Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity

Drudge ^ | jan 30, 2007 | Matt Drudge

[Notwithstanding]

Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity Tue Jan 30 2007 10:02:32 ET

Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March. --- break --- Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.

[sauropod]

I've been following Singer's work for a while now. He is involved with something called the Science and Environmental Policy Project (sepp.org).

[frogjerk]

ALL-STAR GROUP: 10 years to save the planet... For how many decades have we had celebrities paraded infront of us telling us we only have 10 years to do X or we are all gonna die?

Speaking of that shouldn't the world's rainforests be gone 2 times over already.

[CottShop]

These books and tons of facts won't matter one iota- why? Because the dems smell a big fat cash cow called 'global warming mandates' which w9illl\ fine anyone who isn't 'greenhouse compliant'

The following link does not relate to this thread http://sacredscoop.com

[frogjerk]

The warming trend on Earth right now is probably not caused by the Sun.

Why not?

[syriacus]

My guess is Algore is making money off of the hysteria he is causing.

I'd bet he is.

[syriacus]

And I just went out and bought a new snow blower.

LOL.

Maybe there is some correlation between the increase in the number of snowblowers and the increase in global temperatures? [I don't mean to blame you...I'm kidding].

[cogitator]

As for CO2, I would love for somebody to give me proof that CO2 leads temperature increases rather than lags. The charts I've seen from ice cores seem to indicate that CO2 upticks lag temperature increases.

Which is correct. Glacial-interglacial transitions are correlated with Milankovitch cycle (solar insolation) triggering/forcing*. I.e., when solar insolation is at a minima or maxima due to superposition of the Milankovitch cycle maximas (or minimas), this marks the transition point. Following maximas, there will then be a rapid decrease in solar insolation, triggering entry into a glacial period. Following minimas, there will then be a rapid increase in solar insolation, triggering entry into an interglacial period. Once either entry is underway, there are two main feedbacks: CO2 increase or decrease due to warming or cooling oceans, respectively, and retreat or advance of continental ice sheets. Both are positive feedbacks augmenting the transition direction. For a warming phase, increasing atmospheric CO2 creates more warming, releasing more CO2 from warming oceans, etc.

There is insufficient energy available for the solar insolation variability to induce the full range of temperature change observed. Atmospheric CO2 is the only known, quantified factor with sufficient energy to cause the full range of temperatures. There have been some theories about other solar cycle causes, but they will require much more evidence to effectively supplant the current understanding of glacial/interglacial variability.

* Not all the details of the glacial/interglacial record correlate with Milankovitch cycle solar insolation variability. Most of the variability does correlate well with Milankovitch.

[cogitator]

Lets say you're right. You have not proposed a single solution, nor shown any other scientist's proposed solution, to this "problem." For starters:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1775113/posts?page=38#38

Also: Global warming in the 21st Century: an alternative scenario (PDF)

[cogitator]

1. What evidence is available that indicates that CO2 concentrations increased prior to the receedance of the Wisconsin Ice Sheet instead of in response to changes in regional or global temperature increases?

See post 167 for a full (though brief) explanation of glacial/interglacial variability.

How does the current atmospheric concentration of CO2 compare with the million year average CO2 concentration?

I can't reliably go back one million years. I can state authoritatively that the current CO2 concentration is about 80 ppm higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years. Prior to the Pliocene, atmosheric CO2 concentrations were higher. One data record I can check quickly indicates that CO2 concentrations have been roughly in the 180-280 ppm range for the Pliocene and Pleistocene, but that is an eyeball interpretation. See below.

Carbon and oxygen isotope record time-correlated with tectonic and climate events

[cogitator]

See post 167 for a brief explanation. Thanks for your attention.

[cogitator]

You realize, of course, that one of Glassman's main points is utterly wrong. There are multiple lines of evidence indicating that the current increase in atmospheric CO2 is from fossil fuel burning. The Suess isotopic dilution effect is one such line of evidence. Furthermore, the Keeling curve increase is utterly consistent with the models of the global CO2/carbon cycle that Glassman disparages -- in fact, the Keeling curve forced a re-examination of boreal forest CO2 dynamics.

He also disparages the positive feedback of CO2 in the glacial/interglacial record, but didn't understand Schmidt's comments about physics. The physics indicate that solar insolation variability is significantly insufficient to provide the necessary energy to cause the full temperature range variability seen in the ice cores. Glassman does not provide any other mechanism that could -- a major failing.

The tone and attitude of Glassman is pure pseudoscience at its best.

[cogitator]

The Role of the Sun in 20th Century Climate Change

Your graphs do nicely show emergence from the Maunder Minimum.

[frogjerk]

The figure shows that sunspot numbers rose in the first half of the 20th century, along with temperatures. The rise in solar activity in the early part of the century is though to be connected with an 80 year cycle of solar activity known as the Gleissman cycle. The temperature increase in the second half of the twentieth century does not seem to linked with sunspot numbers.

It sure does to me. Were talking overall trend here. Average number of sunspots went up and so did temperature.

Take a look at the graph where the number of sunspots stayed about an average of 80 (about 1940s-on). The surface temperature reflected this change. The number of sunspots hasn't receded to the early 1900's average level of 30 or so. This means the earth hasn't been able receive a cool sun's radiation for some time now.

[Buckhead]

Actually, I didn't know that. Perhaps Glassman will have something to say, here or on his site.

