|
Post by glc on Apr 9, 2010 11:56:26 GMT
On WUWT wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/08/nsidcs-walt-meier-responds-to-willis/Walt Meier has responded to questions from Willis E. Dr Meier's responses are all perfectly reasonable. There is though one small weakness in his case. In his post, Dr Meier states "We have evidence that in the past the sun affected climate. And as expected we see the current climate respond to changes in solar energy. In the past we have evidence that volcanoes affected climate. And as expected we see the climate respond to volcanic eruptions (e.g., Mt. Pinatubo). And in the past we’ve seen climate change with greenhouse gases (GHGs)". Leif Svalgaard has produced persuasive research which suggests that solar variability is far less than was previously thought. If Leif is correct then considerable doubts are raised about how much Dr. Meier and his colleagues actually know. Huge uncertainties would be introduced with respect to the "detection and attribution" studies which have brought about the conclusion that only the increase in ghgs can explain post-1975 warming. Of course, Leif may have missed something. There might be some undetected solar mechanism which produces changes in the atmosphere. But be in no doubt, AGW proponents NEED solar variability. That way they can explain early 20th century warming and other climate fluctuations in the past. They can also tell us quite truthfully that there has been no significant trend in solar parameters over the past 50 years and that late 20th century warming is, therefore, human-induced. Solar theorists are backed against the wall. They are now desperately looking for a fall in temperatures while none seems to be forthcoming. It's time to consider the possibility that solar variability is a red herring. The alternative is to face the possibility that increasing CO2 is overwhelming the natural solar effect.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Apr 9, 2010 12:45:10 GMT
On WUWT wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/08/nsidcs-walt-meier-responds-to-willis/Walt Meier has responded to questions from Willis E. Dr Meier's responses are all perfectly reasonable. There is though one small weakness in his case. In his post, Dr Meier states "We have evidence that in the past the sun affected climate. And as expected we see the current climate respond to changes in solar energy. In the past we have evidence that volcanoes affected climate. And as expected we see the climate respond to volcanic eruptions (e.g., Mt. Pinatubo). And in the past we’ve seen climate change with greenhouse gases (GHGs)". Leif Svalgaard has produced persuasive research which suggests that solar variability is far less than was previously thought. If Leif is correct then considerable doubts are raised about how much Dr. Meier and his colleagues actually know. Huge uncertainties would be introduced with respect to the "detection and attribution" studies which have brought about the conclusion that only the increase in ghgs can explain post-1975 warming. Of course, Leif may have missed something. There might be some undetected solar mechanism which produces changes in the atmosphere. But be in no doubt, AGW proponents NEED solar variability. That way they can explain early 20th century warming and other climate fluctuations in the past. They can also tell us quite truthfully that there has been no significant trend in solar parameters over the past 50 years and that late 20th century warming is, therefore, human-induced. Solar theorists are backed against the wall. They are now desperately looking for a fall in temperatures while none seems to be forthcoming. It's time to consider the possibility that solar variability is a red herring. The alternative is to face the possibility that increasing CO2 is overwhelming the natural solar effect. 1. CO2 is the red herring; ocean heat content is not increasing 2. What is, according to you, the ideal global mean temperature, and what should be done to maintain it?
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 9, 2010 13:04:08 GMT
In reply to GLC, CO2 AWG is backed against the wall. They are now desperately looking for a rise in temperatures while none seems to be forthcoming. It's time to consider the possibility that the AWG CO2 theory is fundamentally incorrect. www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-90903-2009-JA.pdfIf the facts change the hypothesis and the predictions should also change.
