Posted on 11/12/2007 10:07:52 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE
References:
Dergachev, V.A., Dmitriev, P.B., Raspopov, O.M. and Jungner, H. 2006.
Cosmic ray flux variations, modulated by the solar and earth's magnetic fields, and climate changes. 1. Time interval from the present to 10-12 ka ago (the Holocene Epoch).
Geomagnetizm i Aeronomiya 46: 123-134.
What was done
The authors review what they deem to be the salient features of the interacting effects of variations in solar activity and earth's magnetic field on the flux of galactic cosmic rays, together with the likelihood of their potential impact on earth's climate, based on "direct and indirect data on variations in cosmic rays, solar activity, geomagnetic dipole moment, and climate from the present to 10-12 thousand years ago, [as] registered in different natural archives (tree rings, ice layers, etc.)."
What was learned
Dergachev et al. find that "galactic cosmic ray levels in the earth's atmosphere are inversely related to the strength of the helio- and geomagnetic fields," and they conclude that "cosmic ray flux variations are apparently the most effective natural factor of climate changes on a large time scale." More specifically, they note that "changes in cloud processes under the action of cosmic rays, which are of importance for abundance of condensation nuclei and for ice formation in cyclones, can act as a connecting link between solar variability and changes in weather and climate," and they cite numerous scientific studies that indicate that "cosmic rays are a substantial factor affecting weather and climate on time scales of hundreds to thousands of years."
What it means
Carbon dioxide may not be the all-important dominating factor climate alarmists make it out to be when discussing earth's climatic history. Within the context of the Holocene, for example, the only time CO2 moves in concert with air temperature is over the period of earth's recovery from the global chill of the Little Ice Age (the past century or so), and it only does so then quite imperfectly. The flux of galactic cosmic rays, on the other hand, appears to have influenced ups and downs in both temperature and precipitation over the entire 10-12 thousand years of the Holocene, making it the prime candidate for "prime determinant" of earth's climatic state.
Reviewed (by www.CO2Science.org) 20 June 2007
No, cloud cover is NOT in the CGM programs.
Energy reflected from earth (during periods of higher cloud cover) is NOT retained.
I am NOT justifying the IPCC’s assumptions of where the 2 W/m2 “goes” - since their assumptions are based on a CO2 model that doesn’t work. The atmospheric measurements that “should show” what parts of the atmosphere are warming and what parts are cooling don’t work: actual measurements DON’T show the results that the UN’s IPCC political writer’s want.
I'm guessing that you're confusing the limitations of coupling with the complete lack of modeling. Of course, cloud cover (and upper-tropospheric humidity) remain some of the more problematic components of climate modeling, but parameterization of cloud cover is definitely in every (major) GCM (perhaps not SimEarth :-).
A very quick search gives some examples of cloud cover in GCMs...
“In this paper, the authors calculated a set of statistics from synoptic data of the past several decades and compared them with the outputs of seven GCMs participating in the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP), focusing on cloud cover, one of the major trouble spots for which parameterizations are still not well established, and its interaction with other meteorological fields. Differences between long-term mean values of surface air temperature and atmospheric humidity for average and clear sky or for average and overcast conditions characterize the long-term noncausal associations between these two elements and total cloud cover. Not all the GCMs reproduce these associations properly. For example, there was a general agreement in reproducing mean daily cloud–temperature associations in the cold season among all models tested, but large discrepancies between empirical data and some models are found for summer conditions. A correct reproduction of the diurnal cycle of cloud–temperature associations in the warm season is still a major challenge for two of the GCMs that were tested.
...that’s what I said. But note that the paper was published seven years ago.
Well, clouds have competing effects, both reflecting insolation and increasing absorption/re-emission (of which part returns to earth). And as you mention, altitude plays a big part.
But again, overall energy balance...are you claiming that as CO2 has increased (which would lead to greater absorption/emission of energy that would otherwise escape to outer space), there has been a corresponding increasing in cloud albedo, or what? For the overall picture, more CO2 means less energy escape...all other things being equal. How are they not?
