What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

G please please please will you stop introducing the same half dozen or so failed arguments back into the conversion

if you are going to bring the same old tired arguments then what am I to do but repeat to you and the readers why it is that these arguments are old hat and long ago fell by the way side
I will maintain it is you who is beating a dead horse by bringing up the same old arguments over and over without ever acknowledging that the overwhelming amount of data is in direct opposition to these arguments you tend to bring

ok having had a chance to skim the paper I am finding several flaws that are also discussed in the rebuttal posted on Real Climate not the least of which is the use of detrended data in a visual representation, very misleading if you ask me.

if you want all the links go to
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ics-2nd-round/

Another study on solar influence

In a recent paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Scafetta & West (S&W) estimate that as much as 25-35% of the global warming in the 1980-2000 period can be attributed changes in the solar output. They used some crude estimates of ‘climate sensitivity’ and estimates of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) to calculate temperature signal (in form of anomalies). They also argue that their estimate, which is based on statistical models only, has a major advantage over physically based considerations (theoretical models), because the latter would require a perfect knowledge about the underlying physical and chemical mechanisms.

In their paper, they combine Lean et al (1995) proxy data for the TSI with recent satellite TSI composites from either Willson & Mordvinov (2003) [which contains a trend] and of Fröhlich & Lean (1998) [data from the same source, but the analysis doesn't contain a trend, henceforth referred to as 'FL98']. From 1980 and afterwards, they see a warming associated with solar forcing, even when basing their calculations on the FL98 data. The fact that the FL98 data doesn’t contain any trend makes this finding seem a bit odd. Several independent indices on solar activity – which are direct modern measurement rather than estimations – indicate that there has been no trend in the level of solar activity since 1950s.

which is exactly what Ive been arguing for quite some time now ( there is no trending evident in the solar radiance ) and may explain the detrended graph used in an effort to show some form of corelation between solar radiation and the dramatic alterations in rate of change seen in climate observations by thousands of researchers over the last 50 or so years. At which point I have to ask. Who is fudging the data presentation in order to try and bolster there argument?


But, S&W have assumed a lagged response (which they state is tS4~4.3 years), so that the increase prior to 1980 seems to have a delayed effect on the temperature. The delayed action is a property of the climate system, which also affects greenhouse gases, and is caused by the oceans which act as a flywheel due to their great heat capacity and thermal inertia. The oceans thus cause a planetary imbalance. When the forcing levels off, the additional response is expected to taper off as a decaying function of time. In contrast, the global mean temperature, however, has increased at a fairly steady rate (Fig. 1). The big problem is to explain a lag of more than 30 years when direct measurements of quantities (galactic cosmic rays, 10.7 cm solar radio, magnetic index, level of sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths) do not indicate any trend in the solar activity since the 1950s.

Global mean temperature from NASA GISSFig. 1. Global mean temperature from GISS.

In order to shed light on these inconsistencies, we need to look more closely at the methods and results in the GRL paper. The S&W temperature signal, when closely scrutinised (their Fig. 3), starts at the 0K anomaly-level in 1900, well above the level of the observed 1900 temperature anomalies, which lie in the range -3K < T < -1K in Fig. 1. In 1940, their temperature [anomaly] reconstruction intercepts the temperature axis near 0.12K, which is slightly higher than the GISS-curve in Fig. 1 suggests. The S&W temperature peaks at 0.3K in 1960, and diverge significantly from the observations. By not plotting the curves on the same graph, the reader may easily get the wrong impression that the construction follows the observations fairly closely. The differences between the curves have not been discussed in the paper, nor the time difference for when the curves indicate maxima (global mean temperature peaks in 1945, while the estimated solar temperature signal peaks in 1960). Hence, the decrease in global temperature in the period 1945 – 1960 is inconsistent with the continued rise in the calculated solar temperature signal.

Another more serious weakness is a flawed approach to obtain their ‘climate sensitivity’, and especially so for ‘Zeq‘ in their Equation 4. They assume a linear relationship between the response and the forcing Zeq=288K/1365Wm-2. For one thing, the energy balance between radiative forcing and temperature response gives a non-linear relation between the forcing, F, and temperature to the fourth power, T4 (the Stefan-Boltzmann law). This is standard textbook climate physics as well as well-known physics. However, there is an additional shortcoming due to the fact that the equilibrium temperature is also affected by the ratio of the Earth’s geometrical cross-section to its surface area as well as how much is reflected, the planetary albedo (A). The textbook formulae for a simple radiative balance model is:

F (1-A)/4 = s T4, where ’s’ here is the Boltzmann constant (~5.67 x 10-8 J/s m2K4).

