Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 86

Thread: William's Not AGW thread.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956

    William's Not AGW thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by parejkoj View Post
    What can we realistically expect re: global warming?

    Why, more heat waves like the one that's been devastating Russian, of course.
    There are many mechanisms that can cause the planet's temperature to increase and decrease. The starting point to analysis the hypothesis, is how much has the planet warmed vs past temperature changes? (I will deal with that question in my next comment.) The second critical issue is what is the magnitude of the temperature change vs the forcing change?

    CO2 levels have increased 40%. The CO2 forcing effect is logarithmic. Each incremental amount of CO2 has less affect. How much the planet will warm from CO2 depends on whether the planet's response to a forcing change is negative or positive.

    If you look above, I have linked papers that support the assertion that planet's response to a change in forcing is negative not positive. For example the current observed warming is less than 40% of what is predicted by the general climate models and an analysis (actually two separate analyzes using different methodologies both of which support the assertion) of top of atmosphere energy balance vs ocean surface temperatures shows more radiation is reflected back into space by clouds when the planet warms. Those observations and the associated analysis supports the assertion that planetary warming due to a doubling of CO2 will be less than 1C. The issue is not will the planet warm, but rather will the warming be catastrophic, tripping points, and so on.

    A cloud can reflect up to 60% of the incoming solar radiation back into space so a small increase or decrease in planetary cloud cover can have a large affect on the net radiation that warms or cools the planet.

    Negative feedback stabilizes the planet's temperature resisting changes to warm or cool the planet. Cloud negative feedback is the current leading explanation of the faint sun paradox. Which is how does one explain how the planet's oceans remained liquid for billions of years when the solar output was roughly 30% less than current. The other explanation the super high CO2 hypothesis, failed because the amount of atmospheric CO2 is unreasonable and not supported by analysis of rocks of that period.

    During the last 500 million years it has been noted that CO2 levels do not directly correlate with planetary temperatures. There are multi periods in the past (of duration of millions of years) when the planet's temperature has been high and CO2 levels have been low and visa versa. That observation could be explained by negative feedback and some other forcing mechanism that can cool and warm the planet for millions of years.

    As to your comment about the central Russian heat wave this summer. (East Russia experience below average temperatures.) We need to differentiate between weather and climate change.

    Also we need to be aware that abrupt cooling is not positive. If the choice is a planet that is 1C warmer (With the majority of the warming occurring at high latitudes) vs a planet that is 1C colder, its seems warming is significantly better.

    Warming of high latitudes reduces the planetary temperature differential which is one of the causes of extreme weather. (Cold fronts hitting warm fronts.) The general climate models predict less wind and less extreme winds as the planet warms. They also predict increased precipitation. As the planet warms there is more not less rain. That makes sense as the planet is 70% covered with water. When water is warmer there is more evaporation and more clouds.

    http://www.laht.com/article.asp?Arti...tegoryId=14919

    Cold Wave Kills 6 Million Fish in Eastern Bolivia

    LA PAZ – Authorities in the eastern Bolivian province of Santa Cruz declared an alert following the death of 6 million fish from the unusually cold weather gripping the country in recent weeks.
    http://en.mercopress.com/2010/07/20/...of-cattle-lost

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,595
    William. BAUT has taken the position that mainstream science has reached a consensus that climate change is happening, and that a major component of it is anthropomorphic. Positions contrary to that consensus are thus considered against the mainstream and can no longer be made in the Science and Technology forum. I've moved your post to its own thread here in the ATM forum where you may defend it for 30 days if you so wish, or withdraw your claim and request thread closure.
    "Words that make questions may not be questions at all."
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson, answering loaded question in ten words or less
    at a 2010 talk MCed by Stephen Colbert.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    When I state that planet’s response to a forcing change is negative rather than positive, you do not understand the scientific implications of that statement. This is not a political issue. Cycle 24 is different. Global cooling not global warming will be the problem.

    People believe they are morally correct to support the extreme AWG position. The extreme AWG position is not that the planet is warming but that it will reach a tripping point. The papers which I link to below disprove the extreme AWG position.

    If you go to RealClimate you will find the scientific discussion has ceased. The original position at RealClimate was that there was some sort of conspiracy by individuals paid by oil companies to argue against the extreme AWG position. There is a ban on the discussion of AWG as the scientific argument supporting extreme AWG are no longer valid.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/2...d-their-brand/

    1) Observed warming is less than 40% of what is predicted by the general climate models.
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/...2009JCLI3461.1

    Why Hasn't the Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?

    Stephen E. Schwartz, Robert J. Charlson, Ralph A. Kahn, John A. Ogren, Henning Rodhe Issued January 19th, 2010

    The observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the industrial era is less than 40% of that expected from observed increases in long-lived greenhouse gases together with the best-estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity given by the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Possible reasons for this warming discrepancy are systematically examined here. The warming discrepancy is found to be due mainly to some combination of two factors: the IPCC best estimate of climate sensitivity being too high and/or the greenhouse gas forcing being partially offset by forcing by increased concentrations of atmospheric aerosols; the increase in global heat content due to thermal disequilibrium accounts for less than 25% of the discrepancy, and cooling by natural temperature variation can account for only about 15%. Current uncertainty in climate sensitivity is shown to preclude determining the amount of future fossil fuel CO2 emissions that would be compatible with any chosen maximum allowable increase in GMST; even the sign of such allowable future emissions is unconstrained. Resolving this situation, by empirical determination of Earth's climate sensitivity from the historical record over the industrial period or through use of climate models whose accuracy is evaluated by their performance over this period is shown to require substantial reduction in the uncertainty of aerosol forcing over this period.

    2) Feedbacks are negative rather than positive

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

    On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data

    Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data. It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs.

    Therefore, the models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE, though it is difficult to pin down such high sensitivities with any precision. Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation. Although such a test does not distinguish the mechanisms, this is important since the inconsistency of climate feedbacks constitutes a very fundamental problem in climate prediction.
    This is a presentation that Roy Spencer was asked to present at last falls AGU meeting on planetary (our planet) feedbacks.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...isco-final.pdf


    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf

    Point 2 explains observation 1.

    3) Climate in the recent past was warmer than current. Climate in the recent past varied cyclically. The current warming is not unusual.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/1...mann-et-al-99/


    This paper disproves Mann's hockey stick.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/2...d-their-brand/
    Last edited by William; 2010-Aug-21 at 05:08 AM. Reason: grammar

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    If you are interesting in discussing this topic please remove the ban AWG scientific discussion from the science section.


