model's radiative treatment of sulfates and show that the cooling from 1940 to 1970 cannot be attributed to anthropogenic aerosols.
7) The models neglect to include soot particles, which warm. Measurements show that the warming by soot offsets any cooling by sulfates, particularly in urban regions.

From What happens if we double CO2 in a climate model? (from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change site)

And what does doubling have to due with any reasonable for the future?

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/cap/2003/cap_03-02-20.html

"The Economist, which provides the best environmental reporting of any major news source, carried a small story last week about a simple methodological error in the latest U.N. global warming report that has huge implications. The article, "Hot Potato: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Had Better Check Its Calculations" (February 15 print edition), reviews the work of two Australian statisticians who note an anomaly in the way the IPCC estimated world carbon dioxide emissions for the 21st century."
......
"The IPCC's method has the effect of vastly overestimating future economic growth (and, therefore, CO2 emissions) by developing nations. The fine print of the IPCC's projections, for example, calls for the real per-capita incomes of Argentina, South Africa, Algeria, Turkey, and even North Korea to surpass real per-capita income in the United States by the end of the century. Algeria? North Korea? The IPCC must be inhaling its own emissions to believe this."

& Hot Potato Revisited:
A lack-of-progress report on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

As well as the fact that doubling CO₂ concentration simply does not lead to the results that the demonstrably flawed UN/IPCC models(Global Warming Score Card) would have us believe:

Re-cycling of Infra-Red Energy

According to Dr Hugh Ellsaesser's IPCC submission, "The direct increase in radiative heating of the lower atmosphere (tropopause level) due to doubling CO2 is 4 wm^-2. At the surface it is 0.5 - 1.5 wm^-2". Schlesinger & Mitchell (1985), estimated this surface flux at 2 wm^-2. Thus, depending on the model, or modeler, the estimates for increased surface flux following a CO2 doubling, varies between +0.5 and +2 wm^-2. An above-averaged figure of +1.5 wm^-2will be assumed here for purposes of analysis and comparison.

At the current surface temperature (288^oK) Doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 340ppmv can only add 1.5w/m² at the surface for a total surface radiative forcing of

390.08+1.5 = 391.58w/m²

providing a

(391.58/5.67*10^-8)^0.25-288^oK = 0.277^oK (C)increase in surface temperature for doubling of atmospheric CO₂ concentration.

A result well within any reasonable expectation of our rough estimate of 0.27oC associated with CO₂ doubling demonstrated in the paleo CO₂-temperature record of my prior replies.

It'd be nice if Lindzen was right, but Lindzen isn't necessarily right.

Does the Earth Have an Iris Analog?

Evidence Against the Iris Hypothesis

"Lin's team took the measurements made every day by CERES over the tropical oceans and plugged them into the same model that Lindzen used. Instead of the strong negative feedback that Lindzen's team found, Lin's team found a weak positive feedback (Lin et al. 2001). That is, Lin found that clouds in the tropics do change in response to warmer sea surface temperatures, but that the cloud changes serve to slightly enhance warming at the surface. Specifically, whereas Lindzen's experiment predicts that cirrus clouds change in extent to reduce warming at the surface by anywhere from 0.45 to 1.1 degrees, Lin's experiment predicts that changes in the tropical clouds will help warm the surface by anywhere from 0.05 to 0.1 degree (Lin et al. 2001)."

Reconciling the Differences (journal references are in this section)

Lindzen's a good scientist, and one of the best global warming skeptics currently active. Just because he's good doesn't mean that he's right all the time.

But you won't get much of an argument from me that the cloud feedback is still one of the great uncertainties in predictive climate modeling. I just wish that occasionally you'd acknowledge that the arguments from the skeptical side (such as Hoyt's scorecard assessments) won't always be right, too.

More today as time allows. I think that you've provided me with eight posts that I could respond to.

It'd be nice if Lindzen was right, but Lindzen isn't necessarily right.

Nor Lin, nor the UN/IPCC.