(‘=’ moved after Scafetta pointed out this error. )

S&W’s sun-climate sensitivity (Zeq =0.21K/Wm-2), on which the given solar influence estimates predominantly depend, is thus based solely on a very crude calculation that contradicts the knowledge of climate physics. The “equilibrium” sensitivity of the global surface temperature to solar irradiance variations, which is calculated simply by dividing the absolute temperature on the earth’s surface (288K) by the solar constant (1365Wm-2), is based on the assumption that the climate response is linear in the whole temperature band starting at the zero point. This assumption is far from being true. S&W argue further that this sensitivity does not only represent the direct solar forcing, but includes all the feedback mechanisms. It is well known, that these feedbacks are highly non-linear. Let’s just mention the ice-albedo feedback, which is very different at (hypothetically) e.g. 100K surface temperature with probably ’snowball earth’ and at 300K with no ice at all. In their formula for the calculation of the sun-related temperature change, the long-term changes are determined by Zeq, while their ‘climate transfer sensitivity to slow secular solar variations’ (ZS4) is only used to correct for a time-lag. The reason for this remains unclear.

In order to calculate the terrestrial response to more ephemeral solar variations, S&W introduce another type of ‘climate sensitivity’ which they calculate separately for each of two components representing frequency ranges 7.3-14.7 and 14.7-29.3 year ranges respectively. They take the ratios of the amplitude of band-passed filtered global temperatures to similarly band-passed filtered solar signal as the estimate for the ‘climate sensitivity’. This is a very unusual way of doing it, but S&W argue that similar approach has been used in another study. However, it’s not as simple as that calculating the climate senstivity (see here, here, here, and here). Hence, there are serious weaknesses regarding how the ‘climate sensitivities’ for the 11-year and the 22-year signals were estimated. For linear systems, different frequency bands may be associated with different forcings having different time scales, but chaotic systems and systems with convoluted response are usually characterised with broad power spectra. Furthermore, it’s easy to show that band-pass filtering of two unrelated series of random values can produce a range of different values for the ratio of their amplitudes just by chance (Fig. 2). As an aside, it is also easy to get an apparent coherence between two band-pass filtered stochastic series of finite extent which are unrelated by definition – a common weakness in many studies on solar-terrestrial climate connection. There is little doubt that the analysis involved noisy data.

Histogram of amplitude ratios for two band-pass filtered stochastic seriesFig. 2 showing band-passed random data. A range of 0.5 – 2.0 suggests that there is a risk that one of the amplitudes in two noisy series is twice the value of the other.

The fact that there is poor correspondence between the individual amplitudes of the band-passed filtered signals (Fig. 4 in Scafetta & West, 2005) is another sign indicating that the fluctuations associated with a frequency band in temperature is not necessarily related to solar variability. In fact, the 7.3-14.7 and 14.7-29.3 frequency bands may contain contributions from El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), although the time scale of ENSO is from 3-8 years. The fact that the amplitude of the events vary from time to time implies slower variations, just like modulations of the sunspot number has led to the proposition of the Gleissberg cycles (80-90 years). There is also volcanic activity, and the last major eruption in 1982 and 1991 are almost 10 years apart, and may contribute to the variance in the 7.3-14.7 year frequency range. S&W argue that their method eliminates influences of ENSO and volcanoes because their calculated sensitivity in the higher frequency band is similar to the one derived by Douglass and Clader (2002) by regression analysis (0.11 K/Wm-2). This conclusion is not valid. Having signals of different frequencies in the 7-15 years band, the amplitude of the signal in the higher band may correspond roughly to the 11-year signal by accident, but that doesn’t mean that there are no other influences.

S&W combined two different types of data, and it is well-known that such combinations in themselves may introduces spurious trends. The paper does not address this question.

From regression analysis cited by the authors (Douglass and Clader 2002, White et al. 1997), it seems possible that the sensitivity of global surface temperature to variations of total solar irradiance might be about 0.1K/Wm-2. S&W do not present any convincing result that would point to noticeably higher sensitivities to long-term variations. Their higher values are based on unrealistic assumptions. If they would use a more realistic climate transfer sensitivity of 0.11K/Wm-2, or even somewhat higher (0.12 or 0.13) for the long-term, and use trends instead of smooth curve points, they would end up with solar contributions of 10% or less for 1950-2000 and near 0% and about 10% in 1980-2000 using the PMOD and ACRIM data, respectively.