I am NOT justifying the IPCC’s assumptions of where the 2 W/m2 “goes” - since their assumptions are based on a CO2 model that doesn’t work.
Heck, they even reduced their estimates here, but what do you believe is wrong with that CO2 model and the simplified expression of DF1750-2007 = k*ln(C1/C0)?
From www.CO2science.org
Climate Model Cloud Simulations
Zhang, M.H., Lin, W.Y., Klein, S.A., Bacmeister, J.T., Bony, S., Cederwall, R.T., Del Genio, A.D., Hack, J.J., Loeb, N.G., Lohmann, U., Minnis, P., Musat, I., Pincus, R., Stier, P., Suarez, M.J., Webb, M.J., Wu, J.B., Xie, S.C., Yao, M.-S. and Yang, J.H. 2005. Comparing clouds and their seasonal variations in 10 atmospheric general circulation models with satellite measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research 110: D15S02, doi:10.1029/2004JD005021.
What was done
In an effort to assess the current status of climate models in simulating clouds, the authors compared basic cloud climatologies from ten atmospheric general circulation models with satellite measurements from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) and the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) program. ISCCP data were available from 1983 to 2001, while data from the CERES program were available for the winter months (DJF) of 2001 and 2002 and for the summer months (JJA) of 2000 and 2001. The purpose of the analysis was two-fold: (1) to assess the current status of climate models in simulating clouds so that future progress can be measured more objectively, and (2) to reveal serious deficiencies in the models so as to improve them.
What was learned
The authors’ analyses revealed a huge list of major imperfections. First, they report a four-fold difference in high clouds among the models, and that the majority of models only simulated 30-40% of the observed middle clouds, with some models simulating less than a quarter of observed middle clouds. For low clouds, they report that half of the models underestimated them, such that the grand mean of low clouds from all models was about 70-80% of observations. Furthermore, when stratified in optical thickness ranges, the majority of the models simulated optically thick clouds more than twice as frequently as satellite observations, while the grand mean of all models simulated about 80% of optical intermediate clouds and 60% of optically thin clouds. In the case of individual cloud types, the group of twenty researchers reports that “differences of seasonal amplitudes among the models and satellite measurements can reach several hundred percent.”
What it means
Zhang et al. conclude that “much more needs to be done to fully understand the physical causes of model cloud biases presented here and to improve the models.” We agree, especially since the deficiencies they discovered have relevance to model predictions of global climate change. Until climate simulations can be conducted with a much greater degree of accuracy, it is unwise to put much credence in what they suggest about the future. And to actually mandate drastic reductions in fossil-fuel usage on the basis of what they currently predict seems downright foolish.
Reviewed 16 November 2005
A little bit more modern a reference showing the many problems of CGM cloud models - This but one of many showing the problems from 1990 thorugh today.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/m/inadeqclouds.jsp
Rather the opposite: Increased albedo has NOT happened over the 27 years when temperatures rose: Instead, REDUCED clouds during this period (caused by INCREASED solar magnetic shielding over this period that REDUCED cosmic radiation interactions with the atmosphere) have INCREASED the energy absorbed by the ground and atmosphere and have INCREASED the earth’s average temperature by 0.4 - 0.45 degree.
Since 1998, solar magnetic shielding has been level, and temps have been level. CO2, of course, has continued to increase - again, a violation of the AGW’s theories. With solar cycle 23 not finished yet - now late by some 6 months, and cycles 24 and 25 predicted to be very low, most observers are predicting average global temperatures to FALL between now and 2020-2025!
While CO2 (of course) continues to rise.
The increase in total greenhouse gasses caused by increased CO2 during this period (an increase slightly less than 1.2%) combine with an increase in solar radiation of 1/2 of one percent to cause an increase of 0.05 to 0.1 degree. (Other calc’s disagree - I am repeating one of the few calculations that actually did credit CO2 with even a small temp increase. Other researchers who credit cosmic radiation as a forcing function predict even lesser changes.)
ping
This can’t be true. The ONLY thing that affects climate, is your SUV. Nothing else.