    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf

    Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration

    Feedbacks are widely considered to be the largest source of uncertainty in determining the sensitivity of the climate system to increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, yet the ability to diagnose them from observations has remained controversial. Here a simple model is used to demonstrate that any nonfeedback source of top-of-atmosphere radiative flux variations can cause temperature variability, which then results in a positive bias in diagnosed feedbacks. This effect is demonstrated with daily random flux variations, as might be caused by stochastic fluctuations in low cloud cover. The daily noise in radiative flux then causes interannual and decadal temperature variations in the model’s 50-m-deep swamp ocean. The amount of bias in the feedbacks diagnosed from time-averaged model output depends upon the size of the nonfeedback flux variability relative to the surface temperature variability, as well as the sign and magnitude of the specified (true) feedback. For model runs producing monthly shortwave flux anomaly and temperature anomaly statistics similar to those measured by satellites, the diagnosed feedbacks have positive biases generally in the range of _0.3 to _0.8 W m_2 K_1. These results suggest that current observational diagnoses of cloud feedback—and possibly other feedbacks—could be significantly biased in the positive direction.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    When I state the planet is about to abruptly cool, you believe that is physically impossible because of group think.

    http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/****...er=accuweather

    In the end, we will see who is right and who is wrong. I think we will see a great example of what I am talking about in the next nine months, this being enso driven, as we see a monster of a La Nina, reminiscent of the 1950s, come on. Over the coming decades, I expect to see the Earth's temps retreat back to where they were in the late 1970s. Why do I think that? Because TOTAL GLOBAL SEA ICE is near where it was in the late 1970s. The Earth's temps can go nowhere without the ocean's warming. While it is the hey day for Northern Hemisphere warming and since we measure temps with a heavy bias toward Northern data, it's warm, no question, but one has to wonder why the sea ice is increasing in the south so much. In fact we didn't get close to the 2007 min this year in the north, but we are getting close to the 2007 max in the south. If one simply looks at the total picture, one sees nature in its wonderful balancing act, which what I believe all this is.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,025
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    When I state that planet's response to a forcing change is negative rather than positive, you do not understand the scientific implications of that statement. This is not a political issue. Cycle 24 is different. Global cooling not global warming will be the problem.

    People believe there are morally correct to support the extreme AWG position. The extreme AWG position is not that the planet is warming but that it will reach a tripping point. The papers which I link to below disprove the extreme AWG position.
    BAUT's position on the ATM nature of anti-AGW postings is not because of political or moral positions. It is because we require that non-mainstream ideas be presented in ATM and Global Warming is mainstream science.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,531
    William offers Lindzen & Choi (2009) as a proof that climate feedback is negative but - and this has been told William before - Lindzen & Choi (2009) paper is badly flawed (Trenberth et al. (2010); my own comments on their paper). Additionally, William offers Spencer & Braswell (2008) but that relies on data with very short timescales, which Lin et al. (2010) have shown to be a bad idea. In the thread where the OP was taken out, William also cited Schwartz (2007) as proof of this but Schwartz (2008) has himself corrected the low sensitivity he found earlier to higher value.

    William also repeats the claim that "Observed warming is less than 40% of what is predicted by the general climate models". I have told William why this is false many times, last time I did it here couple of weeks ago. William continues to present the claim unchanged. I'll quote myself here:

    "The claim is misinterpretation of Schwartz et al. (2010). Their abstract says: "The observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the industrial era is less than 40% of that expected from observed increases in long-lived greenhouse gases together with the best-estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity given by the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." So, Schwartz et al. looked how much temperature should increase from greenhouse gases and climate sensitivity alone. That number doesn't contain other forcings. Schwartz et al. do report some discrepancy between observed temperatures and all forcings, but the difference is not "less than 40 %" but it's far smaller. The outcome of the Schwartz et al. paper is basically that there are lot of uncertainty in the climate sensitivity and/or aerosol forcing (which really is not much new result). William just presents this greenhouse gas forcing only number as if it would present the whole situation."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki View Post
    William offers Lindzen & Choi (2009) as a proof that climate feedback is negative but - and this has been told William before - Lindzen & Choi (2009) paper is badly flawed (Trenberth et al. (2010); my own comments on their paper). Additionally, William offers Spencer & Braswell (2008) but that relies on data with very short timescales, which Lin et al. (2010) have shown to be a bad idea. In the thread where the OP was taken out, William also cited Schwartz (2007) as proof of this but Schwartz (2008) has himself corrected the low sensitivity he found earlier to higher value.

    William also repeats the claim that "Observed warming is less than 40% of what is predicted by the general climate models". I have told William why this is false many times, last time I did it here couple of weeks ago. William continues to present the claim unchanged. I'll quote myself here:

    "The claim is misinterpretation of Schwartz et al. (2010). Their abstract says: "The observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the industrial era is less than 40% of that expected from observed increases in long-lived greenhouse gases together with the best-estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity given by the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." So, Schwartz et al. looked how much temperature should increase from greenhouse gases and climate sensitivity alone. That number doesn't contain other forcings. Schwartz et al. do report some discrepancy between observed temperatures and all forcings, but the difference is not "less than 40 %" but it's far smaller. The outcome of the Schwartz et al. paper is basically that there are lot of uncertainty in the climate sensitivity and/or aerosol forcing (which really is not much new result). William just presents this greenhouse gas forcing only number as if it would present the whole situation."

    Ari,

    You provide a link to Trenberth et al's paper that is alleged to show planetary feedback is positive rather than negative.

    Trenberth et al analysis the data from 1960 to 1999. Their paper is published in 2010. Why did they not include more recent data? The reason they did not is full set of data does not support their assertion.

    Roy Spencer was by the AGU to make a presentation on the earth's feedback response to a change in forcing at the 2009 because the planetary temperature data supports that assertion that the planet's response to the AWG change in forcing is negative not positive.

    When the earth becomes warmer planetary cloud increases. Clouds reflect up to 60% of the sun's energy back into space. That is negative feedback.
    Last edited by William; 2010-Aug-21 at 02:02 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/...2009JCLI3461.1

    Why Hasn’t Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?