We have alread discussed the connection between solar activity (here , here, here, and here), and this new analysis does not alter our previous conclusions: that there is not much evidence pointing to the sun being responsible for the warming since the 1950s.

Acknowledgement:
Thanks to Urs Neu for comments and inputs.

once again G the arguments you present have been debunked long ago
is there really no new information coming out that even remotely refutes our one and only working theory explaining the radical changes observed over the last fifty years or so
wow
that is in itself a strong argument in favor of making some positive changes eh
including maybe not bringing the same old tired diatribe into the conversation after what 5000 posts

[Boston]

G I got a great book for you to read if you find the time

Here's and article on it so you can get a feel for what its all about

Unscientific America
Mooney/Kirshenbaum

‘Unscientific America’: A Review

Author Chris Mooney (of “Storm World” fame) and fellow “Intersection” blogger, scientist, and writer Sheril Kirshenbaum have written an extraordinary, if rather sobering book entitled ‘Unscientific America’. What I found most refreshing about the book is that it not only isolates the history behind, and source of, the problem in question—the pervasiveness and dangerousness of scientific illiteracy in modern society–but it offers viable solutions. This book is a must read for anybody who cares about science, and the growing disconnect between the scientific and popular cultures (the problem of the so-called “Two Cultures” first discussed by C.P. Snow).

‘Unscientific America’ explores how we’ve come to the point we’re now at, examining the historical factors behind the diminishing prominence of science and scientists in the popular culture of the U.S. since its heyday in the years following WW II. The authors uncover more than enough blame to go around. They find fault with the media, both in how it portrays science and scientists (e.g. the icon of the ‘mad scientist’), and in the decreasing news coverage devoted to issues involving science and technology. They find fault in the way policy makers often abuse science (cherry-picking those particular scientific findings which suit their agenda), and in the behavior of corporate special interests who, in areas such as our own area of ‘climate change’, have often deliberately manufactured false controversy and confusion to dissuade the public from demanding action be taken. At this point, the scientists among you might begin to feel absolved of any responsibility for the problem. Don’t–Mooney and Kirshenbaum won’t allow us to escape blame, and with good reason. As they point out, we ‘eat our own’, when it comes to colleagues engaged in public outreach and science popularization. Case in point: Carl Sagan–a hero to many of us who value science outreach. One of the darker episodes in modern U.S. science history was the blocking by Sagan’s fellow scientists of his entry into the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Evidently, a majority of his colleagues resented his having become a household name–something they presumably considered unbecoming for a scientist. What sort of message does it send when the most effective science communicator in modern history was shunned by his colleagues for his efforts? Certainly not a good one. This is just one example, and there are many others–it is not surprising that so few scientists to choose to pursue the path of outreach and public education. The reward systems in academia and the scientific world typically do not favor scientists who choose to expend considerable time and effort engaging in public discourse. And here of course, it is as much that system, as the scientists themselves, which is to blame.

Given that we (scientists) are part of the problem, it must stand to reason that we are also part of the solution. And indeed, this is a primary thesis advanced by Mooney and Kirshenbaum. The authors argue that we must fundamentally reinvent the way that scientists are trained, so as to encourage and reward those who choose to serve as much-needed science liasons and science communicators. Indeed, the reward system must be reworked in such a way as to facilitate the establishment of a whole new class of scientists, so-called ’science ambassadors’ who are rigorously trained in science, but have the proclivity and ability to engage in the broader discourse and to help bridge the growing rift between the ‘two cultures’. We can no longer rely on pure serendipity that figures such as Sagan will just come along. We must be proactive in establishing a pipeline of scientists who can fill this key niche. In the absence of such intervention, the authors argue, the current rift between the “two cultures” will continue to grow, and the chasm between science on the one side, and popular culture and public policy-making on the other, will grow ever more dangerously wide. Such was Carl Sagan’s great fear, as revealed in his classic “The Demon-Haunted world”, published shortly before his untimely departure in 1996.