Reconciling the Differences

Currently, both Lindzen and Lin stand by their findings and there is ongoing debate between the two teams. At present, the Iris Hypothesis remains an intriguing hypothesis—neither proven nor disproven. The challenge facing scientists is to more closely examine the assumptions that both teams made about tropical clouds in conducting their research because therein lies the uncertainty.
***
Historically, it has been very difficult for scientists to measure clouds’ properties in multi-layer cloud formations using passive remote sensors. In 2004, scientists grappling with this problem will gain one of the most powerful tools ever developed for studying multi-layer cloud properties on a global scale.

We learn as we go forward, but to assume that the GCM's are the last word in climate theory & assessment of "global warming" as predominately manmade, as the UN/IPCC would have us believe, is a far cry from the actual state of atmospheric science.

I just wish that occasionally you'd acknowledge that the arguments from the skeptical side (such as Hoyt's scorecard assessments) won't always be right, too.

Lindzens argument is not from Hoyt's sight :) However I do not rely on single source or studies in anycase. The overall picture is what I go for, and to demonstrate the inadequacies of relying on the UN/IPCC models for anything relating to the climate for the next day much less the next century. The point is that reliance on very sketchy and poorly understood science for economic and political policy decisions is a disaster in the making much greater on mankind, than any hypothetical effect that mankind might have on global climate.

Once again we must go back to the UN/IPCC GCM theory about which we argue:

1) Water Vapor Feedback

"The biggest uncertainty in climate science is how feedbacks affect the climate. Global warming theory posits that a rise in atmospheric CO2 will only cause a slight warming of the atmosphere, on the order of about 1 degree centigrade. This small amount of warming, according to standard global warming theory, speeds up evaporation, increasing the amount of water vapor, the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. This positive feedback is where most of the predicted warming comes from.

Lindzen claims that one problem with the UN/IPCC modeling is that warming feedback from the surface is much less due, at least in part, one theory is the so-called "iris effect" of changing cirrus cloud cover in response to surface heating.

Lin demonstrates the potential of only a minimal warming arising from changing cloud cover from surface feedbacks in CO₂ driven models. The Lin results demostrate increases in high cirrus clouds arising from changes in surface temperature, at the least, compensate for increases in lower level clouds arising from that same feedback.

Lindzen demonstrates the potential for an actual cooling sufficient to negate the UN IPCC climate feedbacks.

Above all we need to remember:

Clouds have a hundred times stronger effect on weather and climate than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Even if the atmosphere’s CO2 content doubled, its effect would be cancelled out if the cloud cover expanded by 1%, as shown by H. E. Landsberg: Man-made climatic changes.
In: Proceedings of the symposium on physical and dynamic climatology of the World Meteorological Organization 347 (1974), 262.

Which establishes the effect on surface temperature, that independant variation of the cloud cover has when it is a consequence of variation in solar wind or other external factors as opposed to warming feedback from the surface.

Solar activity impacts surface temperature in at least 3 ways,

1) heating from direct solar irradiation of the surface.
2)solar warming increases the water vapor content of the atmospere(acting as a primary GHG) thus increasing back irradiation of the greenhouse effect from the water vapor dominated environment.
2) changing cloud cover induced by modulation of cosmic ray flux(independant of surface temperature feedbacks) through the Svensmark effect, refer to post #121 above

That is why we see such a strong correlation between solar activity (solar wind & solar irradiation) and surface temperature: A linear regession of solar activity alone (direct irradiation and the solar wind effect on cloud cover through modulation of gamma radiation flux) accounts for nearly the total change in temperature across the last 250yrs encompassing the industrial age.

Top of Atmosphere Solar Irradiation left(dottedline),
Relative Temperature (solidline, 1750 base) right scale.
Hoyt and Schatten 1997

Let's look at Hoyt and Schatten. While I credit the output of your calculations, I can't say the same for the input:
***
So Hoyt and Schatten's reconstruction shows a maximum range of variability of about 4 W m-2 TSI in the 20th century, while three other groups show a maximum range of variability of about 2 W m-2.
***
Now I will ask you: what happens if you amend your calculations with only a 2 W m-2 change in solar variability, rather than 4?

