Posted on 12/23/2003 12:33:31 PM PST by cogitator
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:45:19 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
By the way, I will reply to your comments on the Stott et al. paper this week, tomorrow or Friday.
Sulfate aerosols (there was a marked increase in industrial activity post WWII, and not a lot of emissions controls!)
Especially for the sun's lack of emissions for the period.
The following global temperature reconstruction is composed of the sum of the relative contributions of Solar & CO2 concentration as components of temperature.
The Solar Component(S) is the the solution of a linear regression of Solar Activity as measured by Lean '98 for (1956-1977) scaled and appended to the composite ACRIM Satellite data series (1978-2000) of total solar irradiance vs global instumental land & ocean temperatures, Jones et.al '01.
Ts = 0.2685*S-366.95;
Stderror 0.17oC,
Correlation (R) 0.722
The CO2 component is the linear regression solution of the natural log of CO2 concentration from Law Dome ice core data serie(1865-1978) scaled and appended to Mauna Loa Atmospheric CO2 record (1979-2000) vs the residual of the global intrumental temperature series minus the Solar Component above.
Tc=0.6318*ln(CO2)-3.6324;
Stderror 0.17oC,
Correlation (R) 0.25
Global Temperature Anomaly, oC
Instrumental Global Temperature(T), Jones et al. '01 (black solid line)
Reconstructed temperature (Ts + Tc) from linear regression components(red solid line)
CO2 + Solar Temperature Anomaly Reconstruction, oC
CO2 contribution to temperature (blue area)
Solar contribution to temperature anomaly (red area)
Bottomline, more than 70% of the variation in Earth's global temperature is Solar related, less than 15% can be related to change in CO2 concentrations (man + natural).
On the "Rushing to Judgment" thread, I posted a summary of the paper "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?" paper just published in Journal of Climate. Quote from Introduction: "Coupled model simulations show that warming over the last 50 yr can be explained by a combination of greenhouse warming balanced by cooling from sulfate aerosols." There was also a decently large eruption in 1963 (Agung) that may have helped out a bit.
Essentially what the Stott, Jones, and Mitchell paper appears to achieve is test a particular climate model against a couple of the more conservative solar irradiance series available and declares it inadequate as regard solar forcing responses.
Conclusion is that with whatever reconstruction is used, "the large-scale temperature response to changes in solar output appears to be underestimated by the model". This is consistent with other detection studies."
That being the case, no conclusions can be drawn from that model as regards the accuracy of how it reflects real world processes. The model tested in the study must be viewed as inaccurate as a consequence of inadequate treatment of solar forcings. Thus one must conclude, because the GCM underestimates the response to solar forcings,the GCM must give excessive weight to minority GHG's to achieve an apparent fit to instrumental measurements.
Looking over the summary you provided, my primary remark remains the same as I make concerming the inadequacy of the GCM's in general. They are not designed to adequately model the processes of solar variations and thus overstate the contributions of GHGs.
The study is fine, its primary result being to test the response of a Model to a set of solar forcings.
In using the Lean data to test the sensitivity of a "Model" to solar forcings, Lean is one of the most concervative of the solar forcings that can be used. The Lean data is scaled on the assumption that the Maunder Mininmum was the result of no more than a 0.25% change in solar activity. Thus the 2wm-2 variation applied as forcing in the GCM. However, other studies estimate the variation in solar forcing to be substantially larger than that Lean(no pun intended ;o) 0.25% estimate.
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/bard_irradiance.txt
2. Data from Figure 3. Reconstructed Solar Irradiance Scaled against Maunder Minimum Total Solar Irradiance reductions of
- 0.25% (Lean et al. 1995),
- 0.40% (Zhang et al. 1994, Solanki and Fligge, 1998)
- 0.55% (Cliver et al. 1998), and
- 0.65% (Reid 1997)
Using Zang, Solanki & Fligge, Cliver, or Reid the Solar forcing introduced into the GCM tested would have caused a substantially greater Solar response greatly reducing the CO2 contributions necessary to reflect historical instrumental record.