To some, the authors could potentially come across as a bit overly prescriptive here. One might interpret them as arguing that science needs to be taught in a fundamentally different way, with the new generation of science students fully immersed in the social sciences as part of an entirely rethought curriculum. Were the authors arguing this, one might indeed expect quite a bit of push-back from the scientific community. After all, the course work required to prepare today’s science students for careers of advanced research in cosmology or genetics (or climate modeling for that matter) is extensive, and slapping a whole bunch of additional course requirements in, say, communication and sociology, on top of their current requirements would be onerous to say the least. But this is not what the authors are saying (I can say this with confidence, having confirmed this in my discussions with them). To allow science to continue to flourish, it will of course be necessary to allow those scientists with neither the interest nor inherent aptitude for communication to continue to do science in the old fashioned way. It would be an unwise use of our resources and theirs to push these reluctant individuals towards outreach.

What does make sense–and what the authors are indeed arguing for–is that we adapt the current system to facilitate the development of those individuals who are well suited to careers as ’science ambassadors’. An appropriate step might be requiring science majors to take a course in college (perhaps a so-called ‘capstone’ course taken in the senior year) that focuses on the broader societal context within which the scientific topics they’ve studied resides. Some, perhaps even most, of these prospective future scientists will decide that they want no more of this–and that’s fine. Once again, we should not force those who are reluctant to follow this new path. But hopefully the experience will identify, in a self-selecting manner, those scientists who do have broader interests and abilities in this area. And for those who do, there needs to an entire academic infrastructure, ready to absorb them and to help prepare them to join the ranks of those much needed science ambassadors. We need to be realistic in this venture of course. These innovations may not yield another Carl Sagan. But they will certainly move us in the right direction. For those who believe that such dramatic changes in our way of doing things are not necessary–that the burgeoning litany of science blogs, such as RealClimate (which does get several mentions in the book!) will help to insure the penetration of science back into popular culture, the authors have a disquieting message: an entire chapter entitled “The Bloggers Cannot Save Us”. And to those who hope that the more forwarding-thinking attitude towards science within the current U.S. government signals the long-awaited stemming of the anti-science tide, the authors caution that the current crisis–such as the disappearance of science and technology journalism from our media–is far more fundamental and structural in nature.

‘Unscientific America’ is extremely well written, which is no surprise to those of us who follow Chris and Sheril’s insightful blog postings. Its also remarkably error free (something I wish I could say about our own book “Dire predictions”–we still caught a few typos going into the 3rd printing). Every review must find some fault, and so here’s mine: There is a very minor mistake. The authors at one point refer to an exciting new venture known as “Climate Central” as being a Princeton University-affiliated effort. Its not. Other than being physically located in Princeton, and having some Princeton folks on board, there is no formal relationship with the university. I doubt Princeton is going to sue however.

If it were up to me, this book would be required reading for all undergraduate science majors, along with Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World”. Only when we begin training scientists to understand the relationship between science and society, and their crucial role in that relationship, will be begin to solve the dilemma so eloquently described in ‘Unscientific America’

[spearaddict]

That kinda makes it seem like Sun spots have little effect on temperature when compared to CO2 increase.

[Boston]

well thats what happens when you present data in an accurate visual representation
all of a sudden the likelihood of the solar influence argument goes the way of the Dodo

kinda makes you question the integrity of presenting a detrended graph without mentioning why it was necessary to the argument to do so
or why the Graph is detrended in the first place

again the same old deniers arguments presented again and again
ans still once again are in serious question

when oh when will they present compelling evidence in a coherent form representing the linking of numerous papers together into a firm argument
whats up with these few spurious bits and pieces

oh wait I almost forgot

there isnt such an argument

[fasteddy106]

Just more cultist science fiction.

[hoytedow]

This thread is turning into an Ed Wood movie.

[Boston]

I know
The science has shot down every denialist argument from every angle imaginable but still the "true believers" keep bringing on the same old tired diatribe on how the sun did it or there was a volcano, the IPCC lied or one of my faves, its a conspiracy.

Ridiculous I know but thats what you get to deal with when you try and educate people who dont want to be educated or as Jerry once said

you aint going to learn
what you dont want to know

cheers
B

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Boston

its kinda hard not to admit that the entire rise in co2 is caused by human activity








its also pretty hard to suggest it wont have any ill effects

As usual, the effect of Henry's Law is ignored. The fact that anthropogenic emissions rose at about (not exactly, but approximately) the same time as atmospheric CO2 levels rose really does not prove anything. The fact is that anthropogenic emissions (added as they are to the atmosphere directly) are not nearly large enough to have caused the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. The amount needed to accomplish this feat is greater than all the CO2 that would be produced if all the world's fossil fuel reserves were already burned! The isotopic mass-balance studies bear this out as they consistently show an 'unexpectedly' small fraction of 'fossil' hydrocarbon is in the current atmosphere.