A closer look as regards halving the variation of solar activity, From the source of your graphic(Figure 6.5 ) on Solar forcings: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/245.htm

The estimate for solar radiative forcing since 1750 of 0.3 Wm^-2, shown in Figure 6.6, is based on the values in Figure 6.5 (taking the 11-year cycle minimum values in 1744 and 1996). Clearly the starting date of 1750 (chosen for the date of the pre-industrial atmosphere in Figure 6.6) is crucial here: a choice of 1700 would give values about twice as large; a choice of 1776 would give smaller values (particularly using the Hoyt and Schatten series). The range of 0.1 to 0.5 Wm^-2 given in Figure 6.6 is based on the variability of the series, the differences between the reconstructions and uncertainties concerning stratospheric adjustment (see Section 6.11.2.1). However, because of the large uncertainty in the absolute value of TSI and the reconstruction methods our assessment of the “level of scientific understanding” is “very low”.

This statement was cause for me to go back and look closer at the graphic and look at the change (as opposed to the absolute level) in each series more carefully.

Please note from the graphic that the deviation from 1700 to 1997, is approximately 4wm^-2 TOA for both Lean and the Hoyt-Schatten[H-S] series. Differences lay in detail timing in accord to the actual proxies used in specific series but not exceptionally so in overall peak-peak range (at least not to the degree you would have us accept (half of the Hoyt-Schatten deviation).

Additionally the Lean series appears to reasonably agree with the H-S series across the 1800-1998 pk-pk range I selected for peak-peak analysis.

Lean = approx. 3.5wm^-2 TOA_(pk-pk) while
Hoyt-Schatten varies 4.3wm^-2 TOA_(pk-pk) of the analysis in reply #105.

To halve the the Solar forcing merely on the basis of statement of solar variability being 2wm^-2 is unacceptable even by the Lean series.

I will agree with taking a mean of the variations between Lean and Hoyt-Schatten of 3.9wm^-2 TOA_(pk-pk) as being approximately representative for the 1800-1997 time frame of the calculation.

That would reduce the original 0.85^oC calculation of solar activity contribution to about 0.76^oC of the 1800-1997 industrial era variation in temperature, accounted for by Solar activity. A value substantially greater(nearly double) that assigned by you.

Starting from the top (to the extent that is feasible):

I'm not going to respond to all of the points on the "global warming scorecard". That would be fruitless and branch the discussion too much. If you want, we can return to that down the line and examine them one at a time. I responded on the cloud cover one since you had isolated it.

So we'll start with a response to the first of many. I'll try and do one or two a day.

After noting a difference in solar activity plots, I asked if there was now "room" for GHG influence on warming, as suggested by other researchers. You replied:

No because a linear regession of solar activity alone (direct irradiation and the solar wind effect on cloud cover through modulation of gamma radiation flux) accounts for the total change in temperature.

This pushes the gamma-ray influence on cloud cover. Let's see what can be said about that.

Solar Activity, Cosmic Rays, Clouds and Climate - An Update

Final sentence of abstract:

"In either case we note that since proxiesfor solar variability show no general trend over the last 50 years thereis no indication for a trend in (indirect) solar forcing in this period."

Another take on that paper:

Study: Radiation changes do not explain global warming

Quoting: "“We cannot find any clear correlation between cloud cover and cosmic rays,” says meteorologist Jón Egill Kristjánsson at the University of Oslo. Svensmark’s hypothesis rests largely on precisely this relationship. But the data cover only one-and-a-half solar cycles, so it is still impossible to draw certain conclusions, Kristjánsson points out. He is an expert on the role of clouds in the climate system."

"Although the new analyses weaken Svensmark’s hypothesis, they do show a clear relationship between cloud cover and the amount of energy the earth receives from the sun. The result is interesting because it suggests a mechanism for how the sun can contribute to natural climate variation.

“Solar radiation peaks about every eleven years,” says Kristjánsson. “We believe that this leads to, among other things, slightly higher ocean temperatures, which results in fewer of the low clouds that have particular significance for the climate.”