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 9, 2010 13:14:48 GMT
As noted, if the planet's response to a change forcing is negative (planetary clouds increase or decrease to resist a change) then the planetary temperature change due to a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Svensmark's GCR mechanism has more than one part. Solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions. Decreases in the solar heliosphere results in high GCR. The ocean top 150m has a time constant of around 5 years. If planetary feedback is negative the planet will cool in an osillating manner due to increased GCR. As you appear to have not read any of Svensmark's papers or his book "Chilling Stars Cosmic Climate Change" you may not be aware that the GCR affect is strongest at higher latitudes (40 to 60 degree). The 20th century warming was latitude specific which is not consistent with the CO2 AWG theory. www.amazon.com/Chilling-Stars-Cosmic-Climate-Change/dp/1840468661
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 9, 2010 13:26:03 GMT
glc, Here is an explanation for the increased Antarctic sea ice. When planetary cloud increases its affect is different over the Antarctic Ice sheet as the albedo of the ice sheet is greater than the clouds. Clouds warm in addition to cool due the H2O greenhouse effect. Increased GCR therefore causes a relative warming in the Antarctic. Do you have a competing mechanism can explain the polar see-saw. Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic raysarxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1It should be noted that there is correlation to C14 changes which indicates either solar or geomagnetic field change are the cause of the 1470 year cycle of abrupt climate changes. There is smoking gun evidence to support the assertion that the sun is responsible for cyclic abrupt climate change. As noted in this paper by noted Real Climate poster and CO2 AWG aficionado Stefan Rahmstorf. www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Apr 9, 2010 13:50:21 GMT
Dr. Meier used an embarrassingly transparent set of false choices in order to support his position. He makes the boring and untrue claim that to disagree with AGW is to disregard physics. And he made the interesting assertion that human generated carbon has different chemical properties from natural carbon. I have asked him to explain how this can be. I look forward to his response.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 9, 2010 17:06:16 GMT
In reply to GLC,
CO2 AWG is backed against the wall. They are now desperately looking for a rise in temperatures while none seems to be forthcoming. It's time to consider the possibility that the AWG CO2 theory is fundamentally incorrect.
"They" don't need to look for a rise in temperatures. Temperatures are rising and they have been doing so for the past 30 odd years. Current climate indicators all suggest we should now be cooling. The NAO and PDO are in cool phases and There has been no trend in solar activity for around 50 years - though that now is falling and has been since the 1990s. Despite this the warming trend continues. We now have a positive trend even if you use 1998 as the start point. If CO2 is preventing cooling then it is overwhelming all the natural factors - one of which is supposedly solar activity. If solar activity really is a significant factor then AGW scepticism is on borrowed time.
Re: Schwartz paper
The warming observed is perfectly consistent with a ~1.5 deg increase per CO2 doubling. Observations *may* raise questions about the strength of feedback but not about the basic theory of AGW. However, I'd leave it a bit longer before jumping to conclusions about the rate of warming.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 9, 2010 17:23:46 GMT
Dr. Meier used an embarrassingly transparent set of false choices in order to support his position. He makes the boring and untrue claim that to disagree with AGW is to disregard physics. And he made the interesting assertion that human generated carbon has different chemical properties from natural carbon. I have asked him to explain how this can be. I look forward to his response. And he made the interesting assertion that human generated carbon has different chemical properties from natural carbon. I have asked him to explain how this can be. I look forward to his response.Did you? I hope you showed a little more humility than in your post. You might look a bit silly otherwise because Dr. Meier is perfectly correct. Carbon from fossil fuel burning has lower 13C/12C isotope ratios. It is therefore possible to identify the source of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans.
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 9, 2010 19:09:05 GMT
GLC, You did not reply to my questions. How does the CO2 AWG mechanism explain the latitude dependent warming that is observed? Sea ice has decreased in the Arctic and increased in Antarctic. See my above comment for an explanation of GCR modulation where increased high latitude clouds causes cooling in Arctic and warming in the Antarctic. Indication in the warming observations of a polar sea-saw indicates a significant portion of recent warming was due to Svensmark's mechanisms. I copied Svensmark's Polar Sea-Saw paper at Real Climate and explained the mechanism. Gavin Schmidt did not have a scientific response to explain Svensmark's 6000 years of Greenland and Arctic ice temperature data that shows there is concurrent warming at the Arctic when there is cooling at the Antarctic and visa versa. Comment: Schmidt has a published paper that asserts the Polar Sea-Saw is caused by ocean currents however the lag time for the ocean currents is 100 years. There is not however a lag time of 100 years in the Greenland and Antarctic ice core temperature data. The ice temperature data is a direct measurement of ice sheet temperature by inserting temperature measuring devices in the ice sheet hole and then filling the hole with water/glycol. Svensmark 6000 years data shows there is a cycle of warming and cooling. Svensmark In response to your comment that Schwartz's paper states current warming is consisted with a 1.5C warming for doubling of CO2. The IPCC is predicting a 3C to 4.5C warming for doubling of CO2, not a 1.5C. The Copenhagen accord stated a goal of limiting warming to a maximum of 2C. Mission accomplished. The question is not is there any warming but rather is the CO2 warming dangerous warming. Re: Schwartz paper The warming observed is perfectly consistent with a ~1.5 deg increase per CO2 doubling. Observations *may* raise questions about the strength of feedback but not about the basic theory of AGW. However, I'd leave it a bit longer before jumping to conclusions about the rate of warming. Do you have a competing mechanism that can explain the polar see-saw? Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic raysarxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1As you appear to have not read any of Svensmark's papers or his book "Chilling Stars Cosmic Climate Change" you may not be aware that the GCR affect is strongest at higher latitudes (40 to 60 degree). The 20th century warming was latitude specific which is not consistent with the CO2 AWG theory. www.amazon.com/Chilling-Stars-Cosmic-Climate-Change/dp/1840468661
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 9, 2010 22:42:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 9, 2010 22:56:37 GMT
There is a second mechanism by which solar activity changes modulates planetary cloud cover. Solar wind bursts caused by coronal holes create a space charge difference in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. The next paper provides data the shows there is close correlation with geomagnetic field changes (ak) which are caused by the solar wind burst and planetary temperature. The next review paper by Tinsley and Yu summaries the data that supports the assertion that solar activity changes modulates planetary cloud cover and shows how that mechanism is hypothesized to work. www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtmlThere is close correlation of planetary temperature and solar wind burst as measured by the geomagnetic parameter AK that changes in proportion to how the solar wind burst in question affects the geomagnetic field. sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdfSee section 5a) Modulation of the global circuit in this review paper, that explains how solar wind bursts by the process electroscavenging, increases in the global electric circuit, and thereby removes cloud forming ions. The same review paper summarizes the data that does show correlation between low level clouds and GCR. www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdfwww.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399437a0.htmlI posted the same papers at Real Climate and did not get a scientific response. I was told those papers and the subject of how the solar magnetic field modulates clouds were "off message". I kid you not. The solar wind bursts started in 1994 and explain why post 1994 planetary cloud cover no longer tracks the solar magnetic cycle. The solar wind bursts as noted in this paper where caused by coronal holes that appeared at low latitudes on the sun's surface. Based on the data and the science a signficant portion of the 20th century warming was due to solar wind burst. The solar wind burst have continued due to coronal holes that are forming in solar equatorial positions. It is expected that when the solar wind burst cease that there will be a significant step rise in planetary cloud cover. GCR is currently at the highest level every measured.
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 9, 2010 23:11:44 GMT
This comment is in follow-up to my last comments. This review paper by Brian Tinsley explains the electroscavenging mechanism. As noted the IPCC AR4 report specifically notes the warming is latitude specific with the majority of the warming occurring at high northern latitudes. My comments above and below provide papers that specifically explain why that is so. It appears a significant portion of the 20th century warming was due to solar wind bursts. It appears the planet is about to abruptly cool. www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_NotGlobal_files/image003.jpgwww.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 9, 2010 23:26:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 10, 2010 2:00:03 GMT
socold, The blog you link to makes urban legend statements. i.e. The blog does include data and scientific papers that support their statements. What we are currently observing Arctic warming and Antarctic cooling or visa versa has happened before and is due to either higher GCR, or due to electroscavenging, or due to changes in the geomagnetic field inclination or intensity. (See the papers I have linked to above and my comments for details as to how each mechanism works. i.e. I am explaining mechanisms that are described in scientific papers as opposed to making up my own mechanisms. There is observational and logical that supports the mechanisms that I describe above.) Look at figure 1 in this paper. Can you explain the polar see-saw? arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0612/0612145v1.pdf
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 10, 2010 2:21:12 GMT
socold, How could we falsify the CO2 AWG hypothesis? If the planet abruptly cools is that a good thing or a bad thing? In the past the planet has abruptly cooled after this specific solar magnetic field interruption. There is a once in 1470 year cycle and there is a once in 6000 year to 8000 year cycle. www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtmlP.S. The external forcing function is the sun. Big surprise. There is evidence of a massive external forcing function and the forcing funciton is solar heliosphere changes and an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle that results when the solar cycle restarts in a massive coronal mass ejections (CME) that changes results in complex alterations to the geomagnetic field. (Referred to as archeomagnetic jerks and geomagnetic excursions.) Look at the paleoclimatic data. Why did the the last glacial cycle complete termination when insolation at 65N has only 20% higher? Why does CO2 rise 800 to a 1000 years after the planet warms? The reason is because the forcing function is not insolation at 65N.
|
|