Linear Regressions of Solar activity demonstrate and what a model that focuses on greenhouse effect with built in presumptions favoring GHG processes cannot adequately reflect.
A model can only reflect the apriori postulates of its programmers. If any physical processes are not adequately characterized in a model, all outputs are in question.
By the way, you're pretty good at this. Have you published on this subject? I'll take your word for it; I know that you don't want to reveal your true identity.
With that, I would agree. Unfortunately, it seems to be the unpure that get qouted.
It needs to be mentioned here that the big computer models are very expensive to run. Little computer models aren't much use these days. Big computer models are totally non-political and also non-agenda-driven. Real scientists don't waste time with such things that would surely end their careers.
In fact, if there's more evaporation, there are likely to be more clouds, and increased clouds is one suggested cause of the observed decrease in solar radiation at the surface (i.e., "global dimming").
Yep, and variation in low level cloud cover have also been shown to be substantially related to solar activity.
FIG. I. Composite figure showing changes in Earth's cloud cover from four satellite cloud data sets together with cosmic ray fluxes from Climax (solid curve, normalized to May 1965) and 10.7 cm solar Bur (dashed curve, in units of 10-22 Wm-2 Hz-2). Triangles are the Nimbus7 data, squares are the ISCCP C2 and ISCCP_D2 data, diamonds are the DMSP data. All of the displayed data have been smoothed using a 12 month running mean. The Nimbus7 is for the southern hemisphere over oceans with the tropics excluded. The DMSP data are total cloud cover for the southern hemisphere over oceans, and finally the ISCCP data have been derived from geostationary satellites over oceans with the tropics excluded. Also shown are 2-standard-deviation error bars for the three data sets, one for each 6 months.
and is the subject of a current research project at CERN.
Contents of CERN 2001-007
Workshop on ion-aerosol-cloud interactions
http://preprints.cern.ch/cernrep/2001/2001-007/2001-007.html
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/iaci_workshop/proceedings.html
See also:
Patterns of tropospheric response to solar variability
Hans Gleisner and Peter Thejll
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 13, 1711, doi:10.1029/2003GL017129, 2003
12 July 2003
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017129.shtml
http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solar-terrestrial/staff/thejll/GleisnerThejll2003GL017129.pdf
Climate sensitivity of the Earth to solar irradiance
Douglass, David H.; Clader, B. David
JGR 23 August 2002
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2002GL015345.shtmlBendtsen, Jørgen; Bjerrum, Christian J.
Vulnerability of climate on Earth to sudden changes in insolation
JGR 10.1029/2002GL014829
01 August 2002
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2002GL014829.shtmlCosmic rays and stratospheric aerosols: Evidence for a connection?
Vanhellemont, Filip; Fussen, Didier; Bingen, Christine
JGR 02 August 2002
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2002GL015567.shtml
Solar Wind Variations Related to Fluctuations of the North Atlantic Oscillation
Boberg, Fredrik; Lundstedt, Henrik
JGR 03 August 2002
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2002GL014903.shtml
I wouldn't knock little computer models as long as you run them on enough computers. (Though it's not a model, this was how the most recently discovered largest prime number was found.)
Have you published on this subject?
I'll give my usual cryptic internet response to that. There has never been a need for me to publish. To publish in this area by me is to just restate what is already being done by many emminent scientists in many disciplines that relate to the subject.
Kyoto had Europe already well on the way to emission standards, 3rd-world and China would have gotten essentialy a pass. Only US and Russia would have taken a big hit.
As much as I wish you were right, you are not. There are about a dozen big computer models that run and all of them give quite different results. They are full of way too many assumptions and they are worst case assumptions. The modellers are not modelling facts, but are modelling the assumption of global warming, and they all put too much weight on the assumption that most all warming is due to man-made CO2. We are not even close to understanding the global system to really model it, so even if everything else I said was false (which it isn't) the models would not be dependable enough to predict anything. The modellers readily admit there are gapping holes in the models are they are too many facts we really don't know. But yet 'scientist' quote these models as if they are fact and use the models to prove stuff. It is really bizzaar from a scientific standpoint.
Canada, Japan, and Australia would have also taken a good hit.
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.