But before you get too excited about that:

"Solar radiation has not become more intense over the last 40–50 years,” explains Kristjánsson. “Thus the relationship between solar radiation and cloud cover cannot explain the warming observed on the earth’s surface during this period.”

Indicating that there really isn't any evidence for a gamma-ray or cosmic-ray influence on cloud cover and climate over the past 50 years. And indicating that while solar irradiance variability can influence climate via cloud cover changes, since there hasn't been a particular trend in solar irradiance over the past 50 years, there hasn't been an apparent trend in cloud cover changes forced by that mechanism, either.

Using this forcing and the GCM postulated feedbacks giving rise to climate sensitivity of 0.75 C/wm-2, we should expect to see a 0.28 C p-p variation in global tropospheric temperatures with an 11 year solar cycle period. Observations indicate that the temperature oscillation is less than 0.05 C and it is difficult to detect.

First, does "p-p" mean "peak-to-peak"?

Second, climate sensitivity is cumulative. That value is partly due to changes in ice sheet and glacier extent, and you can't possibly expect that that will respond in 11 years. Ocean heat storage is also part of it. So I don't think the comparative methodology of trying to determine the effect of the 11-year solar cycle variability on temperatures over that same period is valid. Time-scales do matter.

Finally, you say:

Seems to me even you admit there there is room for substantial doubt as to the magnitude or even sign of any effect "human created" CO2, Methane etc. may have on our Climate future.

Substantial doubt -- no. Uncertainty, yes. But there is also certainty in some quarters. The view that CO2 will matter not at all, or just a little, is on the periphery of the discussion, which is why I am discussing it with you. I invite you to see what Richard Lindzen has predicted; I'll show you what Pat Michaels has predicted:

Michaels: Global climate will not change markedly

----Two years ago the IPCC produced its third assessment report, which indicated a global rise in temperatures of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius for 1990 to 2100. Michaels’ new independent study indicates the most likely value is around 1.6 degrees Celsius, near the low end of the IPCC range. He used an assortment of data to produce a range of possible temperatures for the period, and all were substantially less broad than the IPCC’s range.
----- In one scenario, he used data from recent studies that closely examine the assumptions made about climate behavior in the U.N. report and found a range of warming of 1.1 to 2.8 degrees Celsius.
----- When using data of actual climate change rates during the past 25 years of greenhouse warming, and projecting it out to the year 2100, he found a range of 1.5 to 2.6 degrees Celsius.
----- “Almost all models produce a constant rate of warming,” Michaels said. “So why not let nature choose that rate?”
----- When he factored both aspects of his study together, he found a range of 1.0-1.6 degrees Celsius.
----- Additionally, by adjusting the averages of a range of climate models to reflect actual observed changes in temperature in nature, he found a warming range of 1.3-3.0 degrees Celsius, with a central value of 1.9 degrees Celsius."

I tend to agree. I think the warming in the next century will be 1.5-2.5 C. Michaels and Hansen converge in this range. For that reason, I advocate Hansen's alternative scenario, which encourages control of black soot aerosols along with CO2 emissions (to some extent) in developing nations, along with associated public health benefits. He also advocates fairly aggressive implementation of new technology, leading to reduced energy use (things like wider use of compact fluorescent lighting, co-generation, biomass generation). In addition to that, I advocate more use of clean and safe nuclear energy (I'm obviously not German). CO2 sequestration may also be viable. In essence, I know that the Kyoto Protocol is useless and indefensible (and you can research my numerous FR statements to that effect). But there are two reasons to pursue technology that will reduce fossil-fuel energy dependence: national economic security and climate change.

I probably can't provide another response today; I accidentally delete half of this when I was almost done and had to retype it. We have plenty of time.

"Solar radiation has not become more intense over the last 40–50 years,” explains Kristjánsson. “Thus the relationship between solar radiation and cloud cover cannot explain the warming observed on the earth’s surface during this period.”

Hmm last 40-50 years? While the statement of Solar Radiation not becoming more intense over the last 40-50 years, is technically correct for that time period, the relationship between Solar Activity and Temperature remained highly correlated throughout.

