Originally from Jasper Kirkby’s paper – see page 3. http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
Posted on 01/31/2011 3:21:53 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
In the very long run, we need not mind about CO2 or global warming, but instead about higher [galactic cosmic ray] activity and global cooling. There is no way we can influence [galactic cosmic ray] activity, originating in active black holes and imploding supernovae.
Essentially he uses empirical evidence to draw the conclusion that most recent climate variability is due to Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and to Cosmic Ray effect as described by Svensmark. This fits with what William Kinninmonth explained and I described as essentially a massive pool of “stored cold” in the abyssal depths of the oceans, which erratically reaches up and pulls in heat from the insubstantial atmosphere above. Air temperatures are at the beck and call of the releases of this “cold” (yes I know cold is just an absence of heat). In El Nino years when the cold pool lies deep and unstirred, the incoming solar heat builds up on the surface.
With the oceans covering 70% of the planet and the clouds covering over 60% of the sky, water in its various forms, dominates our climate. Solar magnetic effects correlate with changes in clouds. This graph below shows the rise and fall over the last 1000 years. Both the Medieval Warm Period and the The Little Ice Age (upper graph) match the highs and lows of Galactic Cosmic rays (lower graph).
Originally from Jasper Kirkby’s paper – see page 3. http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
Cloud cover has reduced by 4% since 1984. This would account for a significant part of the warming since then. Less incoming sunlight gets blocked and reflected out to space.
...
One of the most interesting slides is this one of outgoing long wave radiation (OLR). This has risen over the last 62 years, and by a large amount. As the planet warms we’d expect more OLR, but if feedbacks are positive, we wouldn’t expect the increase to be this large. Van Andel suggests the rise is “equivalent” to reducing CO2 from 800ppm to 280ppm — in other words, whatever warming effect CO2 might have is being swamped by larger factors.
...
According to the models humidity ought to rise as the world warms, providing the major bulk of the positive feedback in the IPCC climate models. And it does — but only in the lower atmosphere. The rising humidity would have the largest warming effect if it occurred higher in the troposphere (thereby creating the hot spot), but specific humidity at up at 600mB has been falling, not rising — and the fall is even larger at 400mB (lower pressure means higher in the atmosphere).
...
...
Noor van Andel points out that the 800 year lag (driven by overturning oceans) and that the ice cores show no evidence of positive feedback as the world warmed from the last ice age.
...
Van Andel does something that few have done — he sums up Miskolczi’s theory (as mentioned by David Stockwell). The slide presentation has many strong graphs on Miskolczi’s theory.
Infrared window and humidity: Miskolczi’s theory
- An atmosphere without an infrared window has a much larger climate sensitivity than ours, with an infrared window
- Trenberth: Window radiation = 40 W/m^2. Satellite measurement: 66 W/m^2. Prof.Trenberth wrote us that he knows this. But he kept his 40 W/m^2 disregarding measurements.
- An atmosphere where specific humidity increases everywhere with temperature has a large climate sensitivity. It has a tipping point.
- Trenberth: Relative humidity is constant everywhere. Satellite measurement: Humidity is decreasing. Prof.Trenberth wrote me that he thinks it is increasing and advises me to read the IPCC reports.
- Miskolczi: Window radiation is exp[-1.868] or about 1/6 of surface upward IR; Clouds keep τclear at 1.868; more CO2 is compensated with less water vapor. The greenhouse effect is not a free variable. It is controlled by maximum entropy production. Surface temperature is only a function of absorbed solar radiation.
- I challenge everybody to falsify Ferenc’s hypothesis with measurements!
The right physics in my opinion: We have a strongly controlled climate. The solar constant and the physical properties of water keep us controlled.
- The heat transfer from surface into space uses two mechanisms in series: Convection in the lower atmosphere, IR radiation in the higher atmosphere.
- The warmer it becomes, going from pole to equator, the more important the convection part becomes. The height on which radiation flux becomes larger than convection flux, the
convection top, rises.- More convection means a higher tropopause, a lower cloud top temperature, a higher condensation efficiency, and in this way a drier upper troposphere.
- These two effects: a higher convection top and a drier upper troposphere, both increase Outgoing Longwave Radiation. This controls the temperature.
This subsection is from the paper CO2 and Climate 17-1-2011
It is shown that the cooling of the tropics, or trade wind belt, is by deep convection, i.e. by a few thousand concentrated tropical thunderstorms that carry all the sensible and latent heat swept up by the trade winds all the way on to the tropopause.
