American Geophysical Union statement confirms global; prominent skeptic signs on

SF Chronicle/American Geophysical Union ^ | December 18, 2003 | David Perlman

[cogitator]

Leaders of one of the nation's top scientific organizations issued a new warning this week that human activities -- most notably the greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other industries -- are warming Earth's climate at a faster rate than ever.

[TheFrog]

Lets review: In 1772 Joseph Priestly discovered that if he put a mouse in a jar with a tightly sealed lid the mouse would soon die. However, if Priestly put a plant in the jar with the mouse and sealed it tightly the mouse lived. He reasoned that it was because the plant was breathing in CO2 and releasing O2. The mouse survived on the oxygen provided by the plant.

[inPhase]

Sure go to NOAA literature. The work I have in mind -- I will not post his name, he is in Boulder, the work was still being worked on in 1995, and it probably still is. I have an original report.

The research has to do with measurement of the aerosols and other outgasing from volcanic activity for the last 100 years.

He has a very beautiful sin curve for the rise and fall of the aerosols in time, in spite of the fact that volcanoes are seemingly random natural events.

His work is squelched (but available). I cannot say why.

This work chronologues data on CO2 emissions (humungous CO2 emissions) from volcanoes and some of it is available from other studies. I never see this mentioned either but that number alone -- the rate of CO2 emossions from volcanoes over time, would cool these greenhouse fanciers.

[cogitator]

Not necessarily a contradiction, AG. The oceans are getting warmer through the water column (reference Levitus study published ~3 years ago). So the warmer surface will lead to increased evaporation regardless of the solar radiation input. 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").

By the way, I will reply to your comments on the Stott et al. paper this week, tomorrow or Friday.

[cogitator]

Oooh, that was worth a nice chuckle.

[ancient_geezer]

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.

T_s = 0.2685*S-366.95;
Stderror 0.17^oC,
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.

T_c=0.6318*ln(CO₂)-3.6324;
Stderror 0.17^oC,
Correlation (R) 0.25

 

 

Global Temperature Anomaly, ^oC
Instrumental Global Temperature(T), Jones et al. '01 (black solid line)
Reconstructed temperature (T_s + T_c) 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.

[cogitator]

AG, one other thing which came up on a different thread, regarding the southerly retreat of the citrus belt in Florida in the 1980s. The U.S. East Coast has exhibited a slight cooling trend over the past couple of decades while the rest of the world has been warming up. The suggested cause is increased cloud cover due to higher sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, which provide more moisture for more clouds over the U.S. East Coast.

The Eastern U.S. keeps its cool while the world warms

[cogitator]

Thanks for reposting that response. It's a good reference for the discussion. I'll get back to you.

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.

[TheFrog]

Furthermore, what gases do trees release at night when no photosynthesis can occur?

There are three phases of the cycle. In phase 1 (Carbon Fixation), CO2 is incorporated into a five-carbon sugar named ribulose bisphosphate (RuBP). The enzyme which catalyzes this first step is RuBP carboxylase or rubisco. It is the most abundant protein in chloroplasts and probably the most abundant protein on Earth. The product of the reaction is a six-carbon intermediate which immediately splits in half to form two molecules of 3-phosphoglycerate. In phase 2 ( Reduction), ATP and NADPH2 from the light reactions are used to convert 3-phosphoglycerate to glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate, the three-carbon carbohydrate precursor to glucose and other sugars. In phase 3 (Regeneration), more ATP is used to convert some of the of the pool of glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate back to RuBP, the acceptor for CO2, thereby completing the cycle. For every three molecules of CO2 that enter the cycle, the net output is one molecule of glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate (G3P). For each G3P synthesized, the cycle spends nine molecules of ATP and six molecules of NADPH2. The light reactions sustain the Calvin cycle by regenerating the ATP and NADPH2.

[UCANSEE2]

Maybe I have unjustified faith in my fellow scientists to keep the purity of science foremost.

With that, I would agree. Unfortunately, it seems to be the unpure that get qouted.

[TheFrog]

You mean that great big ball of flame in the middle of the solar system heats things up, well imagine that : )

[glannon]

which computer models are these?

[glannon]

who said it should only be the us that does this?

[RightWhale]

agenda-driven computer models

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.

[ancient_geezer]

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.shtml

Bendtsen, 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.shtml

Cosmic 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

[cogitator]

Little computer models aren't much use these days. Big computer models are totally non-political and also non-agenda-driven.

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.)

[ancient_geezer]

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.

[Semper Paratus]

who said it should only be the us that does this?

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.

[glannon]

what did the AGU say about the US, Europe, the 3rd world, china and Russia? or are you putting words into their mouths?

[Always Right]

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.

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.

[Always Right]

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.

Canada, Japan, and Australia would have also taken a good hit.