At no point is a constant rise in solar intensity required, it is the fact that change in solar activity and temperature deviation is so closely correlated that makes the case for the dominance of Solar Activity on change in climate.

I bring your attention to Hoyt Schratten results for 1947-1997, for the period that Kristjánsson states "Solar radiation has not become more intense over the last 40–50 years,”

Top of Atmosphere Solar Irradiation left(dottedline),
Relative Temperature (solidline, 1750 base) right scale.
Hoyt and Schatten 1997

Overall there is minimal rise in Solar radiation intensity, but Solar Activity series of Hoyt is generally correlated with the actual change in global surface tempertures. Looking at the two centuries leading into the period, we see a full range of solar activity and temperature that clearly demonstrates the overall correlation very well.

The remarks you have focused on is a prime example of what I see as the double speak of the "Global Warming" appologists. Taking statements of selective short term conditions to generalize into a conclusion that is contrary to the whole picture.

If you insist on using such blatent misstatement of the issues here, I see no point in continuing.

The Hoyt-Schatten Solar Activity series was specifically constructed from solar measurements to provide a predictive model of global surface temperature based in solar factors alone. In that they appear to be exceptionally successful as is demonstrated in the 250yr graphic above.

Statements such as:

"In either case we note that sinceproxies for solar variability show no general trend over the last 50 years thereis no indication for a trend in (indirect) solar forcing in this period."

and

"Solar radiation has not become more intense over the last 40–50 years,” explains Kristjánsson. “Thus the relationship between solar radiation and cloud cover cannot explain the warming observed on the earth’s surface during this period.”

Simply do not create a serious rebuttal to the Hoyt-Schatten evidence nor provide evidence of a better or even equal CO2 correlation to variation in Global temperatures than that which is demonstrable in a Solar Activity series.

I'm sorry, but I simply do not buy the hype that you are tossing out here.

Is the same correlation evident for Lean et al. 1995, Solanki and Fligge 1998, and Lockwood and Stamper, 1999? Why the reliance on Hoyt and Schatten's data exclusively?

Incorrect. We have a warming trend, strong over the past 25-30 years. If there is no trend in solar activity, and no trend in forcing by an increase or decrease in solar activity, then the observed warming in this time period is being caused by something else. You aren't advocating a mechanism with a significant lag time, whereas I am.

Hoyt and Schatten's results are double what the other cited datasets indicate. Perhaps Kristjansson doesn't think that the cumulative data analysis shows a marked increase in solar intensity. Given your position, I can see why you would.

Yes, and the previous material I provided indicated that no one is disputing a solar contribution over the past 150 years. The dispute is over what is causing the temperature rise NOW.

The same general patterns are seen in the Lean et al. data, except that the change is less marked, and there is less of a defined trend from 1975 onward.

What are we seeing here? Scientific disputes about what is occurring, what is driving the system, what the data is, what the data indicates. Every time you post something that you take to be definitive, I have little difficulty finding an alternative view that is not nearly as definitive. You seem to think that the solar activity connection with temperature change is settled. News: it's not.

Oh yeah: correlation is not causation. Many scientists have gone down that road and been misled.

I didn't expect that I'd have time for this, but that's all I have time for now. I'll try to reply to another of your messages tomorrow. Even if you stop responding, I have a backlog to address.

First, does "p-p" mean "peak-to-peak"?

yes

Second, climate sensitivity is cumulative. That value is partly due to changes in ice sheet and glacier extent, and you can't possibly expect that that will respond in 11 years. Ocean heat storage is also part of it. So I don't think the comparative methodology of trying to determine the effect of the 11-year solar cycle variability on temperatures over that same period is valid. Time-scales do matter.

As is shown in my calculation, the variation for the 11 year cycle should have been on the order of .24^oC for a 0.75wm^-2 Climate sensitivity. The damping is too great for it to be readily visible which is why it is on the order of 0.05^oC. That is why it is necessary to look at decadal and centenial variations constructed in the Hoyt Schatten solar activity series, which does provided a strong and decisive predictor of Global Surface temperature variations throughout the 250 year range of the series.

It is the Hoyt Schatten series that I used for validation with your 0.75wm^-2 Climate sensitivity number.