...
The trends of the temperature in the high atmosphere in the last half century are very negative, starting on this height where the convection reaches. That means that more CO2 has a cooling effect rather than a warming effect. Cloud tops radiate much more intense than the thin air on this height.
This is the cause behind the cooling, as much as the CO2 increase.
The cooling trend is quite in discrepancy with the “greenhouse-gas-induced-global-warming”
theory, but is quite in accord with increasing deep convection. The adjustment of these temperature measurements to bring them more in line with the climate models leads to unphysical conditions and processes.
- Rising Outgoing Long-wave radiation with more than 3.7 W/m^2 per ºC SST cannot be the effect of rising CO2 or of the increase of other “greenhouse” gases. Rising OLR/SST with 8.6 W/m^2K means that the atmosphere has become more transparent to IR radiation in the past 60 years. The “greenhouse effect” has become less.
- Solar constant and the properties of water determine our climate
- Rising surface temperature is tightly controlled by increasing wet convection and concomitant upper tropospheric drying
- No observational evidence for influence of CO2 on past or present climate
- Strong observational correlation of solar magnetic activity with climate temperatures, presumably via cloud condensation nucleation and albedo
Noor van Andel’s speech was apparently very well received and drew a lot of attention:
My talk yesterday for the Dutch Meteorological Institute was a great success. There were 10% more attendants than their largest conference room could contain seated, the interruptive discussion was intense, and even sometimes emotional, but always correct, because Hein Haak wielded his power efficiently to keep it that way.
KNMI directors Hein Haak and Remco den Besten invited me to write or come to KNMI whenever I wanted, get the support from their specialists when I needed it, in order to continue the discussion that was started yesterday. Very nice, and very Dutch.
Thanks to the SPPI blog for the tip, The Hockeyschtick for expanding on it, and climategate.nl for the slides. Popular Tech lists two papers by Andel. Thanks Don B for the link to the Jasper Kirkby paper.
Noor van Andel’s full slide set.
The latest paper “CO2 and Climate”.
Hey there,
I’d like to be on your ping list.
“Ping list dealing with odd space phenomena and solar events.”
Thanks,
Gator113
Cosmic ray ping!
It sure is. Great stuff though and definitely bookmarked for reference.
Bravo! Dr. Noor van Andel supports the findings of many responsible USA meteorological scientists.
Many scientists agree with the good doctor that carbon dioxide is really NOT a global greenhouse gas, and should not be presented as such, especially in the concentrations that exist today. Water vapor and clouds are the primary drivers of climate change, as driven by the Sun, whether it be cosmic rays or variations in solar radiation, or magnetic field changes, or distance from the Earth.
“But the Globull Warmers got the crystal ball!”
More is coming.
I do have a question, if someone can explain this is words of one syllable.
Whenever someone mocks global warming by mentioning the bad winter weather much of the country has been having, someone else usually pops up saying "You are just ignorant and don't understand the difference between climate and weather."
Now, my understanding of this science is not deep, but I thought that the difference between weather and climate was basically a matter of time. One bad winter might be an anomaly, but a series of them might indicate a climate change. How, then, can someone say that another is "ignorant" for pointing out what the weather is doing? After all, haven't the proponents of man-made global warming/change/whatever the current term is done just exactly that?
Ping
Tax them, of course. What else? Have you paid your “fight cosmic rays” tax yet? No? You will.
Guess it is alll those years of heavy technical training.
Actually as I read the original question.. I had an almost identical response to prepare until I looked down a few posts and saw you already elucidated the answer. Heheh.
Thanks Ernest_at_the_Beach and The Comedian.
It's been the same argument since the global cooling run in the 70s, almost verbatim with the change from cooling to warming.
Here's where it gets difficult. A post from earlier today on everything supposedly caused by global warming: Post 17.
I would suggest that...
The Sun is the engine and the clouds,oceans, and cosmic rays are the tires, suspension, and brakes. The Jet Stream is like a highway that constantly moves. There are many factors which affect ‘climate’, and the ‘climate’ is not locked to the surface of the planet. It can, and has always changed.
"Just give it another try. I'm sure it will start raining."
They left out halitosis, bathtub ring, and maybe a couple of other things, but give them time.
I can remember the global cooling nonsense from the '70s. We were supposed to all have been frozen to death by now, with glaciers covering a big chunk of the US. I suppose that is one reason I have been an AGW skeptic.
Glad to know I'm not off so much on weather/climate.
Everything is made out of Sunshine.
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.