    The observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the industrial era is less than 40% of that expected from observed increases in long-lived greenhouse gases together with the best-estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity given by the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Possible reasons for this warming discrepancy are systematically examined here. The warming discrepancy is found to be due mainly to some combination of two factors: the IPCC best estimate of climate sensitivity being too high and/or the greenhouse gas forcing being partially offset by forcing by increased concentrations of atmospheric aerosols; the increase in global heat content due to thermal disequilibrium accounts for less than 25% of the discrepancy, and cooling by natural temperature variation can account for only about 15%.

    Current uncertainty in climate sensitivity is shown to preclude determining the amount of future fossil fuel CO2 emissions that would be compatible with any chosen maximum allowable increase in GMST; even the sign of such allowable future emissions is unconstrained. Resolving this situation, by empirical determination of the earth’s climate sensitivity from the historical record over the industrial period or through use of climate models whose accuracy is evaluated by their performance over this period, is shown to require substantial reduction in the uncertainty of aerosol forcing over this period.

    Ari,

    The planet has warmed less than 40% of what is predicted by the IPCC general climate models. That falsifies the extreme AWG warming scenario.

    As this paper notes even the sign of the earth's feedback to a change in forcing is incorrect in the general climate models. Feedback response can be positive, negative, or zero. A positive feedback response amplifies forcing changes, a negative feedback response dampens forcing changes, and a zero response neither amplifies or dampens forcing changes.

    If the earth's feedback response is zero a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels will result in an increase in planetary temperature of 1.1C. If the earth's feedback response is negative, a doubling of CO2 levels will result in less than 1C warming.

    The IPCC is predicting 1.8C to 6C warming. That is only possible if the earth's response to change in forcing is strongly positive.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    Because we are no longer allowed in BAUT to discuss new papers that disprove or challenge the extreme AWG position the BAUT readers may not have seen this paper that disproves MANN's hockey stick paper.


    http://www.e-publications.org/ims/su...nfirm=63ebfddf


    A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 years Reliable?

    Predicting historic temperatures based on tree rings, ice cores, and other natural proxies is a difficult endeavor. The relationship between proxies and temperature is weak and the number of proxies is far larger than the number of target data points. Furthermore, the data contain complex spatial and temporal dependence structures which are not easily captured with simple models. In this paper, we assess the reliability of such reconstructions and their statistical significance against various null models.

    We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago. We propose our own reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere average annual land temperature over the last millenium, assess its reliability, and compare it to those from the climate science literature. Our model provides a similar reconstruction but has much wider standard errors, reflecting the weak signal and large uncertainty encountered in this setting.

    This is Mann's Hockey Stick graph.


    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...wyner-fig1.png


    This is an analysis of the Northern Hemisphere planetary data over the last 1000 years using standard statistical analysis. Note there is no longer a hockey stick.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...yner-fig16.png

    The point is the current planetary warming is within the bounds of past planetary temperature changes.

    As I noted above atmospheric CO2 has increased 40%. The planet was warmed less than 40% of the what is predicted by the IPCC general climate models. That is only possible if the planet's response to a change a change in forcing is strongly negative.
    Last edited by William; 2010-Aug-21 at 02:45 PM. Reason: grammar

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/...ugust-18-2010/

    What we are about to experience is an abrupt drop in planetary temperature that is caused by a massive increase in planetary clouds.

    As solar cycle 24 appears to be a rump cycle that precedes a Maunder minimum we will have a chance to determine if an increase in GCR does or does not result in increased planetary cloud cover.

    Will the planet cool?


    Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) measured by the AMSR-E instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite continue the fall which began several months ago. The following plot, updated through yesterday (August 18, 2010) reveals the global average SSTs continue to cool, while the Nino34 region of the tropical east Pacific remains well below normal, consistent with La Nina conditions. (click on it for the large, undistorted version; note the global SST values have been multiplied by 10):

    Anomalously High Oceanic Cloud Cover
    The following plot shows an AMSR-E estimate of anomalies in reflected shortwave (SW, sunlight) corresponding to the blue (Global) SST curve in the previous figure. I have estimated the reflected SW anomaly from AMSR-E vertically integrated cloud water contents, based upon regressions against Aqua CERES data. The high values in recent months (shown by the circle) suggests either (1) the ocean cooling is being driven by decreased sunlight, or (2) negative feedback in response to anomalously warm conditions, or (3) some combination of (1) and (2). Note that negative low-cloud feedback would conflict with all of the IPCC climate models, which exhibit various levels of positive cloud feedback.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,025
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Because we are no longer allowed in BAUT to discuss new papers that disprove or challenge the extreme AWG position the BAUT readers may not have seen this paper that disproves MANN's hockey stick paper.
    No, you are allowed, but you must do it in ATM, as you are doing now. Just as you are not allowed to discuss new papers that disprove General Relativity is wrong outside of ATM
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    No, you are allowed, but you must do it in ATM, as you are doing now. Just as you are not allowed to discuss new papers that disprove General Relativity is wrong outside of ATM
    Mann's Hockey Stick is different than Einstein's theory of Relativity..

    The reason Watt's blog has gotten 52 million hits is due to the new papers by scientists and new observational data. There is scientific content and issues to read about and to think about.

    Experimental data validated General and Special Relativity.

    Observational data does not validate the extreme AWG position. If the feedback response is negative rather than positive, the warming will be less than one degree Celsius.

    Hansen is stating that CO2 must be reduced below current levels to avoid a tipping point. What is required to reduce current atmospheric CO2 below current levels?

    There is a both a scientific and practical issue that needs to be discussed.

    If you look above at Roy Spencer's above graph of planetary temperature and global cloud cover and then think about Svensmark's cloud mechanisms (there are more than one), think about what has happened before (cyclic climate change and weird unexplained abrupt climate change), now imagine the planet does cool. Assuming the cooling is significant and unequivocal.

    In a cooling world, what is the way out for those who have publicly name called the scientists who have being publishing papers. Spencer has made statements under oath to the US congress that the feedbacks are negative not positive. He was asked to explain that position at last fall's AGU annual meeting because the observation data supports it.
    Last edited by William; 2010-Aug-22 at 04:54 PM. Reason: grammar

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,531
    Quote Originally Posted by William
    You provide a link to Trenberth et al's paper that is alleged to show planetary feedback is positive rather than negative.
    Wrong. I referenced Trenberth et al. because they show without a doubt that Lindzen & Choi (2009) is badly flawed paper, regardless of what the value of planetary feedback is.