Using your 0.75wm^-2 Climate sensitivity number, the peak-peak range of the Hoyt-Schatten Solar Activity series fits the peak to peak global surface temperature range throughout the 250 year period as well as maintain a visible, highly correlated, aspect with surface temperatures throught the entire period of the graphic.

That to me is a very strong confirmation of the hypothesis that Solar Activity is the primary driver of Global temperature changes over periods on the order of centuries as well as generational/decadal variations.

The CO2 concentration data series does not show anything near the correlation to actual surface temperature changes through the same period. In point of fact the correlation for global surface temperature and CO2 across the same period is very low, especially if the Hoyt Shratten correlation is subtracted from the temperature series and we run the CO2 concentration series against the surface temperature residuals.

Seems to me even you admit there there is room for substantial doubt as to the magnitude or even sign of any effect "human created" CO2, Methane etc. may have on our Climate future.
Substantial doubt -- no. Uncertainty, yes. But there is also certainty in some quarters. The view that CO2 will matter not at all, or just a little, is on the periphery of the discussion, which is why I am discussing it with you.

Good of you,.

I invite you to see what Richard Lindzen has predicted;

1) Water Vapor Feedback

Lindzen argues that due to this new finding he doesn’t expect "much more than a degree warming and probably a lot less by 2100."

I'll show you what Pat Michaels has predicted:

"Michaels’ new independent study indicates the most likely value is around 1.6 degrees Celsius, near the low end of the IPCC range."

I note the sides are converging in the range to expect temperatures to rise across this century. It is well to note the Tropospheric trend of 0.074^oC/decade projects a 0.74^oC or less century target, assuming no change in magintudes and acceleration of the actual drivers effecting global temperatures.

However the issue is not whether there will be some increase in global surface temperatures, the issue is about what are the primary drivers and causitive factors.

I see solar activity, interplanetary, and interstellar effects driving watervapor/clouds as the primary driver of global temperature changes,

You & the IPCC folks look at for a anthropogenic causes on the "hope" man can somehow slow or control the global temperature change or in a blacker agenda implement political/social changes on the pretext of global environmental crisis.

I believe that efforts would be better spent in adaption to actual physical change as opposed to massive intervention in global economy and politics to effect what I and others see as only marginal effect on global temperatures.

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

I think the warming in the next century will be 1.5-2.5 C. Michaels and Hansen converge in this range.

I advocate Hansen's alternative scenario, which encourages control of black soot aerosols along with CO2 emissions (to some extent) in developing nations, along with associated public health benefits.

All of which imply a degree of governmental control over global politics & economies that cause me a great deal of concern.

He also advocates fairly aggressive implementation of new technology, leading to reduced energy use (things like wider use of compact fluorescent lighting, co-generation, biomass generation).

As long as it fits into an unfettered market principles it works for me, compact flourescent lighting makes prefect sense, costs less and and conserves energy as well as my pocketbook. Biomass generation, that can be accomplished with expanding agriculture(ocean as well as land.) I don't see any impediments there and makes economics sense outside of any "global crisis". Other related solutions that make economic sense and pay their own way will develop quite naturally.

I advocate more use of clean and safe nuclear energy (I'm obviously not German).

Go for it, that doesn't need a global climate crisis for that to happen. Just get governments and environmental special interests out of the way and that will happen so fast your head will spin. Until then don't plan on it.

CO2 sequestration may also be viable.

Depends on how you go about it, find an economic use for the CO₂ like expansion of agriculture & lumber production to lock up carbon and I can go for it. Once again there is no need for a "climate crisis" to justify, just good economic sense and get the government/enviro-politics folks out of the way. Growth in agriculture goes along with growth and economic advance of societies.

In essence, I know that the Kyoto Protocol is useless and indefensible (and you can research my numerous FR statements to that effect).

I've noticed, doesn't help to be arguing their battle for them though. The Kyoto folks are more than willing to implement their global political agendas on any pretext they can find. The global warming flap is just one of many such manufactured crisis they have tried to ride on for decades now.

