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.

[palmer]

cog's method was to rely on little extracts from papers on the isotopic ratio of carbon in atmospheric CO2. He implies by the placement of his citations that the isotopic ratio measurements are taken from the INCREASE in atmospheric CO2. No investigator makes a claim that the isotopic measurements are made from the increase in CO2, and indeed it would be quite impossible.

I don't think that was cogitator's implication at all. I believe he was saying that the amount of the decline in the 13C/12C ration shows an 85% attribution to anthro CO2 when that anthro CO2 is mixed into the entire atmosphere. Personally I am suspicious of the numbers since I have yet to see a quantitative analysis. But I believe some portion of the decline of 13C is due to fossil fuel, it could be small or large, I just don't know. Also the charts in a link that cogitator provided in another thread (http://www.holivar2006.org/abstracts/pdf/T3-032.pdf) show that for some proxies, the decline the C13/C12 ratio started well before the industrial revolution.

[drrocket]

Now it’s your turn to answer two questions before we proceed. Both these questions refer to your post 171, 1/31/07. I’ll call these #3 and #4 in our discourse, following your two questions.

3. You explained that the physics to which Gavin Schmidt referred when he said I didn’t under the physics was solar insolation. What in my papers relies on solar insolation, or in any other way is misunderstood physics?

4. You said the work on my blog, by its “tone and attitude”, is pure pseudoscience, providing a link to Rory Coker, “Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience”. Will you do the courtesy of citing each passage from my blog postings, whether tone and attitude or not, and the corresponding category in bold from Coker by which you conclude my work is pseudoscience?

[drrocket]

You ask too much of The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide. That paper is not an attempt to model the climate, nor do I accept that doing so is my burden. Also my paper is far from qualitative. As you missed my “main point” in your post 177, (see post 171), my paper reveals for the first time an entirely quantitative relationship in the Vostok data between CO2 and temperature.

I submit to you that for a scientific model to advance from a conjecture to a hypothesis, it must fit all the data. This means that the GCMs produced by others, not me, must reproduce the response of at least natural CO2 to temperature, or the model is invalidated (falsified). How this can be accomplished by inserting a slug of CO2, as the AGW folks do, is far from evident. Among the consequences of my discovery is that the GCMs must treat CO2 just as it should water vapor: both must be “feedbacks” (as that word is used by climatologists).

Treating CO2 as a feedback upsets the isolated conclusions about forcings given by the IPCC in Climate Change 2001. See for example Figure 3, p. 8, Figure 9, p. 37, and the related discussion. That CO2 is a feedback appears to destroy the IPCC Report.

Please continue your explanation covering your new charge that my arguments are qualitative. Is it the consequences of the quantitative results, such as discussed in the preceding paragraphs?

I agree with your concern that water vapor is dominating. The increase in CO2 that is the basis of the AGW flap is negligible when water vapor is included. However I do not agree with you that “average water vapor can not be predicted or even measured.” The proof is trivial. The trick is to measure accurately enough so that the GCM has predictive power (to a layman, the prediction must be better than guesswork). Water vapor measurement is quite difficult, but we are making progress through satellites. Most likely, the measurement will ultimately be made by a proxy, such as cloud cover. Without measurement by proxy, even responsible climatologists would make no progress.

As to my appearance here, your moderator and host kindly brought me into the fray. I did not inject science here, but I’m happy to see the science spread. That is quite essential in the new political science of Global Warming. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fraud.

I have not had an opportunity to review your citation about a rise in oceanic CO2. I wonder if that is CO2(aqueous) or a rise in total DIC? Since global warming is a fact, the oceans must be warming, and the amount of CO2(aqueous) should be decreasing according to the solubility relationship, all other things being equal. But as usual, all other things are never equal. ACO2 is accumulating, and it has to go somewhere.

[cogitator]

I asked drrocket: "Do you (or your thesis, if you prefer) contend that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations commencing approximately 1850 A.D. (as seen in ice core data) is due entirely to degassing of CO2 from a warming oceanic water column?"

He replied: "Ans.: No."

My confusion occurs for two reasons. The first is a quote from the second part of the Acquittal, addressing Gavin Schmidt's comments, which says:

"The cold ocean is a sink to all atmospheric CO2, manmade, accidental, or ocean emitted. The cold sink is limited not by capacity, but by exposure, pressure, and winds. But for the ocean outgassing, the cold waters would scrub the atmosphere of all CO2 in less than a decade by the climatologists own uncertain carbon and flux estimates. The natural source is dominantly the oceans. CO2 concentration has increased because the oceans are warming, and have been since the Little Ice Age and since the last glacial period."

The second reason for my confusion is based on Sabine et al. 2004, "The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2", Science, 305 (5682), p. 367-371. Abstract:

"Using inorganic carbon measurements from an international survey effort in the 1990s and a tracer-based separation technique, we estimate a global oceanic anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) sink for the period from 1800 to 1994 of 118 ± 19 petagrams of carbon. The oceanic sink accounts for ~48% of the total fossil-fuel and cement-manufacturing emissions, implying that the terrestrial biosphere was a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere of about 39 ± 28 petagrams of carbon for this period. The current fraction of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions stored in the ocean appears to be about one-third of the long-term potential."

This abstract and paper indicate that the oceans have been absorbing CO2 at least from 1800. You say that CO2 concentrations (presumably atmospheric) are increasing "since the Little Ice Age" - which ended in the mid-1800s - because the oceans are warming.

The only way that I can reconcile your answer to me, your statement above, and Sabine et al. is that you are saying that the CO2 flux from the atmosphere to the oceans is slowing down because the oceans are getting warmer. Is that a correct interpretation?

Run the animation and you’ll see large variations in the intense outgassing directly south and east of Hawaii. The Islands can be seen on this series as about a one pixel spec.