Regards,

[cogitator]

Look at the solar cycle length comment.

[edsheppa]

That's very interesting and has some bearing but doesn't directly address the question. It might indeed lead to extra worry that any human indiced temperature increases will be magnified by decreased CO2 solubility.

In any case, it would be only fair to subject this theory to the same standard as I'd want for the other, namely practically testable predictions that can be compared to other models.

For the record, I consider figure 10 quite suspect. It claims to show cross-correlation between the two signals for delays up to 400K years. The two signals are not very far from saw tooth waves with the same 100K year period and the cross-correlation of two such pure waves will not behave qualitatively as figure 10 indicates. It will dip down through zero, go pretty far negative then swing back up at the end of the period. Even for noisy signals such as these are, I'd expect it to dip at about 50K years but it hangs pretty steady instead.

[palmer]

Glassman's main point is correct, that for the most part, CO2 lags temperature. Also that pasting CO2 measurements from Mona Loa onto the Vostok proxy data is ridiculous science and purely political. Sure, his physics is weak, but physics is a weak basis to argue from either side since the real unknown is not CO2 or energy or any other physical constant, but correctly accounting for water vapor feedback. Any models that don't show how tropical convection puts water vapor into the upper atmosphere to cause warming can be dismissed. I am fully ready to consider warming a problem once that is shown, but also ready to use those same models to determine the most cost effective solutions.

[drrocket]

How could anyone “realize, of course” what you don’t even cite? The two articles on www.rocketscientistsjournal.com say nothing to deny the existence of evidence of anthropogenic CO2.

Nor did those articles anywhere disparage the global CO2/carbon cycle. Indeed, they urged that climatologists include that cycle in their models! For the record, the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), Climate Change 2001, notes that only a few of the most advanced models (the AOGCMs) include the carbon cycle, but that none of these has produced useful results. And consequently, none are reported in the TAR. Climatologists themselves have suggested that the carbon cycle must be included in the simulations.

Since the carbon cycle has not been usefully reproduced, how do you know the Keeling curve is “utterly consistent” with those models? A citation here is indicated.

You and some of the other commenters here misunderstand the word feedback as it is used by the climatologists. None of the GCMs or their relatives (e.g., one-dimensional radiative-convective models, models known disparagingly as “toy” models, energy balance models) have closed loops, nonetheless they have feedbacks! That would be quite incongruous to anyone versed in control system theory and modeling. A feedback in a climate model is a parameter whose value is computed by the model, not one that closes a loop. The parameters that are not feedbacks climatologists call forcings. Water vapor, if it is present in these models at all, is a feedback.

Carbon dioxide, though, they mechanize as a forcing. They could do little else absent a carbon cycle. Making CO2 a forcing leaves the models unable to produce the solubility curvature reported in the Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide. A number of other complications arise as well, but they are too lengthy for this post.

What I disparage includes the climatologists’ naked assumption that carbon dioxide amplifies the proxy temperature record in the Vostok data. Also I disparage that the climatologists make no show of validating their climate models on the paleoclimate record. Nonetheless, they rely on the Vostok record and on their uncorrelated models for their AGW conjecture, and unethically to affect public policy.

What Gavin said about my physics understanding was, “He neither understands the physics of CO2, … ”. What could I have possibly misunderstood about this totally unsupported accusation? You bring up the physics of solar insolation, but Gavin didn’t. And you provide no showing that I misunderstand solar insolation.

You say that I didn’t provide a mechanism for the temperature variations in the ice core data. Consider what you are suggesting! I showed evidence for the first time that the CO2 concentration in the Vostok record is (entirely) represented by the atmosphere-ocean solubility pump, WITHOUT SAYING WHAT CAUSED THE OCEAN TEMPERATURE CHANGES. Conversely, the AGW folk first said the CO2 concentration change causes the temperature change, WITHOUT SAYING WHAT CAUSED THAT CO2 CHANGE. Later they changed this to say the CO2 amplified the temperature change, still NOT SAYING WHAT CAUSED THE CO2 CHANGE. No one is claiming to know what started the sequence.

Why should I be burdened to solve that mystery anyway? We’re a long way from solving the mysteries of global climate. Nevertheless, in the paleo record, temperature change came first. And unless the physics of the earth have changed, an increase in CO2 should be occurring in the modern era as a result of the global warming.

And for the record, no one has accounted for the Keeling base line increase to include the increased outgassing due to warming.

Lastly, kindly provide any specifics for your “tone and attitude” observations, and an operative defintion for what you mean by “pseudoscience”.

[palmer]

The rocket scientist responded, I think it's bumpworthy.

[!1776!]

I don't know what the evidence is, if any, that measured CO2 increases are primarily due to human activity. Information about recent history is probably very good (we know how much fossil and other fuels are burnt and we know what atmospheric CO2 concentrations are) so we can reliably say today what the natural sinks and sources are doing in the aggregate, even if we can't identify and understand them in detail.

What is known is that there are measured increased of CO2 concentrations (at certain locations). It is also known that human emissions of CO2 have increased.

You are correct, it is easy to draw a correlation, but that does not prove causation. Doesn't rule it out either of course.

So there is an aggregate answer, which appears to be increasing, and there is information regarding one input to that aggregate. Not being able to clearly identify and understand the complete picture of natural sources and sinks of the carbon cycle is as you note a chancy proposition for extrapolating to the future.