    Quote Originally Posted by William
    Trenberth et al analysis the data from 1960 to 1999. Their paper is published in 2010. Why did they not include more recent data?
    Wrong. Trenberth et al. analyse the data from 1985 to 1999. There are two reasons why they use data between that time interval. First, Trenberth et al. are addressing the work of Lindzen & Choi (2009) who used data only from that time interval. Their paper was published in 2009 but that didn't stop you from citing it as truth. Why all of a sudden this now becomes a problem when it was not a problem with L&C? Trenberth et al. were originally going to publish just a comment on L&C but AGU refused to take comments on that paper so Trenberth et al. were forced to make it a full research paper.

    Second, the data is taken from ERBE which has data from, surprise surprise, time interval of 1985-1999. If you were wondering their data selection, all you would have needed to do was to check their description of their data selection which is found in their paper. They say: "ERBE scanner data are only available from 1985 until 1989 but ERBS nonscanner data continued until 1999..

    Quote Originally Posted by William
    The reason they did not is full set of data does not support their assertion.
    So, we saw above that you hadn't actually studied the situation with the data selection and yet you accuse them of dishonest motives in data selection. Now that I explained the situation to you, are you going to take back this claim? If not, then what is your proof that they selected the data because they wanted it to fit to their assertion? What is their assertion by the way?

    Quote Originally Posted by William
    Roy Spencer was by the AGU to make a presentation on the earth's feedback response to a change in forcing at the 2009 because the planetary temperature data supports that assertion that the planet's response to the AWG change in forcing is negative not positive.
    I already showed you above that Spencer's style to make feedback determinations from short periods of data is irrelevant to AGW. He is not studying AGW at all, he is studying noise.

    Quote Originally Posted by William
    When the earth becomes warmer planetary cloud increases. Clouds reflect up to 60% of the sun's energy back into space. That is negative feedback.
    If you claim it as a fact, then prove that "planetary cloud" increases when Earth becomes warmer. Clouds also cause strong greenhouse effect, why are you concentrating only on their property that causes cooling? I think you should read Huang & Ramaswamy (2008) who have made very similar study as Spencer and Lindzen & Choi but Huang & Ramaswamy (2008) took it a little further; they analysed the situation spectroscopically so that they could separate what factors are causing what effects. The result was strongly positive feedback from both the water vapor and clouds. This is what they say about the clouds relating to your claims: "Clouds, especially the ones at high altitudes, intercept outgoing longwave radiation at nearly all infrared frequencies and reemit at lower temperatures, thus yielding a strong greenhouse effect."

    That is one of the uncertainties we have on cloud cover effect to climate, if cloud cover increases, does it happen in high altitudes which strongly increases greenhouse effect or does it happen lower that would favor more the effects of cloud reflective properties? Clement et al. (2009) measured cloud feedback on decadal scale (much more relevant to AGW than monthly scale) and they found evidence for positive total cloud feedback.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,531
    Quote Originally Posted by William
    The planet has warmed less than 40% of what is predicted by the IPCC general climate models. That falsifies the extreme AWG warming scenario.
    Wrong. I'll take relevant excerpts from the text you quoted and let us then see if you can do the math. First excerpt is this:

    "The observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the industrial era is less than 40% of that expected from observed increases in long-lived greenhouse gases together with the best-estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity given by the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

    Let's note the figure 40% here. Second excerpt:

    "...the increase in global heat content due to thermal disequilibrium accounts for less than 25% of the discrepancy..."

    See, 25%. Are you writing this down? Third excerpt:

    "...cooling by natural temperature variation can account for only about 15%."

    Last figure is 15%. Now, how much is 40% + 25% + 15%? That is the discrepancy, not the initial 40% figure. Well, actually the discrepancy is 100% - (40% + 25% + 15%) but you get the idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by William
    As this paper notes even the sign of the earth's feedback to a change in forcing is incorrect in the general climate models.
    Where this paper notes that? You bolded a sentence that says the future CO2 emissions are unknown but I haven't seen anything about the sign of Earth's feedback.

    Quote Originally Posted by William
    Because we are no longer allowed in BAUT to discuss new papers that disprove or challenge the extreme AWG position the BAUT readers may not have seen this paper that disproves MANN's hockey stick paper.
    Reconstruction of that paper gives one of the best hockey stick shaped curves yet, so how that disproves Mann's hockey stick paper? Here are some other commentaries on this paper:

    "McShane and Wyner 2010" - Deep Climate
    "The Curious Case of the Hockey Stick that Didn’t Disappear. Part 1: The Police Lineup" - Climate Progress
    "I went to a statistician fight and a hockey stick broke out" - Climate Progress

    Quote Originally Posted by William
    The reason Watt's blog has gotten 52 million hits is due to the new papers by scientists and new observational data. There is scientific content and issues to read about and to think about.
    No, that's a well known pseudo-science blog. You can't trust anything that's written there.

    Quote Originally Posted by William
    If you look above at Roy Spencer's above graph of planetary temperature and global cloud cover and then think about Svensmark's cloud mechanisms (there are more than one),...
    Svensmark's hypothesis has been well studied from several angles, there's no sign of substantial effect to climate. Even the foundation of Svensmark's hypothesis rests on cosmic ray correlations with faulty cloud data and there is currently no way of saying if there ever was any correlations to begin with.

    Quote Originally Posted by William
    ...think about what has happened before (cyclic climate change and weird unexplained abrupt climate change),...
    Yes, let's think about past climate. Greenhouse gases have always affected climate strongly. By the way, how do you get abrupt climate changes with negative feedback? If Earth is supposed to resist climate change, then why have past changes occurred?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki View Post
    Wrong. I referenced Trenberth et al. because they show without a doubt that Lindzen & Choi (2009) is badly flawed paper, regardless of what the value of planetary feedback is.


    Wrong. Trenberth et al. analyse the data from 1985 to 1999. There are two reasons why they use data between that time interval. First, Trenberth et al. are addressing the work of Lindzen & Choi (2009) who used data only from that time interval. Their paper was published in 2009 but that didn't stop you from citing it as truth. Why all of a sudden this now becomes a problem when it was not a problem with L&C? Trenberth et al. were originally going to publish just a comment on L&C but AGU refused to take comments on that paper so Trenberth et al. were forced to make it a full research paper.

    Second, the data is taken from ERBE which has data from, surprise surprise, time interval of 1985-1999. If you were wondering their data selection, all you would have needed to do was to check their description of their data selection which is found in their paper. They say: "ERBE scanner data are only available from 1985 until 1989 but ERBS nonscanner data continued until 1999..