Well, maybe smoke stacks of large corporations, but it’s mostly your SUV.
What period? Are you saying gas percentages, without relative greenhouse contribution? Please be more specific so I know what you're saying.
Thanks!
How much of this increase is due to increasing ocean temps, and how much is due to combustion is up for question (since the math doesn’t add up given the mass of carbon being burned worldwide vs the total mass of the atmosphere - but that’s just another area where the AGW extremist arguments fail), but there HAS BEEN a 31+% increase in CO2.
Water vapor is 95% of all GHG, and none of it is man-made.
However, man’s total greenhouse gas contribution is ONLY 0.28% of all GHG’s. The remaining amount is natural methane, natural CO2, natural ozone, etc.
Thus, without man, GHG = 100.0
With man’s contribution, GHG = 100.28
Assume we double CO2 concentration, assume NONE of the increase is due to ocean degassing, and assume methane remains the same level (as it is now.) That where you get (less than) 1.2% of GHG effect is man-caused under worst case conditions. The GHG effect is logarithmic by the way, not linear: This means that adding 25 ppm more CO2 (going from 275 to 300) has a greater effect than going from 375 to 400, from 425 to 450, or from 675 to 700. Doubling CO2 does NOT double the GHG effect.
Your arguments all seem out-of-date, from GCMs to temperature profiles to this. The oceans are a HUGE carbon SINK! National Geographic: Oceans Found to Absorb Half of All Man-Made Carbon Dioxide
The GHG effect is logarithmic by the way, not linear
And yet, I thought that up-thread, you discounted Meyre, et al.'s equation. Is it the coefficient you question, or what?
bump
Ha! What do you know? Next thing you'll be telling us is that you're a nuclear engineer...........LOL! /sarc
Totally false: CO2 is a small part of the total GHG (water dominating) and man’s small part of the CO2 fraction of the total GHG = 0.28%
Less than 1/3 of ONE percent of all GHG’s is National Geographic’s “most important” greenhouse gas.
Also - Their (false) concerns about acidification due to CO2 dissolving in the ocean has also been proved false: Coral grow better in higher CO2 levels, and the algae changes forced by CO2 concentrations of 1000 ppm (and above) are NOT detrimental. NG is (again) scaring its readers with hype and predictions that research now shows were false.
I cannot claim CO2 increases now are all from man, from man + ocean releasing CO2 as it heats up from the Little Age 800 years ago (as it has in the past), or only from the ocean changes. I don’t know enough yet.
Others believe that is the case, but for now, I’ll remain skeptical.
Not retracted of course, but still false.
My goodness, failure. So CO2 tracking is really quite useless? This screws up the algore/carbon offset crowds' idea of how they can prove we are killing our planet. So they will have to bury and disavow this report.
Maybe you just don't understand how CO2 emmissions and carbon footprints work? ;-) Send in a donation, buy some carbon offsets, and the lovely folks taking you're money will happily edumicate you. Don't be alarmed if they seem flabbergasted that you 'just don't get it', they mean well. /major sarcasm
B.S. They do not.
They point to CO2 as the most important component of global warming. As I'm sure you're aware, global warming refers to the differential between baseline and current, not absolute contributions.
And if one pulls the water vapor out of the atmosphere in a GCM, what happens...it very rapidly rebounds. And carbon dioxide? Nope.
And you realize that they absorb different wavelengths, right?
I don't see that you can be so sure about the role of cosmic rays and sure about CO2 bring insignificant, but I'll leave it at that.
The authors should be arrested for “Global Warming Denial” and put into a concentration camp at once.
Crist is a scumbag. His policies this week doomed a clean coal plant which would have provided a large amount of electricity using America's most abundant and inexpensive resource.
"Green" policies are un-American, and enrich our enemies while harming our security.
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.