Done. There is a period in the summer when pCO2 increases in that region (there is no corresponding carbon flux animation). The 1990 flux map, like the 1995 flux map, puts Hawaii in an area where the annual flux is either neutral or slightly negative (sink). I don't interpret that as "massive" if there is only a positive flux for one season of the year.

The question here is (and forgive me if I haven't grasped this aspect) - are you saying that the Mauna Loa CO2 record is not accurately depicting increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations because it may "sample" an occasional positive flux from the adjacent ocean?

After all, a massive amount of CO2 is emitted from the eastern Equatorial Pacific, and it has to go somewhere by some reasonable route.

Hadley cell circulation would indicate that CO2 released from the ocean surface south of the ITCZ would be carried toward the South Pole - correct?

[cogitator]

You explained that the physics to which Gavin Schmidt referred when he said I didn’t under the physics was solar insolation. What in my papers relies on solar insolation, or in any other way is misunderstood physics?

I'm sorry for the way that I wrote that -- it was confusing. The "standard model" is that Milankovitch cycles, after a superposition minima, cause an increase in solar insolation. This would be the "triggering mechanism" for the commencement of emergence from a glacial period. (Reversed, the decrease in solar insolation following a superposition maxima is the triggering mechanism for the commencement of the termination of an interglacial.)

However, the increase in solar insolation caused by Milankovitch forcing is insufficient to cause the full glacial-interglacial temperature range. The only thing that can do it is increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The large "open question" here is the mechanism(s) that provide the full range of atmospheric CO2 concentrations observed in the glacial record. The actual increase/decrease in the temperature of the oceans only accounts for a small percentage of the change. (One of the main reasons I referred to Sigman and Boyle.)

The physics it appeared that you did not understand was the radiative forcing physics of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. If you remove CO2 from its operative position, something else has to account for the full interglacial/glacial temperature range.

You said the work on my blog, by its “tone and attitude”, is pure pseudoscience, providing a link to Rory Coker, “Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience”. Will you do the courtesy of citing each passage from my blog postings, whether tone and attitude or not, and the corresponding category in bold from Coker by which you conclude my work is pseudoscience?

I would prefer to defer that until a later time until we can clarify the scientific issues we are discussing. I can certainly do it, but since we are attempting a rational discourse on the science, I would rather not try to conduct a different discussion in parallel.

Also, I have other commitments today, and will not be able to reply until much later today (if at all). Lack of an immediate reply does not mean that I will not continue to participate.

[Joe 6-pack]

"I fail to understand why it is "good" news to find that we have no influence over a changing climate."

Because humility may very well be the most important and least common of human virtues, and because it's a reminder that the universe is unfolding as it should.

[drrocket]

Thank you. I take the most recent posts by you, cog, and palmer as a resurrection of my physics and as apologies. Accepted. (Buckhead: is there a way to bump the resurrection?)

As to the Milankovitch model, you may have overlooked that Post 187 contains a listing of some of its shortcomings, along with a reference. We should not be deterred because that model wasn't sufficient. Nor do the problems with Milankovitch mean it is wrong. It is just not the holy grail.

The Milankovitch model works through solar insolation, I_s, and I_s indeed should prove to be that holy grail! Modeling of solar insolation is only mentioned once in the whole of Climate Change 2001, and that is to say the climatologists have yet to get around to including it properly! P. 484. Orbital variations will have to be taken into account. After that is done, then the next most significant effect can be detected and modeled. Is it sun spots? Solar resonances? Whatever, that is how science works.

Lots of things about the climate remain unknown. The AGW folk are on the right course for grants, power or recognition, and a certain political agenda, but the wrong course to solve climate questions. Science is patient; politics seeks instant gratification. Bulletin of Atomic (Doomsday Clock) Scientists. Carl (Nuclear Winter) Sagan. James (Ten Years To Go) Hansen. “[R]educe global warming before it is too late” -- The Governator. Gavin (the Tipping Point) Schmidt. Panic before it’s too late. AGW is Science To Go. Drive through poles. Talk into the clown’s mouth.

Meanwhile, several things need fixing with the GCMs. These discussions expose some the most obvious. CO2 must be modeled as a feedback. The sun, i.e., I_s, must not be treated as a constant. Cloud cover must be adequately modeled. There's more that I'm saving for an upcoming paper.

Science demands the GCMs fit all data, and that they exhibit predictive power. Politics has no such requirement, and in fact seems to regale in the nonsense of non-science. "Most scientists" apparently can't see through the charade. The Union of Concerned Scientists think the mime is in a box.

Once the models are repaired, we can consider the puny effects of manmade CO2. It will be a "positive feedback" alright, but it ought to be no better than a sixth order effect, ranking after the lowly, over-played greenhouse effect.

[drrocket]

Errata to 219.

My post gives the false impression that I invented the equatorial circulation described. What I described and relied on is the Hadley Cell, which rises as described, and on the downslope directly feeds if not causes the Hawaii-bound northeast trade winds. These effects are well-known.

What may be novel is that climatologists have yet to recognize that this circulation causes Hawaii to be in the corkscrew chimney of the huge outgassing from the eastern Equatorial Pacific.

[palmer]

Thanks for the update. There are lots of references to Hadley cell and other large scale atmospheric and oceanic circulations in the climate literature. What they typically don't describe is the role that these circulations play in the distribution of CO2. Instead the literature and models mostly assume an even distribution of CO2. I think your analysis is a better match to reality and I'll look for some oceanic CO2 measurement data that might help back it up.

[SunkenCiv]

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
The Times (of London) | February 11, 2007 | Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist
Posted on 02/11/2007 5:45:07 AM EST by alnitak
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1782856/posts