    So, we saw above that you hadn't actually studied the situation with the data selection and yet you accuse them of dishonest motives in data selection. Now that I explained the situation to you, are you going to take back this claim? If not, then what is your proof that they selected the data because they wanted it to fit to their assertion? What is their assertion by the way?


    I already showed you above that Spencer's style to make feedback determinations from short periods of data is irrelevant to AGW. He is not studying AGW at all, he is studying noise.


    If you claim it as a fact, then prove that "planetary cloud" increases when Earth becomes warmer. Clouds also cause strong greenhouse effect, why are you concentrating only on their property that causes cooling? I think you should read Huang & Ramaswamy (2008) who have made very similar study as Spencer and Lindzen & Choi but Huang & Ramaswamy (2008) took it a little further; they analysed the situation spectroscopically so that they could separate what factors are causing what effects. The result was strongly positive feedback from both the water vapor and clouds. This is what they say about the clouds relating to your claims: "Clouds, especially the ones at high altitudes, intercept outgoing longwave radiation at nearly all infrared frequencies and reemit at lower temperatures, thus yielding a strong greenhouse effect."

    That is one of the uncertainties we have on cloud cover effect to climate, if cloud cover increases, does it happen in high altitudes which strongly increases greenhouse effect or does it happen lower that would favor more the effects of cloud reflective properties? Clement et al. (2009) measured cloud feedback on decadal scale (much more relevant to AGW than monthly scale) and they found evidence for positive total cloud feedback.
    Planetary Feedback to a forcing change: Negative or Positive?

    Ari,

    Lindzen has publicly stated that the ERBE satellite data is available for analysis up until current times and that there is no logical reason why Trenberth et al. could not have used it for their paper's analysis.

    The planet is not warming as per the IPCC general climate models' predictions. That is only possible if the feedback is strongly negative.

    Roy Spencer was asked to explain measurements and analysis associated with determining the magnitude and the sign (positive or negative) of planetary feedback at last year's fall AGU meeting because observations do not match predictions. The feedback is negative.

    If the planet's feedback response was strongly positive warming there would be significantly more warming. (Say twice as much warming.), not less than 40% of what is predicted by the general climate models. The general climate models are not correct.

    Sufficient time has passed to determine by comparing observations to the general climate model predictions to prove or disprove the general climate models and their assumptions.

    Lindzen has a published paper that shows the GISS adjusted planetary data is statistically too high when compared to the other data sources such as satellite. The majority of the warming is at high Northern Latitude which the GISS determines not by measurements but by extrapolating low latitude temperatures to high latitude temperatures, where the low latitude sites have been selected in urban heat contaminated regions. Lindzen does not go on and on about this second problem (For example he stated during his presentation concerning planetary feedback at the University of Stantford which is available on you tube, that he does not need to go on and on about the GISS data methodology and has a published paper concerning that issue) as even the GISS adjusted temperature data does not support positive feedback.

    Step back from arguing for a minute. Facts are facts. Mann's Hockey stick is not correct. The planet has cyclically warmed and cooled in the past. Solar cycle 24 is a very, very, weak cycle. Something is happening to the sun.

    The problem of feedbacks (whether they are positive or negative) becomes more acute if a significant portion of the 20th century warming was due to Svensmark's two cloud modulation mechanisms. Solar cycle 24 appears to be a rump cycle that will lead into a Maunder minimum. There is currently significant high latitude cooling.

    Assume the planet does significantly and unequivocally cool. The general public will notice the change. (Say for example 6 million fish dying of extreme cold this winter in a tropical region of Peru. See above for the link.)

    There will be significant backlash and a loss of credibility related to any practical environmental change. Those advocating the extreme warming AWG position name called and ridiculed those scientists who continued to research the issue to resolve it.
    Last edited by William; 2010-Aug-22 at 08:27 PM. Reason: grammar

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Planetary Feedback to a forcing change: Negative or Positive?

    Step back from arguing for minute. Facts are facts. Mann's Hockey stick is not correct. The planet has cyclically warmed and cooled in the past. Solar cycle 24 is a very, very, weak cycle. Something is happening to the sun.

    The problem of feedbacks (whether they are positive or negative) becomes more acute if a significant portion of the 20th century warming was due to Svensmark's two cloud modulation mechanisms. Solar cycle 24 appears to be a rump cycle that will lead into a Maunder minimum. There is currently significant high latitude cooling.
    Interesting discussion. Its rare to have an intellectual discus anti-AGM. Please continue explaining your theory. Could you also delve deeper into the statement "Something is happening to our sun". I find it ominous (Something charlatans would do to sway the masses to their view) and I would like further explanation of that statement, specifically how it relates to your current theory.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,501
    William
    1) Do you acknowledge the mainstream atmospheric and radiation transfer physics implicit in "greenhouse" gases and their mechanics in our atmosphere?
    2) Do you acknowledge and recognize the mainstream science and understandings concerning the isotopic content and sourcing of carbon in our atmosphere?
    3) Do you acknowledge the mainstream paleoclimate record, it's portrait of previous climate change episodes?

    More to follow, but please answer the above questions as a means to begin more exactly defining and explaining your against the mainstream perspective on this issue.

    Additionally, please stick to published academic or journal papers for references. The proffer of political advocacy blogs (such as the "Watts up With That" forum) or even science discussion blogs (such as "Real Climate," "Open Mind," or "climate progress") as support for scientific proclamations and assertions is simply unacceptable, as such blogs, even when owned and run by knowledgable scientists in the relevent fields of study, are under no obligation to accurately and objectively represent the science involved.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,259
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Trenberth et al analysis the data from 1960 to 1999. Their paper is published in 2010. Why did they not include more recent data? The reason they did not is full set of data does not support their assertion.
    That is just not how the scientific community and the scientific method works.
    If you want to show that someone did something wrong in the data analysis published in a paper, then you redo the analysis with exactly the same data set. Doing anything else would be insincere, because adding more data could/would lead inherently to different results (either positive or negative).
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    That is just not how the scientific community and the scientific method works.
    If you want to show that someone did something wrong in the data analysis published in a paper, then you redo the analysis with exactly the same data set. Doing anything else would be insincere, because adding more data could/would lead inherently to different results (either positive or negative).
    This is an analysis of the complete set of ERBE data for the time period in question.