There are NO expected "Ill effects" from current or anticipated CO2 levels, which are well below 1%.

Unless you can come up with some credible, plausible explanation as to why the Beer-Lambert equation magically does not apply to CO2, then we have been at spectral saturation WRT CO2 levels for EONS, and additional CO2 just can't do any more that it is already doing.


The explanations you have come up with so far (from Surrealclimate; see "A Saturated, Gassy Argument") are seriously flawed, as the outcomes they predict (a warming stratosphere) are clearly not happening.

Jimbo

[hoytedow]

Boston, the Ed Wood comment was directed to you, spearaddict and troy 2k. Ed Wood would have made a movie out of your fantasies.

[spearaddict]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

Boston, the Ed Wood comment was directed to you, spearaddict and troy 2k. Ed Wood would have made a movie out of your fantasies.

And the rest of world would love to live in your fantasy land where we can do anything without any consequences.

[spearaddict]

This diagram might be easily understood by deniers, it is pretty self explanatory.

[hoytedow]

bla bla bla . . . .

[spearaddict]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

bla bla bla . . . .

It is like talking to a 5 year old.

[hoytedow]

bla . .

[Boston]

As usual, the effect of Henry's Law is ignored. The fact that anthropogenic emissions rose at about (not exactly, but approximately) the same time as atmospheric CO2 levels rose really does not prove anything. The fact is that anthropogenic emissions (added as they are to the atmosphere directly) are not nearly large enough to have caused the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. The amount needed to accomplish this feat is greater than all the CO2 that would be produced if all the world's fossil fuel reserves were already burned! The isotopic mass-balance studies bear this out as they consistently show an 'unexpectedly' small fraction of 'fossil' hydrocarbon is in the current atmosphere.

hi Jim whats up
been a while

Sorry Jim but once again your not completely grasping the effects of old Henry's law within the current frame work

a rudimentary explanation of why Henry's law is not likely to continue helping us out much in the present situation is found in the following

The past few weeks and years have seen a bushel of papers finding that the natural world, in particular perhaps the ocean, is getting fed up with absorbing our CO2. There are uncertainties and caveats associated with each study, but taken as a whole, they provide convincing evidence that the hypothesized carbon cycle positive feedback has begun.

Of the new carbon released to the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, some remains in the atmosphere, while some is taken up into the land biosphere (in places other than those which are being cut) and into the ocean. The natural uptake has been taking up more than half of the carbon emission. If changing climate were to cause the natural world to slow down its carbon uptake, or even begin to release carbon, that would exacerbate the climate forcing from fossil fuels: a positive feedback.

The ocean has a tendency to take up more carbon as the CO2 concentration in the air rises, because of Henry’s Law, which states that in equilibrium, more in the air means more dissolved in the water. Stratification of the waters in the ocean, due to warming at the surface for example, tends to oppose CO2 invasion, by slowing the rate of replenishing surface waters by deep waters which haven’t taken up fossil fuel CO2 yet.

and again you are mistaken when your state

There are NO expected "Ill effects" from current or anticipated CO2 levels, which are well below 1%.

there are many stated ill effects of excessive co2 which ranges in the area of a 28~30% increase in recent years as shown in multiple research endeavor's



an inability to admit this in now way negates the reality of the situation

you reference to Beer lambert is also flawed as can bee seen here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...assy-argument/and depends on a 150 year old misconception that all the radiation is getting blocked already by a monolithic atmosphere and that there is no more to block, were that true we would have boiled away to a barren rock long ago Jim, fortunately this is not the case as can be seen in this excerpt from the reference noted above

What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.

What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.

Any saturation at lower levels would not change this, since it is the layers from which radiation does escape that determine the planet’s heat balance. The basic logic was neatly explained by John Tyndall back in 1862: "As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface."

the accuracy of the predictions made by these many scientist is a testimony to there hard work and veracity of the science as has been shown by comparing past predictions made by the IPCC to present circumstances

Hoyt
Im positive you meant that for me which is why I turned it around the way I did
by the way
did you have your fingers in your ears when you went "la la la la la la la la I cant hear you"

thing is you can deny till your blue in the face but the facts remain there is verifiable science backing up these claims

lets consider how they calibrate the climate models used these days in order to get them as accurate as they do

any of the deniers want to chime in and inform the group as to how thats accomplished cause its really pretty interesting once you understand the process