But there are two reasons to pursue technology that will reduce fossil-fuel energy dependence: national economic security and climate change.

Nuclear power resolves both those issues quite well, and does not need a hyped up "global warming" crisis to justify it. Economics alone is more than sufficient. Your problem there rests with the same folks pushing the "global warming" Kyoto agendas. Seems they figure government controls over populations count for more towards their goals than technological and economic advances. You will please note how little credence these folks give towards advancing nuclear power as a element of their "solutions".

Oh yeah: correlation is not causation.

Variation of Solar irradiation cannot induce variation in the earth's Climate?

LOL, causation does assure a correlation will be present. If the effect is substantive, that correlation is measurable and verifies the causal physical processes at work.

Change the amount of direct incident energy input into a system and correlation is a direct measure of that physical process.

On the otherhand it has been shown that CO2 concentrations vary in response to global tempertature change, and have be shown not to be a prime cause of temperture variation for lack of any measure of statistical causality.

Many scientists have gone down that road and been misled.

They obviously can and do whenever one blindly accepts a correlation with a variable that has little or no physical basis for causation or is an affect as opposed to a cause.

We are speaking of solar irradiation, (i.e. direct energy) inputs with clear and obvious physical basis for independant effects on the system measured.

Solar activity is not some variation of variables caused by factors in the earths environment and haveas a direct and substantive bearing on the earths temperature directly as well as through radiant energy absorption of the primary GHG Water Vapor(95% of greenhouse effect).

In the case of the minority GHG gas CO₂(3.6% of greenhouse effect) causual effects cannot be demonstrated by statistical measure, quite the contrary, it has been shown that CO2 levels are an effect of temperature variation more than they are a cause of climate change.

CO2-Temperature Correlations

Consider, for example, the study of Fischer et al. (1999), who examined trends of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature derived from Antarctic ice core data that extended back in time a quarter of a million years. Over this extended period, the three most dramatic warming events experienced on earth were those associated with the terminations of the last three ice ages; and for each of these climatic transitions, earth's air temperature rose well in advance of any increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Such findings have been corroborated by Mudelsee (2001), who examined the leads/lags of atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature over an even longer time period, finding that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years over the past 420,000 years."

[ see also: Indermuhle et al. (2000), Monnin et al. (2001), Yokoyama et al. (2000), Clark and Mix (2000) ]

"Other studies periodically demonstrate a complete uncoupling of CO2 and temperature "

[see: Petit et al. (1999), Staufer et al. (1998), Cheddadi et al., (1998), Raymo et al., 1998, Pagani et al. (1999), Pearson and Palmer (1999), Pearson and Palmer, (2000) ]

"Considered in their entirety, these several results present a truly chaotic picture with respect to any possible effect that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have on global temperature. Clearly, atmospheric CO2 is not the all-important driver of global climate change the climate alarmists make it out to be."

Global warming and global dioxide emission and concentration:
a Granger causality analysis
http://isi-eh.usc.es/trabajos/122_41_fullpaper.pdf

"We find, in opposition to previous studies, that there is no evidence of Granger causality from global carbon dioxide emission to global surface temperature. Further, we could not find robust empirical evidence for the causal nexus from global carbon dioxide concentration to global surface temperature."

Here Comes the Sun

"Carbon dioxide, the main culprit in the alleged greenhouse-gas warming, is not a "driver" of climate change at all. Indeed, in earlier research Jan Veizer, of the University of Ottawa and one of the co-authors of the GSA Today article, established that rather than forcing climate change, CO2 levels actually lag behind climatic temperatures, suggesting that global warming may cause carbon dioxide rather than the other way around."
***
"Veizer and Shaviv's greatest contribution is their time scale. They have examined the relationship of cosmic rays, solar activity and CO2, and climate change going back through thousands of major and minor coolings and warmings. They found a strong -- very strong -- correlation between cosmic rays, solar activity and climate change, but almost none between carbon dioxide and global temperature increases."

Your "Oh yeah: correlation is not causation. " doesn't pertain to Solar inputs, which are, by physical necessity, prime causitive factors effecting the state of Earth's Climate.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.