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf


    On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data

    Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
    Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Revised on July 14, 2009 for publication to Geophysical Research Letters


    Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data. It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs.

    Therefore, the models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE, though it is difficult to pin down such high sensitivities with any precision. Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation. Although such a test does not distinguish the mechanisms, this is important since the inconsistency of climate feedbacks constitutes a very fundamental problem in climate prediction.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,501
    ...This is an analysis of the complete set of ERBE data for the time period in question.

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf
    Really? this direct quote from the start of section 2. Data and Analysis

    The observed data used in this study are the 16-year (1985–1999) monthly record of
    the sea surface temperatures (SSTs) from the National Centers for Environmental
    Prediction, and the earth radiation budget from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment
    (ERBE) [Barkstrom, 1984] nonscanner edition 3 dataset.
    seems to support Tusenfem's statement and indicates that Trenberth et al looked at the same data period examined by Lindzen and Choi.

    Regardless, you do realize that this is limited study only looking at the tropics, and more than that, this analysis treats the specific tropical atmosphere set as an isolated system completely ignoring (among many other issues) ENSO impacts as well as oceanic conditions and currents. All of which are clearly spelled out in technical terms in Trenberth et al 2009 ("Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation") and more colloquially in Hansen's recent book ("Storms of My Grandchildren"). If you're having problems with the pay-wall, I will be happy to look for some more accessible links to the information.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,923
    I don't understand the purpose of your last post William. It is the same as the second point you were trying to make in post #3.

    Please correct me if this summary is wrong:

    1. You cited Lindzen and Choi (2009) who use data from 1985-1999 in support of your position that the feedbacks are negative.
    2. You criticized Trenberth et al (2010) for using the same dataset in their attempt to point out flaws in Lindzen and Choi (2009), but you get the dates of the dataset wrong.
    3. You claimed that they didn't include more recent data because it "does not support their assertion".
    4. You made the following claim:
    Lindzen has publicly stated that the ERBE satellite data is available for analysis up until current times and that there is no logical reason why Trenberth et al. could not have used it for their paper's analysis.
    5. You reposted a link to Lindzen and Choi (2009), stating
    This is an analysis of the complete set of ERBE data for the time period in question.
    6. In that paper, the first sentence in the Data and Analysis section states:
    "The observed data used in this study are the 16-year (1985–1999) monthly record of the sea surface temperatures (SSTs) from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, and the earth radiation budget from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) [Barkstrom, 1984] nonscanner edition 3 dataset."
    7. A Google cache of the Data Quality Summary page for ERBE S10N_WFOV ERBS Edition3 (can't seem to get at the original page at the moment) states:
    "On October 6, 1999, an anomaly occurred to the ERBS nonscanner instrument during its routine calibration operation and caused it to lose in-flight calibration capability. While the nonscanner continues to operate, taking scientific measurements, the data collected after September 1999 are currently being withheld until calibration capability can be re-established. These additional data months may be released at some future time pending available funding support."

    It's not clear to me whether the later data have ever been calibrated and made available, given that the date on that page is June 2005.

    I'm concluding that both Ari's and tusenfem's take on matters is correct and your's is wrong.

    And I see that Trakar has posted about this too.
    Last edited by Torsten; 2010-Aug-22 at 11:23 PM. Reason: fixed link

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Torsten View Post
    I don't understand the purpose of your last post William. It is the same as the second point you were trying to make in post #3.

    Please correct me if this summary is wrong:

    1. You cited Lindzen and Choi (2009) who use data from 1985-1999 in support of your position that the feedbacks are negative.
    2. You criticized Trenberth et al (2010) for using the same dataset in their attempt to point out flaws in Lindzen and Choi (2009), but you get the dates of the dataset wrong.
    3. You claimed that they didn't include more recent data because it "does not support their assertion".
    4. You made the following claim:

    5. You reposted a link to Lindzen and Choi (2009), stating

    6. In that paper, the first sentence in the Data and Analysis section states:
    "The observed data used in this study are the 16-year (1985–1999) monthly record of the sea surface temperatures (SSTs) from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, and the earth radiation budget from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) [Barkstrom, 1984] nonscanner edition 3 dataset."
    7. A Google cache of the Data Quality Summary page for ERBE S10N_WFOV ERBS Edition3 (can't seem to get at the original page at the moment) states:
    "On October 6, 1999, an anomaly occurred to the ERBS nonscanner instrument during its routine calibration operation and caused it to lose in-flight calibration capability. While the nonscanner continues to operate, taking scientific measurements, the data collected after September 1999 are currently being withheld until calibration capability can be re-established. These additional data months may be released at some future time pending available funding support."

    It's not clear to me whether the later data have ever been calibrated and made available, given that the date on that page is June 2005.

    I'm concluding that both Ari's and tusenfem's take on matters is correct and your's is wrong.

    And I see that Trakar has posted about this too.
    There are two separate but connected issues.

    You are correct that Lindzen's et al data analysis was not up to current and spans the same period as Trenberth. What I stated was taken from Lindzen's University of Stanford's lecture where he discussed Trenberth's methodology. I did not understand Lindzen's comment in terms of its relevance to his paper and to Trenberth's.

    I read through Lindzen's paper and his comments. Let's see if I can explain what he is saying.

    If the feedback response is negative an increase in tropical ocean temperature results in an increase in clouds which then results in cooling. The cloud feedback (in response to ocean temperature) response is independent of what is causing the forcing. The issue is feedback of clouds and only clouds. (Note the ocean temperature must get warmer if the planet is to warm.)

    As note in AR4 the models have problems modeling clouds. A cloud can reflected 60% of the sun's energy back into space.

    Lindzen notes four other papers that noted his finding from a radiation standpoint however they did not connect it the GCMs.

    Lindzen is comparing what the GCM's predict will happen to clouds with a specific ocean temperature. The radiation does not match. Trenberth started from a low point in temperature and they average over the decade in question. If Trenberth's methodology is applied up to current then it is also negative, however, it does not tell anything about the nature of the feedbacks.

    This is from Lindzen's paper where he explains:

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf


    On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data

    Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
    Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Revised on July 14, 2009 for publication to Geophysical Research Letters

    However, it also made clear that one could not readily use decadal variability in surface temperature to infer feedbacks from ERBE data. Rather one needs to look at temperature variations that are long compared to the time scales associated with the feedback processes, but short compared to the response time over which the system equilibrates. This is also important so as to unambiguously observe changes in the radiative budget that are responses to fluctuations in SST as opposed to changes in SST resulting from changes in the radiative budget; the latter will occur on the response time of the system. The primary feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds occur on time scales of days [Lindzen et al., 2001; Rodwell and Palmer, 2007], while response times for relatively strong negative feedbacks remain on the order of a year [Lindzen and Giannitsis, 1998, and references therein]. That said, it is evident that, because the system attempts to restore equilibrium, there will be a tendency to underestimate negative feedbacks relative to positive feedbacks that are associated with longer response times.
    Last edited by William; 2010-Aug-23 at 01:46 AM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    The other method to determine which hypothesis: Are planetary feedbacks negative or positive?, is to observe planetary temperature and high latitude sea ice (see below as to why high latitude sea ice is important.)

    We can read the author's papers to try to understand scientifically the differences affect is predicted to happen, however, the proof is in what happens to planetary temperature and to high latitude sea ice.

    As I have stated there are significant periods of time in the past (millions of years) when the planet has been hot when CO2 levels were low and periods when the CO2 levels were high when it was cold. That supports the assertion that planetary feedback is negative and that there is some other forcing mechanism.

    The three other ice house periods (we are currently in the interglacial period of an ice house) correlate with periods of time when GCR was high when the planet was passing through the spiral arms of our galaxy. (In answer to Ari's comment what could cause the planet to experience an ice house that does not correlate with low atmospheric CO2 levels.)

    Solar cycle 24 is anomalously low. If Svensmark's mechanism is correct the planet should cool. If the planet does not start to cool, Svensmark's mechanism and his hypothesis is not correct. Svensmark's mechanism has the most amount of planetary temperature change at high latitudes and he predicts a polar see-saw.

    As I said there is a cycle of increasing and decreasing planetary temperature that correlate with past cosmogenic isotope changes. We will fortunately or unfortunately happen to live in one of those special times when the sun gets to show us how it can change.

    In response to Ari's other point. (Ari stated planetary feedback must be strongly positive or scientists cannot explain the current glacier/interglacial cycle.) If planetary feedback is strongly negative there is some other unknown very strong forcing function that causes the planet to abruptly cool and to warm.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,501
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    There are two separate but connected issues.

    You are correct that Lindzen's et al data analysis was not up to current and spans the same period as Trenberth.
    What I stated was taken from Lindzen's University of Stanford's lecture where he discussed Trenberth's methodology.
    Cite or reference?

    I did not understand Lindzen's comment in terms of its relevance to his paper and to Trenberth's.

    I read through Lindzen's paper and his comments. Let's see if I can explain what he is saying.

    If the feedback response is negative an increase in tropical ocean temperature results in an increase in clouds which then results in cooling. The cloud feedback (in response to ocean temperature) response is independent of what is causing the forcing. The issue is feedback of clouds and only clouds. (Note the ocean temperature must get warmer if the planet is to warm.)
    I'm reluctant to accept your explanation of this published paper as it seems increasingly clear that your understandings of various aspects of climatology and basic physical science concepts in general are lacking or weak. Please tie your explanations to the specific sections of the paper you are referring to.

    As note in AR4 the models have problems modeling clouds. A cloud can reflected 60% of the sun's energy back into space.
    In what wavelengths? Cite or reference?

    Lindzen notes four other papers that noted his finding from a radiation standpoint however they did not connect it the GCMs.
    Again cite or reference?

    Lindzen is comparing what the GCM's predict will happen to clouds with a specific ocean temperature. The radiation does not match. Trenberth started from a low point in temperature and they average over the decade in question. If Trenberth's methodology is applied up to current then it is also negative, however, it does not tell anything about the nature of the feedbacks.

    This is from Lindzen's paper where he explains:
    Please respond to the requests and questions in this, and previous, posts.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,501
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    ...As I have stated there are significant periods of time in the past (millions of years) when the planet has been hot when CO2 levels were low and periods when the CO2 levels were high when it was cold. That supports the assertion that planetary feedback is negative and that there is some other forcing mechanism...
    Please provide support for these contentions

    The three other ice house periods (we are currently in the interglacial period of an ice house) correlate with periods of time when GCR was high when the planet was passing through the spiral arms of our galaxy. (In answer to Ari's comment what could cause the planet to experience an ice house that does not correlate with low atmospheric CO2 levels.)
    Support and references?

    Solar cycle 24 is anomalously low. If Svensmark's mechanism is correct the planet should cool. If the planet does not start to cool, Svensmark's mechanism and his hypothesis is not correct. Svensmark's mechanism has the most amount of planetary temperature change at high latitudes and he predicts a polar see-saw.
    Svensmark's understandings and proposals have been demonstrated to lack empirical support and merit.

    Solomon et al. (2007) - Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I
    to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - “the cosmic ray time series does not appear to correspond to global total cloud cover after 1991 or to global low-level cloud cover after 1994.”

    Pierce and Adams (2009) - Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates? - "...Therefore, the
    changes in cloud cover and thickness from the changes in CCN induced by clear-sky ion-induced nucleation changes during both the solar-cycle and centennial-scale changes in cosmic rays should also be of order 0.01 W m2. Even including the feedbacks, this is two orders of magnitude too
    small to explain the changes seen in cloud cover [Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997] or to be a significant contributor to present-day climate change...."

    Kulmala et al (2009) - Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation - "...Here, we report unique observations on atmospheric aerosol formation based on measurements at the SMEAR II station, Finland, over a solar cycle (years 1996–2008) that shed new light on these presumed relationships. Our analysis shows that none of the quantities related to aerosol formation correlates with the cosmic ray-induced ionisation intensity (CRII). We also examined the contribution of ions to new particle formation on the basis of novel ground-based and airborne observations. A consistent result is that ion-induced formation contributes typically less than 10% to the number of new particles, which would explain the missing correlation between CRII and aerosol formation. Our main conclusion is that galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as
    20 well..."

    More available upon request.

    As I said there is a cycle of increasing and decreasing planetary temperature that correlate with past cosmogenic isotope changes.
    cite or reference?


    I await your responses to the questions and requests of this post and the posts of the last few day's

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    12,540
    William, you have been asked to provided citations and/or references for some of the statements you made. Please do so.

    Also, there are still some questions you seem to have overlooked (see below). Please address them in a timely manner.


    Quote Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
    William
    1) Do you acknowledge the mainstream atmospheric and radiation transfer physics implicit in "greenhouse" gases and their mechanics in our atmosphere?
    2) Do you acknowledge and recognize the mainstream science and understandings concerning the isotopic content and sourcing of carbon in our atmosphere?
    3) Do you acknowledge the mainstream paleoclimate record, it's portrait of previous climate change episodes?

    More to follow, but please answer the above questions as a means to begin more exactly defining and explaining your against the mainstream perspective on this issue. ...
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.
    Doctor Who

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    [QUOTE=Trakar;1781571]Please provide support for these contentions

    Support and references?

    Svensmark's understandings and proposals have been demonstrated to lack empirical support and merit. l..."

    http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf

    The possible connection between ionization in the atmosphere by cosmic rays and low level clouds

    E. Palle´, C.J. Butler, K. O’Brien

    As evidence for a cloud—cosmic ray connection has emerged, interest has risen in the various physical mechanisms whereby ionization by cosmic rays could influence cloud formation. In parallel with the analysis of observational data by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997), Marsh and Svensmark (2000) and Palle´ and Butler (2000), others, including Tinsley (1996), Yu (2002) and Bazilevskaya et al. (2000), have developed the physical understanding of how ionization by cosmic rays may influence the formation of clouds. Two processes that have recently received attention by Tinsley and Yu (2003) are the IMN process and the electroscavenging process.
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JA014342.shtml


    If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.

    Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle's Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle's WSM campaign.
    Let's agree to disagree concerning Svensmark's mechanism. If you look through solar cycle 24 thread I have explained this issue in detail. The authors of the papers you quote do not understand the two mechanisms. There are two separate mechanisms. Svensmark has responded to Kulmala et al (2009). If you are interested in the subject go to Svensmark's site. Also read his book.

    This paper explains the mechanisms in detail. You need to understand the difference between electroscavenging and GCR levels. There is new supporting research concerning the global electric circuit which is related to the electroscavenging mechanism.

    pre-print

    https://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics...mos_060302.pdf

    paper

    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15836702

    If Svensmark's mechanism is correct the planet is about to cool not warm. If the planet starts to unexceptionably to cool, I will return to discuss.

    I would you understand how theories are validated or invalidated? Observations? Did you ignore the link above stated the planet has warmed less than 40% of predicted by the IPCC general climate models. CO2 has increased 40%. The effect is logarithmic. It saturates. Venus is different as Venus' s lower atmosphere is 90 times the pressure of the earth's.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full


    Other scientists have noticed there is a lack of correlation between atmospheric CO2 level and planetary climate. That supports the assertion the cloud feedback is negative and that something else is driving the climate change.


    Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years
    Daniel H. Rothman†

    The last 500 million years of the strontium-isotope record are shown to correlate significantly with the concurrent record of isotopic fractionation between inorganic and organic carbon after the effects of recycled sediment are removed from the strontium signal. The correlation is shown to result from the common dependence of both signals on weathering and magmatic processes. Because the long-term evolution of carbon dioxide levels depends similarly on weathering and magmatism, the relative fluctuations of CO2 levels are inferred from the shared fluctuations of the isotopic records. The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales.


    See Fig. 4. (Four ice house. No correlation of planetary CO2 levels with planetary temperature.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim View Post
    William, you have been asked to provided citations and/or references for some of the statements you made. Please do so.

    Also, there are still some questions you seem to have overlooked (see below). Please address them in a timely manner.
    William
    1) Do you acknowledge the mainstream atmospheric and radiation transfer physics implicit in "greenhouse" gases and their mechanics in our atmosphere?

    Yes CO2 changes forcing in the atmosphere. CO2 absorbs specific frequencies. When those specific frequency are absorbed the mechanism is saturated. A doubling of CO2 will only result in 1.2C is cloud feedback is zero. If the cloud feedback is negative the affect on planetary temperature is less than 1C.

    2) Do you acknowledge and recognize the mainstream science and understandings concerning the isotopic content and sourcing of carbon in our atmosphere? Yes. i.e. Humans increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

    3) Do you acknowledge the mainstream paleoclimate record, it's portrait of previous climate change episodes?

    On geological scales atmospheric CO2 levels do not correlate with planetary climate change. The reason for that is the negative cloud feedback see Lindzen et Chou 2009 which is copied in this thread. The cause of the past ice house period is when the solar system passes through the spiral arms of our galaxy. There is correlation with the timing of the GCR increase, its duration, and the four past ice house periods in the last 500 million years.

    More to follow, but please answer the above questions as a means to begin more exactly defining and explaining your against the mainstream perspective on this issue. ...

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    This is in reply to Ari.

    What causes the ice house periods if atmospheric CO2 changes do not correlate with the four past ice houses?


    http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/I...s/GSAToday.pdf

    Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?

    We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy. Assuming that the entire residual variance in temperature is due solely to the CO2 greenhouse effect, we propose a tentative upper limit to the long-term “equilibrium” warming effect of CO2, one which is potentially lower than that based on general circulation models

    http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/C...RahmReply.html

    RECONSTRUCTING COSMIC RAY FLUXES —The starting point of SV03 is a reconstruction of cosmic ray fluxes over the past 1,000 Myr based on 50 iron meteorites and a simple model estimating cosmic ray flux (CRF) induced by the Earth’s passage through Galactic spiral arms ([Shaviv, 2002; Shaviv, 2003]). About 20 of the meteorites, making four clusters, date from the past 520 Myr, the time span analysed in SV03. The meteorites are dated by analysing isotopic changes in their matter due to cosmic ray exposure (CRE dating [Eugster, 2003]). An apparent age clustering of these meteorites is then interpreted not as a collision-related clustering in their real ages but as an indication of fluctuations in cosmic ray flux (CRF). One difficulty with this interpretation is that variations in CRF intensity would equally affect all types of meteorites. Instead, the ages of different types of iron meteorites cluster at different times [Wieler, 2002]. Hence, most specialists on meteorite CRE ages interpret the clusters as the result of collision processes of parent bodies, as they do for stony meteorites (ages _ 130 Myr) to
    which more than one dating method can be applied.

Similar Threads

  1. William R. Corliss
    By Total Science in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2008-Sep-24, 11:21 PM
  2. William Optics 40x(70,72)
    By Eratosthenes in forum Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-09, 01:45 PM
  3. William Sleator
    By crosscountry in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2006-Dec-08, 12:29 PM
  4. William 1 mystery
    By Cylinder in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2004-Oct-26, 12:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •