Australian Antarctic Division: Can solar variability influence climate?

An interesting tidbit from the Australian Antarctic Division (h/t to Trevor Gunter)

http://www.uh.edu/research/spg/AECMBall.JPG

Earth Current Meter in Antarctica: An electric field mill similar to those operated at South Pole was installed at Vostok Station in 1997. A comparable Air Earth Current meter was built in 2002 and will be operational starting in January 2004. High, dry regions with no thunderstorms, such as the Antarctic plateau, are ideal for monitoring the global geoelectric circuit. Additional solar influences on the geoelectric field occur at high latitudes, via the same processes that generate the aurora. In conjunction with Russian and Australian colleagues, we presently measure the geoelectric field at the Russian station, Vostok, on the Antarctic plateau. We have shown that solar variability can influence the geoelectric field measured at ground level in polar regions, and are continuing to develop research instrumentation and methods of testing the viability of a solar variability influence on weather and climate through modulation of the geoelectric circuit.

Scientists have long searched for linkages between solar variability and weather. The sun varies on a wide-range of time scales, most dramatically on an ~11 year cycle which is strongly associated with the number and extent of sunspots on the sun and the occurrence of aurora at high latitudes. While correlations of weather and solar variability have been reported, often-times to disappear when further measurements become available, no viable mechanism for the strongest associations has been confirmed. One difficulty is that the variable solar energy, despite sunspots and aurora being spectacular, is but a small fraction of 1% of the total solar energy. Any mechanism for changing weather and climate by solar variability must involve influencing the distribution of the energy within the weather system. One possible mechanism is via the Earth’s geoelectric field.

Thunderclouds separate electric charge with positive charges accumulating in the upper reaches of the cloud and negative charges near its base. The lightning generated drags current from the Earth and, perhaps counter-intuitively, it is easier for this current to return to the Earth in a less dramatic fashion via the 99% of the Earth not covered by thunderstorms at any particular time. Currents preferentially travel along lines of least resistance. At altitudes above ~90 km, the Earth’s atmosphere contains a sufficient density of free electrons for a global equipotential to be largely maintained. The Earth’s surface is another global equipotential. Conductivity in the region of the atmosphere between these boundaries generally increases with altitude, and is dominantly maintained by ionising radiation from cosmic rays. The variation in conductivity in the atmosphere is such that the path of least resistance at an altitude greater than ~5 km is via the ionosphere, where it may spread globally and return to ground via the global ‘fair-weather’ field.

Global thunderstorms maintain the lowest reaches of the ionosphere at a potential of ~250 kV with respect to the ground. This results in a very weak atmospheric current (3 pico-amps per meter squared) toward the Earth in the fair-weather regions of the globe, and near the ground maintains a substantive vertical electric field of some 100 volts per meter. Cosmic ray ionisation, the magnitude of which can be controlled by solar activity via the solar wind, modulates the resistance of this global electric circuit in which thunderstorms are the generators. By controlling the ease with thunderstorms can dissipate current it is feasible that solar activity may modulate the intensity of thunderstorm development, thus modulating the distribution of energy within the meteorological system.

High, dry regions with no thunderstorms, such as the Antarctic plateau, are ideal for monitoring the global geoelectric circuit. Additional solar influences on the geoelectric field occur at high latitudes, via the same processes that generate the aurora. In conjunction with Russian and American colleagues, we presently measure the geoelectric field at the Russian station, Vostok, on the Antarctic plateau. We have shown that solar variability can influence the geoelectric field measured at ground level in polar regions, and are continuing to develop research instrumentation and methods of testing the viability of a solar variability influence on weather and climate through modulation of the geoelectric circuit.

For more information, email: sas@aad.gov.au

About these ads
This entry was posted in Antarctic, Science, Solar, Space. Bookmark the permalink.

111 Responses to Australian Antarctic Division: Can solar variability influence climate?

  1. Phillip Bratby says:

    “By controlling the ease with [which] thunderstorms can dissipate current, it is feasible that solar activity may modulate the intensity of thunderstorm development, thus modulating the distribution of energy within the meteorological system.”

    But, but, but…..the science is settled. It’s all CO2 dontcha know.

  2. Jim Steele says:

    I have come to believe that the sun impacts the energy on earth via electromagnetic effects and suspect it will explain the abnormal warming of the Antarctic peninsula.

    Thinking of the earth as a simple generator, solar-geo magnetic field is coupled to the earth’s rotation generating electric currents. Increase the field and increase the currents increase the Watts in the environment.

    The Antarctic peninusla continued to warm even during and despite the cooling period of the 60′s and 70′s, suggesting that it is not atmospheric warming that is responsible. However the magnetic field was continuing to grow throughout the 1900′s. The magnetic field is unusually intense in the south Atlantic and planes avoid flying over that area for fear of damage to their electronics. Pipeline engineers recognize a coastal effect where electric currents intensify in pipelines on the coast causing increased corrosion.

  3. Clark says:

    I think I understand most of this, except for the effects of changes in resistance in the upper atmosphere.

    So the idea is that less solar wind -> more cosmic rays -> more upper atmosphere ionization -> less resistance to dissipate electrical charge in upper atmosphere -> ?fewer/less severe thunderstorms?

  4. Frank Mosher says:

    Very interesting Anthony. Further indication that what we don’t know is enormous. Coupled with questionable data, it’s hard to draw any meaningful conclusions on what the future holds. But, IMHO, it seems obvious that co2 has a very small part in the very complex machinations of the climate. fm

  5. Harold Ambler says:

    A hundred years from now, people will marvel at how little we knew about climate and weather in 2009.

    The fact that we would seriously consider imploding our economy over how much plant food is in the atmosphere when there are hundreds of Super Fund toxic dumps in the United States alone, slowly but steadily leaching toxic chemicals into the food chain and our bodies, is astonishing.

  6. Steven Kopits says:

    What is 1% variability in solar output worth?

    Earth temp without sun: -273 deg C.

    Earth with normal sun: +12 deg C.

    Total sun normal sun output: +285 deg C.

    1% of total output = cc. 3 deg C.

    But maybe that’s way too simplistic.

  7. John Cooper says:

    Didn’t John Galt invent a motor that ran off of atmospheric electricity?

  8. Edward says:

    A bit off topic, but here’s a recent study that shows:

    “They found that the glaciers around Mount Cook, New Zealand’s highest peak, reached their largest extent in the past 7,000 years about 6,500 years ago, when the Swiss Alps and Scandinavia were relatively warm. That’s about 6,000 years before northern glaciers hit their Holocene peak during the Little Ice Age, between 1300 and 1860 AD.

    That finding was a surprise to some scientists who assumed that the northern cold phase happened globally. The record in New Zealand shows other disparities that point to regional climate variations in both hemispheres, including glacial peaks during classic northern warm intervals such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Age Optimum.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090430144535.htm

    Glaciers advanced for the 500 years during the Little Ice age and now that they have been retreating the last 150 years it’s because of CO2 and not some natural cycle.
    Thanks
    Edward

  9. crosspatch says:

    Well, according to Mann “In regard to the science of climate change, as Clive Hamilton has put it, the only decision citizens have to make is not what to believe but who. ”

    So it really is more about personalities than facts, I suppose.

  10. gary gulrud says:

    Good stuff, got the same feel as Clark.

  11. JKrob says:

    As for upper atmosphere electrical dynamics controlling thunderstorms…eh…maaaaaaby. Remember, lightning and the static electrical build-up in the storms is mainly driven by the turbulent mixing of the ice particles in the storm which is a result of the windflow within the storm. I would think that would have such an over-powering effect on the lighting dynamics as opposed to the electrical characteristics of the area ‘above’ the storm. However – the upper atmosphere *may* have a bigger effect on the types of lightning which go up out of the storms (red sprites, blue jets, etc. – google it) as opposed to the *normal* lighting which is focused down toward the ground.

    Just my $ .02

    Jeff

  12. Phil P. says:

    I understand the whole geo-electric field….but how in the world does that silver ball work??

  13. gvheard says:

    Jim Steele (07:40:24)

    Interesting, what you described is exactly the conclusion that I had reached a few weeks ago. I’m in the process of doing some research to see if what you describe is true, but it seems sensible to me

  14. D. King says:

    Very sneaky!
    You’re trying to confuse us with science.

  15. Pamela Gray says:

    This variance and its affects may be true, but it is probably buried in the MUCH stronger oceanic affects on land temperatures. I am convinced that people have old, buried, instinctive notions about the Sun. Yes, it heats the planet everywhere it shines. But the planet cools itself everywhere the Sun doesn’t shine. That explains daytime and nighttime temps. The Sun is the constant. The Earth’s natural processes (those in the water, in the air, in and on the land, and in the upper atmosphere) are the sources of variation. Daily, monthly, seasonally, decadally, and beyond. Yes, there are solar affects but these don’t tell us whether or not to start storing food, or the reverse, to plant long season, Sun-loving crops.

    This same “Earth is the variance, Sun is the constant”, relationship can be found in all instances of talk that it is the Sun that causes the variation that we see, feel, and can measure in trends. The mechanisms are there and easily understood as well as modeled regarding the natural processes of the Earth. The Sun, not so much. The notion is there, the mechanism is not. The far less romantic notion of the Earth being the source of temperature variations just doesn’t tickle us and our deeply held instincts about the Sun. In a way, our notions about the Sun are still tied to Stonehenge.

  16. realitycheck says:

    Interesting – but wouldn’t Faraday’s law dictate that a varying geoelectric current (driven in this case by Solar Variability) within a ~constant magnetic field (the Earth’s) suggest that motion should be induced? Its analogous to an electric motor.

    For example, do you see changes in the Earth’s angular momentum as a function of changes in the geoelectric field? Changes in angular momentum (and associated changes in mountain torque) would be a good mechanism for perturbing the Rossby wave train and causing changes in climate?

    Perhaps my thinking is naive here, but I could believe a mechanism like this over more direct changes in electric discharge etc.

    Anyone have thoughts?

  17. realitycheck says:

    To my previous point. If you plot Global Angular Momentum data ( found here http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/climateindices/ ) since late 1950′s there is a slight increasing trend up until the timing of the strong El Nino (and solar max) around 1998.

    Like global temperature (and solar activity), the Global Angular Momentum has then shown a flattening or decreasing trend since 1998. Global Angular Momentum is correlated with Global Temperature (and solar) – why?

  18. Steven Kopits (08:09:54) :
    What is 1% variability in solar output worth?
    It is worth 1/4% in temperature, or 1/4% of 288K = 0.72K, but solar variability is observed to be ten times smaller, i.e. 0.1% corresponding to 0.07K.

  19. Michael D Smith says:

    I suppose if this is true we should see a correlation in thunderstorm total electrical energy vs solar activity (or vs the current measured by this device… I wonder how much history there is.

    I don’t see how changing electrical conductivity in the atmosphere would regulate thunderstorm intensity, the intensity intuitively should be a result of temperature differential / moisture, convection, etc. Whether more lightning is developed or not would seem to be unrelated to the convective inputs, though could be related to ionization levels. We have super low conductivity spread over a vast volume… I would think it’s pretty easy to strike a balance there given the sheer volume of the medium.

  20. Dan Lee says:

    “…One difficulty is that the variable solar energy, despite sunspots and aurora being spectacular, is but a small fraction of 1% of the total solar energy…”

    Since when has that been a problem, C02 represents a small fraction of 1% of the atmosphere. So whose “small fraction” is baddest? We’ll soon find out.

  21. Michael D Smith (09:25:14) :
    I suppose if this is true we should see a correlation in thunderstorm total electrical energy vs solar activity (or vs …
    There is indeed an electric field in the lower atmosphere. Rather large, in fact, 100 Volts per meter. This electric field is due to a voltage difference between the ionosphere and the surface. This difference is created by and maintained by thunderstorms. I have not seen convincing evidence that causation goes the other way [lots of claims, of course, but there are lots of claims of everything].

  22. Gerry says:

    Some of you may have read in the Wikipedia that Henrik Svensmark’s finding of an inverse correlation between solar activity, global temperature, and galactic cosmic radiation has been “discredited.” You need to also read this:
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Svensmark_FriisChtr-Reply%20to%20Lockwood.pdf

  23. crosspatch says:

    Jim Steele (07:40:24) :

    “However the magnetic field was continuing to grow throughout the 1900’s. ”

    To the best of my knowledge, the Earth’s magnetic field is weakening, and rapidly so.

    “The magnetic field is unusually intense in the south Atlantic and planes avoid flying over that area for fear of damage to their electronics.”

    Again, untrue. The field is unusually WEAK there, allowing Van Allen radiation to be much stronger. Planes avoid the area to avoid exposing passengers, crew and electronics to radiation. Attempts are made for satellites in orbit to avoid this region as well.

    The combination of the South Atlantic Anomaly combined with the rapid weakening of Earth’s magnetic field has led many to speculate that a pole reversal is underway.

  24. AnonyMoose says:

    Clark (07:45:34) : … So the idea is that less solar wind -> more cosmic rays -> more upper atmosphere ionization -> less resistance to dissipate electrical charge in upper atmosphere -> ?fewer/less severe thunderstorms?

    Yes, although no mechanism is known. (Correction in above: “charge in upper” should be “charge from upper” as they suggest there may be less resistance below the upper atmosphere.) We can speculate that a greater high-altitude charge may encourage thunderstorm height, lightning may carry more power, or micro-droplets of condensed water may have a greater electrical attraction to form larger droplets before they can again evaporate. For that matter, if a stronger electrical field encourages water droplet formation then global cloud formation might be affected (would a stronger field encourage lower or higher clouds?).

  25. Jim Steele says:

    cross-patch,

    My reference to the increasing solar magnetic field was during most of the 1900′s. Yes it is rapidly decreasing and thus I would predict we will witness a similar decrease in temperatures.

    I stand corrected on the South Atlantic anomaly. I carelessly rushed the post so I could go to work. I was trying to state that affects of geo-electric currents, and the anomaly allows a greater flow of current into that region with resulting increased telluric currents similar to what polar regions experience during auroras. With the decreasing solar output, I also suspect that the warming of the peninsula has plateaued.

  26. AnonyMoose says:

    As for how the silver ball works, search for electric field mill. Or Scientific American’s Amateur Scientist tells you how to build one.

    It is also apparent in Antarctic photos that silver balls attract photographers.

  27. Ron de Haan says:

    Edward (08:15:31) :

    A bit off topic, but here’s a recent study that shows:

    “They found that the glaciers around Mount Cook, New Zealand’s highest peak, reached their largest extent in the past 7,000 years about 6,500 years ago, when the Swiss Alps and Scandinavia were relatively warm. That’s about 6,000 years before northern glaciers hit their Holocene peak during the Little Ice Age, between 1300 and 1860 AD.

    That finding was a surprise to some scientists who assumed that the northern cold phase happened globally. The record in New Zealand shows other disparities that point to regional climate variations in both hemispheres, including glacial peaks during classic northern warm intervals such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Age Optimum.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090430144535.htm

    Glaciers advanced for the 500 years during the Little Ice age and now that they have been retreating the last 150 years it’s because of CO2 and not some natural cycle.
    Thanks
    Edward”

    Edward,

    If the “high” CO2 levels cause glasciers to melt, tell me why major glaciers all over the world, from Europe to Alaska, from New Zealand to South America are now expanding?

    Please check the facts before you make statements that bear no proof.
    Time will learn that CO2 has NO measurable effect on earth temperatures.

  28. AnonyMoose (10:46:33) :
    Yes, although no mechanism is known.
    Here are some thoughts and discussion:
    http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PHTOAD000061000010000010000001&idtype=cvips&prog=normal

  29. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Pamela Gray (08:45:34) :

    This variance and its affects may be true, but it is probably buried in the MUCH stronger oceanic affects on land temperatures. I am convinced that people have old, buried, instinctive notions about the Sun. Yes, it heats the planet everywhere it shines. But the planet cools itself everywhere the Sun doesn’t shine. That explains daytime and nighttime temps. The Sun is the constant. The Earth’s natural processes (those in the water, in the air, in and on the land, and in the upper atmosphere) are the sources of variation. Daily, monthly, seasonally, decadally, and beyond. Yes, there are solar affects but these don’t tell us whether or not to start storing food, or the reverse, to plant long season, Sun-loving crops. “””

    Slow down there lady; “But the planet cools itself everywhere the Sun doesn’t shine. ”

    Not quite so; the planet cools itself everywhere. And it cools itself best where the sun DOES shine. Specifically the hottest midday deserts that reach +60 C surface temperatures or more, are the reall planetary coolers, with a radiant emittance that is about doube what it is at the global mean temperature of about 15 C.

    The polar regions in contrast are total pikers when it comes to cooling the planet; with some parts having a radiant emittance that is 6 times lower than the global mean and 12 times less than the hottest regions.

    Same goes for UHIs, they are among the better coolers around developed areas, and when the sun goes down, their temperatures really crash because of their higher spectral emissivity.

    Your car’s radiator cools better when it is running hotter; because that is when it transports energy to the atmosphere most efficiently.

    George

  30. AnonyMoose (10:46:33) : If water droplets in clouds are charged and ionized
    ( H+ OH-) then to fall down they need to discharge in order to fall as H-O-H, this discharge in turn is favored by the presence of vegetation (trees).

  31. Tonight on Fox: The green millions of a “Green Preacher”.

  32. Jim Steele says:

    Leif Svalgaard (10:03:26) :
    said,” This difference is created by and maintained by thunderstorms. I have not seen convincing evidence that causation goes the other way [lots of claims, of course, but there are lots of claims of everything].”

    That is a curious way of thinking about the voltage and thunderstorms. I would think that thunderstorms are discharges that happen when and after the voltage become great enough to overcome the atmospheric resistance. Thus the voltage is created by other mechanisms, with thunderstorms as a result of the difference.

  33. Ron de Haan (11:02:18) :
    Time will learn that CO2 has NO measurable effect on earth temperatures.
    You are not helping the cause by such a categorical statement. CO2 DOES have an effect, it is just so small that it probably drowns in the natural variability to the point where we cannot confidently say “this blip is due to CO2″.

    To claim that it has NO effect is nonsense.

  34. carlbrannen says:

    As a physics lesson, I will add that the reason the – charges get brought to earth in thunderstorms is because raindrops are, on average, negatively charged.

    This is due to the fact that, on average, the negative charge carriers are lighter than the positive ones and so move faster to the raindrops. Negative charge carriers include the electron which is very very light and moves very very fast through air. Raindrops attract charge (both positive and negative) for the same reason that any conductor attracts charge, the attraction of the charge to mirror charges (of the same size but opposite charge) inside the conducting body.

  35. Cold Play says:

    Headline in Daily Telegraph the newspaper not on line?

    “Dust off the Barbecue its going to be a sizzling summer.” Article by Richard Alleyne.

    Last Paragraph same article

    But the Met Office forecasts have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Last April it predicted a return to a “typical British summer” with the risk of exceptional rainfall on the same scale as the summer before “a very low probability”

    It turned out to be the seventh wettest summer on record.

    May Day May Day

  36. To take it further: Hydrogen is a metal and it “precipitates” from the atmosphere “solution” as Hydrogen Hydroxide (HOH), when “neutralized”. If we would consider atmosphere as a kind of solution we could see it through different “lenses”.

  37. Bob Shapiro says:

    Though I have no training in this area, I’d like to ask, is this a reasonable mechanism for cooling the earth?

    As sunspots decrease, cosmic rays hitting earth increase, and this increases cloud formation and rainfall.

    Both cloud formation and rainfall involve condensation of water vapor in the atmosphere. The water vapor, in order to condense, must release heat into the atmosphere. The higher up the condensation, the closer the heat is to where it can be radiated out into space. As a result, the earth, by losing this heat, cools to some extent.

    Each additional cloud formation and rainfall event occurs locally, but all the local action adds up to a global phenomenon – a global cooling.

    The net effect is limited by the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere before the sunspots decreased. But, could this represent a significant cooling effect?

  38. Smokey says:

    Leif,

    Maybe if you read this:

    …CO2 has NO measurable effect on earth temperatures.

    Like this:

    …CO2 has no MEASURABLE effect on earth temperatures…

    …it will reflect what is occurring.

    I don’t think anyone disagrees with the fact that CO2 has an effect. The question is, how much of an effect does CO2 have? It appears that the more we learn, the smaller the effect turns out to be.

    Certainly the effect of rising CO2 is drowned out by other factors, because the planet has been cooling for several years as CO2 rises. So any warming caused by CO2 at current levels can’t be very significant.

  39. Pamela Gray says:

    My above comment on day and night heating and cooling was speaking towards those who take this day versus night experience and extend it beyond its obvious result. The thinking goes something like this: As the Sun rises to a more direct hit on my skin and the night turns into day, I heat up. Therefore any change in “heat” at any other time that I feel on my skin must be related to something the Sun does and it’s just a matter of time before someone finds the mechanism. It is an obvious experience that is very powerful and at a very deep level in the human mind. There are many other observations that cause the human mind to look towards the Sun, such as light on plant growth. Vineyard owners spend much time carefully trimming away leaves in order to increase solar light/heat onto grape clusters. This deep seated view is very difficult to get around when someone points to something here on Earth, be it CO2 or rather large ponds. You can see that I was not speaking technically.

    That said, thank you for the quick review of how powerful cooling is during the day.

  40. Leif Svalgaard (10:03:26) : “There is indeed an electric field in the lower atmosphere. Rather large, in fact, 100 Volts per meter. This electric field is due to a voltage difference between the ionosphere and the surface. This difference is created by and maintained by thunderstorms. I have not seen convincing evidence that causation goes the other way [lots of claims, of course, but there are lots of claims of everything].”

    I thought the voltage difference between the ionosphere and the surface was created by the effect of solar electromagnetic radiation on the upper atmosphere, particularly from the shorter wavelengths, plus a small contribution from solar wind and cosmic rays.

    http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/ion1.html

  41. Mike McMIllan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (09:24:40) :
    Steven Kopits (08:09:54) :What is 1% variability in solar output worth?
    It is worth 1/4% in temperature, or 1/4% of 288K = 0.72K, but solar variability is observed to be ten times smaller, i.e. 0.1% corresponding to 0.07K.

    Without the sun, earth’s temperature would be at least 40K, Pluto’s temperature, and probably balmier due to our internal radioactive heating and all the CO2 in our atmosphere. Hmm. We’d have dry ice floating in a liquid greenhouse atmosphere, wouldn’t we?

    Anyway, using Leif’s 0.72K for 1%, a 100% increase in solar output would add 72K to our temperature. In Celsius, 15 + 72 = 87°C. So doubling the sun’s output would not boil our oceans away.

    .
    Some long decades ago I read an article in one of the soldering-iron ‘tronics magazines about building an air earth current detector, though they were using it for measuring worldwide thunderstorm activity. It used two metal kitchen bowls to make the sphere.

  42. GV says:

    …not a scientist but I think lightning is brought to ground via cosmic-rays. The 3 x 10^6 V/m dielectric breakdown strength of the air is too large to just simply allow a huge spark to fly thousands of feet. The constant bombardment of CRs lay down tracks that the stepped leader can then advance down through, in short 100-150 meter steps. CRs solve some of the discharge discrepancies with how lightning works.

    SciAM
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=experts-do-cosmic-rays-cause-lightning

    Less solar plasma = more CRs = more clouds + more discharge paths…

  43. Jack Simmons says:

    Jim Steele (07:40:24) :

    Thinking of the earth as a simple generator, solar-geo magnetic field is coupled to the earth’s rotation generating electric currents. Increase the field and increase the currents increase the Watts in the environment.

    There are many in the AGW camp who fervently believe one Watts (Anthony) is more than enough. Imagine their dismay at the prospect of even more Watts in the environment.

  44. By the way, many years ago Prof.Giorgio Piccardi observed a certain relation between sunspots and chemical reactions kinetics.
    Though afterwards his works were utilized by all kind of esoteric “doctrines” ,
    I have just found one: http://www.rexresearch.com/piccardi/piccardi3.pdf

  45. crosspatch says:

    “By the way, many years ago Prof.Giorgio Piccardi observed a certain relation between sunspots and chemical reactions kinetics.”

    It has also been observed that distance from the Sun seems to have an effect on radioactive decay. It seems the further the distance from the Sun, the less the radioactive decay rate.

  46. Joel Shore says:

    Smokey says:

    Certainly the effect of rising CO2 is drowned out by other factors, because the planet has been cooling for several years as CO2 rises. So any warming caused by CO2 at current levels can’t be very significant.

    Yet, you can use that sort of logic to argue that the seasonal cycle here in Rochester can’t be very significant because the temperature trend is (I believe) negative over the last week, which is the opposite of what it should be as we go from winter to summer. Of course, such a conclusion would be dead wrong unless you have a very unusual concept of “very significant”.

    The fact that CO2 can be drowned out by other factors over periods of several years to about a decade certainly would place some limits on what the impact of CO2 could be…i.e., I think it would make the transient climate responses (TCR) of 9 or 10 C that are implied by the ICECAP plots that you like to show exceedingly unlikely. However, I don’t think it would rule out the actual IPCC estimates of TCR (which are generally in the range of 1 C to 3 C, as noted in executive summary of Chapter 9 of the IPCC AR4 report) http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm .

  47. Ron de Haan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (11:43:41) :

    Ron de Haan (11:02:18) :
    Time will learn that CO2 has NO measurable effect on earth temperatures.
    You are not helping the cause by such a categorical statement. CO2 DOES have an effect, it is just so small that it probably drowns in the natural variability to the point where we cannot confidently say “this blip is due to CO2″.

    To claim that it has NO effect is nonsense.”

    Leif,

    If you quote me, please make a correct quote, I stated NO measurable effect.

  48. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Pamela Gray (12:29:17) :

    My above comment on day and night heating and cooling was speaking towards those who take this day versus night experience and extend it beyond its obvious result.
    That said, thank you for the quick review of how powerful cooling is during the day. “””

    Fear not, fair lady; if you were the last person on the planet who doesn’t realize that the earth cools everywhere all of the time including when the sun is out; then I would be worried about you. But you would be suprised how many people there are, who think all those ice blocks at each end of the place are what is making us cool. No, they are there because north Africa and Saudi Arabia are doing a yeoman’s job of cooling the place down, and with very little total sun getting to the poles they just stay cold.

    So the ice is there because its cold; not the other way round.

    And I would have you as my school teacher any day of the week.

    Hey I still believe in Chivalry too !

    George

  49. Ron de Haan says:

    Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

    By Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner

    Full paper, 114 pages, 1.54MB at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

    This approved non-technical summary by Hans Schreuder, 24 June 2008

    “The authors express their hope that in schools around the world the fundamentals of physics will
    be taught correctly, not by using shock-tactic ‘Al Gore’ movies and not misinforming physics
    students by confusing absorption/emission with reflection, by confusing the tropopause with the
    ionosphere and by confusing microwaves with shortwaves.”

    Abstract

    The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea the authors trace back to the traditional works of
    Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896, but which is still supported in global climatology,
    essentially describes a fictitious mechanism by which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump
    driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the
    atmospheric system.

    According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.

    Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in widespread secondary literature it is
    taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this
    paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles clarified.

    By showing that

    (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and
    the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,
    (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
    (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 °C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
    (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,
    (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
    (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero,

    the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

    Introduction

    Recently, there have been lots of discussions regarding the economic and political implications of
    climate variability, in particular global warming as a measurable effect of an anthropogenic, i.e.
    human-made, climate change. Many authors assume that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel
    consumption represent a serious danger to the health of our planet, since they are supposed to
    influence climate, in particular the average temperatures of the surface and lower atmosphere of
    the Earth. However, carbon dioxide is a rare trace gas, a very small part of the atmosphere found
    in concentrations less than 0.04 volume percent.

    Among climatologists, in particular those affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate
    Change (IPCC), there is a “scientific consensus” that the relevant climate mechanism is an
    atmospheric greenhouse effect, a mechanism heavily reliant on the presumption that radiative heat
    transfer dominates over other forms of heat transfer such as thermal conductivity, convection,
    condensation, et cetera. Supposedly to make things more precise, the IPCC introduced the notion
    of radiative forcing, tied to an assumption of radiative equilibrium.

    However, as countless examples in history have shown, “scientific consensus” bears no
    resemblance whatsoever to scientific validity. “Consensus” is a political term, not a scientific one.
    From the viewpoint of theoretical physics, a radiative approach to the atmosphere — using physical
    laws such as Planck’s and Stefan-Boltzmann’s, which only have a limited range of validity —
    definitely fails to intersect with atmospheric dynamics and must be questioned deeply.

    In other words, applying cavity radiation formulas to the atmosphere is sheer nonsense.

    Global climatologists claim that the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect keeps it 33°C warmer than it
    would be without trace gases in the atmosphere. 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water
    vapor and 20 percent to the 0.0385 volume percent of CO2. If CO2 exhibited such an extreme
    effect, however, this would show up as a thermal conductivity anomaly even in an elementary
    laboratory experiment. Carbon dioxide would manifest itself as a new kind of ‘super-insulation,’
    wildly violating the conventional heat-conductivity equation.

    Such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed in CO2, of course.

    The influence of CO2 on climate was discussed thoroughly in a number of publications that
    appeared between 1909 and 1980, mainly in Germany. The most influential authors were Möller,
    who also wrote a textbook on meteorology, and Manabe. It seems that the combined work of Möller
    and Manabe has had a significant influence on the formulation of modern atmospheric CO2
    greenhouse conjectures. In a very comprehensive report from the US Department of Energy (DOE),
    which appeared in 1985, the atmospheric greenhouse hypothesis was cast into its final form and
    became the cornerstone in all subsequent IPCC publications.

    Of course, although the oversimplified picture drawn by IPCC climatology is physically incorrect, a
    thorough analysis might reveal some non-negligible influence of certain radiative effects (apart
    from sunlight) on the weather and hence on its local averages, the climate, which could be dubbed
    a CO2 greenhouse effect. But then, even if the effect is claimed to serve only as a genuine trigger
    of a network of complex reactions, three key questions would remain:

    1. Is there a fundamental CO2 greenhouse effect in physics?
    2. If so, what is the fundamental physical principle behind this CO2 greenhouse effect?
    3. Is it physically correct to regard radiative heat transfer as the fundamental mechanism
    controlling the weather, setting thermal conductivity and friction to zero?

    In the language of physics an effect is a not-necessarily evident but reproducible and measurable
    phenomenon together with its theoretical explanation. Neither the warming mechanism in a glass
    house nor the supposed anthropogenic warming is an “effect” in this sense of the definition:

    • In the first case (a glass house) one encounters a straightforward phenomenon.

    • The second case (the Earth’s atmosphere) one cannot measure directly, rather, one can
    only make heuristic calculations.

    Explaining the warming mechanism in a real greenhouse is a standard problem in undergraduate
    courses, in which optics, nuclear physics and classical radiation theory are dealt with.

    The atmospheric greenhouse mechanism is a conjecture that can be proved or disproved by
    concrete engineering thermodynamics. Exactly this was done many years ago by an expert in this
    field, namely Alfred Schack, who wrote a classical textbook on the subject. In 1972 he showed that
    the radiative component of heat transfer by CO2, though relevant in combustion chamber
    temperatures, can be neglected at atmospheric temperatures.

    CO2′s influence on the Earth’s climate is definitively immeasurable.

    The warming mechanism in real greenhouses

    For years, the warming mechanism in real greenhouses, designated “the greenhouse effect”, has
    been commonly misused to explain the conjectured atmospheric greenhouse effect. In school
    books, in popular scientific articles, and even in high-level scientific debates, it has been stated that
    the mechanism observed within a glass house is similar to anthropogenic global warming.
    Meanwhile, even mainstream climatologists admit that the warming mechanism in real glass houses
    must be strictly distinguished from the claimed CO2 greenhouse effect. Nevertheless, one should
    look at the classical glass house problem to recapitulate some fundamental principles of
    thermodynamics and radiation theory. In our technical paper the relevant radiation dynamics of the
    atmospheric system are elaborated on and distinguished from the glass house set-up.

    In section 2.1.5 many pseudo-explanations in the context of climatology are falsified by just three
    fundamental observations of mathematical physics.

    The Sun and radiation

    A larger portion of the incoming sunlight lies in the infrared range than in the visible range. Most
    papers that cover the supposed greenhouse effect completely ignore this important fact.

    Especially on a hot summer’s day, every car driver knows about the greenhouse effect. One does
    not need to be an expert in physics to explain immediately why the car gets so hot inside: The Sun
    has heated the car’s interior. However, it is a bit harder to answer the question why it is cooler
    outside the car, although there the Sun shines onto the ground without obstacles. Undergraduate
    students with standard physical recipes at hand can easily “explain” this kind of a greenhouse
    effect.

    On a hot summer afternoon, temperature measurements inside and outside a car were performed
    with a standard digital thermometer. These measurements are recommended to every climatologist
    who believes in the CO2-greenhouse effect, because they show that the alleged effect has nothing
    to do with trapped thermal radiation. Neither the infrared absorption nor reflection coefficient of
    glass is relevant in this explanation of the real greenhouse effect, only the panes of glass hindering
    the movement of air.

    This text is a recommended reading for all global climatologists referring to the greenhouse effect:

    It is not the “trapped” infrared radiation which explains the warming phenomenon in a real
    greenhouse – it is the suppression of air cooling.

    The fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects

    Depending on the particular school and the degree of popularization, the assumption that the
    atmosphere is transparent to visible light but opaque to infrared radiation supposedly leads to

    • a warming of the Earth’s surface and/or
    • a warming of the lower atmosphere and/or
    • a warming of a certain layer of the atmosphere and/or
    • a slow-down of the natural cooling of the Earth’s surface

    and so forth.

    Sir David King, former science advisor of the British government, stated that “global warming is a
    greater threat to humanity than terrorism”. In countless contributions to newspapers and TV shows
    in Germany the popular climatologist Latif continues to warn the public about the consequences of
    rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Yet even today it is impossible to find a book on non-
    equilibrium thermodynamics or radiation transfer where this presumed effect is derived from first
    principles.

    The main objective of our paper is not to draw the line between error and fraud, only to find out
    whether the greenhouse effect appears or disappears within the frame of physics. Therefore, in
    Section 3.3 several different variations of the atmospheric greenhouse hypotheses are examined
    and disproved. The authors restrict themselves to statements that appeared after a publication by
    Lee in the well-known Journal of Applied Meteorology 1973, see Ref. [109] and references therein.

    Lee’s 1973 paper is a milestone. In the beginning Lee writes:

    The so-called radiation `greenhouse’ effect is a misnomer. Ironically, while the concept is
    useful in describing what occurs in the earth’s atmosphere, it is invalid for crypto-climates
    created when space is enclosed with glass, e.g. in greenhouses and solar energy
    collectors. Specifically, elevated temperatures observed under glass cannot be traced to
    the spectral absorptivity of glass. The misconception was demonstrated experimentally by
    R. W. Wood more than 60 years ago and recently in an analytical manner by Businger.
    Fleagle and Businger devoted a section of their text to the point, and suggested that
    radiation trapping by the earth’s atmosphere should be called `atmosphere effect’ to
    discourage use of the misnomer. In spite of the evidence, modern textbooks on
    meteorology and climatology not only repeat the misnomer, but frequently support the
    false notion that `heat-retaining behavior of the atmosphere is analogous to what
    happens in a greenhouse’ (Miller, 1966). The mistake obviously is subjective, based on
    similarities of the atmosphere and glass, and on the `neatness’ of the example in
    teaching. The problem can be rectified through straightforward analysis, suitable for
    classroom instruction.
    Lee continues his analysis with a calculation based on radiative balance equations, which are
    physically questionable. The same holds for a comment by Berry on Lee’s work. Nevertheless, Lee’s
    paper is a milestone, marking the day after every serious scientist or science educator is no longer
    allowed to compare the greenhouse with the atmosphere, even in the classroom, which Lee
    explicitly refers to.

    In section 3.3 of our paper, many different versions of the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture are
    examined and disproved. In conclusion, the authors observe the following:

    • that even today the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not appear

    - in any fundamental work on thermodynamics
    - in any fundamental work on physical kinetics
    - in any fundamental work on radiation theory

    • that the definitions given in the literature beyond straight physics are very different and,
    partly, contradict each other.

    The conclusion of the US Department of Energy

    All fictitious greenhouse effects have in common one and only one cause: A rise in the
    concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere leading to higher air temperatures near the ground. Lee’s
    1973 result that the warming phenomenon in a glass house does not compare to the supposed
    atmospheric greenhouse effect was confirmed in the 1985 report of the United States Department
    of Energy “Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide”.

    In this comprehensive pre-IPCC publication MacCracken explicitly states that the terms
    “greenhouse gas” and “greenhouse effect” are misnomers.

    Section 3.5 discusses the concepts of absorption, emission and reflection, recommended reading for
    those who wish to know the calculations behind the conclusions.

    Section 3.6 the classic hypotheses of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius are analysed in detail, followed
    by modern versions of it, and it is concluded that :

    • In the 70s, computer simulations of the “global climate” predicted for a doubling of the CO2
    concentration a temperature rise of about 0.7 – 9.6 degrees Kelvin.

    • Later computer simulations pointed towards a null effect.

    • In the IPCC 1992 report, computer simulations of the “global climate” predicted a global
    temperature rise of about 0.27 – 0.82K per decade.

    • In the IPCC 1995 report, computer simulations of the “global climate” predicted a global
    temperature rise of about 0.08 – 0.33K per decade

    • In 2005, computer simulations of the “global climate” predicted for a doubling of the CO2
    concentration a global temperature rise of about 2 – 12K, whereby six so-called scenarios have
    been omitted that yield a global cooling.

    To derive climate catastrophes from these computer games and to scare mankind to death is a
    crime.

    Section 3.7 discusses the fallacy of radiative balance, from which the following pertinent points are
    taken:

    - For instance, “average” temperatures are calculated for an Earth without an atmosphere and for
    an Earth with an atmosphere. Amusingly, there seem to exist no calculations for an Earth without
    oceans opposed to calculations for an Earth with oceans.

    - Though there exists a huge family of generalizations, one common aspect is the assumption of a
    radiative balance, which plays a central role in the publications of the IPCC and, hence, in the public
    propaganda. In the following it is proved that this assumption is physically wrong.

    - Unfortunately this [conservation laws (continuity equations, balance equations, budget equations)
    cannot be written down for intensities] is done in most climatologic papers, the cardinal error of
    global climatology, that may have been overlooked so long due to the oversimplification of the real
    world problem towards a quasi one-dimensional problem. Hence the popular climatologic “radiation
    balance” diagrams describing quasi-one-dimensional situations (cf. Figure 23) are scientific
    misconduct since they do not properly represent the mathematical and physical fundamentals.

    The reader of this non-technical summary is urged to review all of sections 3.7 and 3.8 in their
    original format in order to appreciate the issues in hand and understand this further point :

    “that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the
    issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of
    local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if
    physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally
    valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of
    computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature
    field can be interpreted as both `warming’ and `cooling’ simultaneously, making the concept
    of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed.”

    Section 4 discusses the foundations of climate science, whilst the limits of computer models are
    also pointed out, with this pertinent quote by eminent theoretical physicist Freeman J Dyson:

    “The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is
    much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models,
    than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps
    and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing in their own
    models.”

    “It cannot be overemphasized that even if the equations are simplified considerably, one cannot
    determine numerical solutions, even for small space regions and even for small time intervals. This
    situation will not change in the next 1000 years regardless of progress made in computer hardware.
    Therefore, global climatologists may continue to write updated research grant proposals demanding
    next-generation supercomputers ad infinitum. As the extremely simplified one-fluid equations are
    unsolvable, the many-fluid equations would be more unsolvable, the equations that include the
    averaged equations describing the turbulence would be yet more unsolvable, if “unsolvable” had a
    comparative. Regardless of the chosen level of complexity, these equations are supposed to be the
    backbone of climate simulations, or, in other words, the foundation of models of nature. But even
    this is not true: In computer simulations heat conduction and friction are completely neglected,
    since they are mathematically described by second order partial derivatives that cannot be
    represented on grids with wide meshes.”

    “Hence, the computer simulations of global climatology are not based on physical laws.
    The same holds for the speculations about the influence of carbon dioxide.”

    The reader is urged to review section 4.3 on “Science and Global Climate Modelling” in its entirety
    in order to fully appreciate the closing remarks of that section :

    “Modern global climatology has confused and continues to confuse fact with fantasy by introducing
    the concept of a scenario replacing the concept of a model. In Ref. [29] a clear definition of what
    scenarios are is given: Future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the product of very complex
    dynamics systems, determined by driving forces such as demographic development, socioeconomic
    development, and technological change. Their future evolution is highly uncertain. Scenarios are
    alternative images of how the future might unfold and are an appropriate tool with which to analyze
    how driving forces may influence future emission outcomes and to access the associated
    uncertainties. They assist in climate change analysis, including climate modeling and the
    assessment of impacts, adaptation and mitigation. The possibility that any single emissions path
    will occur as described in scenarios is highly uncertain. Evidently, this is a description of a pseudo-
    scientific (i.e. non-scientific) method by the experts at the IPCC. The next meta-plane beyond
    physics would be a questionnaire among scientists already performed by von Storch or, finally, a
    democratic vote about the validity of a physical law.

    Exact science is going to be replaced by a sociological methodology involving a statistical
    field analysis and by “democratic” rules of order.

    This is in harmony with the definition of science advocated by the “scientific” website
    RealClimate.org that has integrated inflammatory statements, personal attacks and offenses
    against authors as a part of their “scientific” workflow.”

    There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems in non-linearity. And for climatologists to
    believe they’ve solved them with crude approximations leading to unphysical results that have to be
    corrected afterwards by mystical methods — flux control in the past, obscure ensemble averages
    over different climate institutes today, excluding incidental global cooling data by hand — merely
    perpetuates the greenhouse-inspired climatologic tradition of physically meaningless averages and
    physically meaningless statistical applications. In short, generating statements on CO2-induced
    anthropogenic global warming from computer simulations lies outside of any science.

    Section 5 is the final section of the paper and contains the ‘Physicist’s Summary’, which the reader
    of this non-technical summary is again urged to review in its entirety. Simply quoting these few
    lines do an injustice to the entire paper, but set the tone for discrediting the fallacy the UN IPCC is
    perpetuating, aided in no small measure by many a skeptical scientist who also fails to grasp the
    fallacy of the so-called greenhouse effect with its double-counting of radiant energy.

    “The natural greenhouse effect is a myth, not a physical reality. The CO2-greenhouse
    effect, however, is a manufactured mirage.

    Horrific visions of a rising sea level, melting pole caps and spreading deserts in North
    America and Europe are fictitious consequences of a fictitious physical mechanism which
    cannot be seen even in computer climate models.

    More and more, the main tactic of CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to be to hide
    behind a mountain of pseudo-explanations that are unrelated to an academic education
    or even to physics training.

    The points discussed here were to answer whether the supposed atmospheric effect in
    question has a physical basis. It does not.

    In summary, no atmospheric greenhouse effect, nor in particular a CO2-greenhouse
    effect, is permissible in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics.

    It is therefore illegitimate to use this fictitious phenomenon to extrapolate predictions as consulting solutions for economics and intergovernmental policy.”

  50. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Bob Shapiro (12:08:39) :

    Though I have no training in this area, I’d like to ask, is this a reasonable mechanism for cooling the earth?

    As sunspots decrease, cosmic rays hitting earth increase, and this increases cloud formation and rainfall.

    Both cloud formation and rainfall involve condensation of water vapor in the atmosphere. The water vapor, in order to condense, must release heat into the atmosphere. The higher up the condensation, the closer the heat is to where it can be radiated out into space. As a result, the earth, by losing this heat, cools to some extent.

    Each additional cloud formation and rainfall event occurs locally, but all the local action adds up to a global phenomenon – a global cooling.

    The net effect is limited by the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere before the sunspots decreased. But, could this represent a significant cooling effect? “””

    Well Bob; you just described part of the Svensmark thesis. But other things happen. the magnetic filed changes not only change the number of cosmic rays, but also their distribution. With low fields the cosmic rays hit all over the earth; with stronger fields they tend to get captured by the field ans spiral in near the poles; which leads to Aurorae.
    But in the polar regions, there’s not a lot of water vapor, so cloud fromation isn’t that much; but in the tropics where there is plenty of water vapor, lots of clouds can form as a result of the comic rays, and those extra clouds block the sunlight which is why the surface gets cooler.

    The Solar Constant (TSI) could stay absolutely constant over a solar cycle, and the solar changes in magnetism and cosmic rays would still change earth climate somewhat.

    George

  51. crosspatch (13:11:12) :
    I would add that his “activated water” it was just water a bit ionized. However, here we are approaching to the following: Sun- water (clouds and seas)- ionization -climate.
    “Now this large heat capacity of water has an equalizing effect on our climate.
    Long after the summer is gone, the oceans are still warmer than the continents, and areas close to the ocean enjoy a much milder climate than those remote from the seas.

    earth.boisestate.edu/home/jmcnamar/hydro08/Readings/water_peculiar.pdf

    Svensmark´s idea of clouds cooling the earth would be only a part of the phenomenon because these can cool or warm and viceversa ,relatively to their amount. Being possible also a cooling through enhanced loss of heat when there were no clouds or almost none.
    So, apart of Svensmark´clouds´ forming due to CR there would be a variability caused by ionization (electrical charges), its effect on rain and heat balance.
    Not taking yet into consideration the “accidental” variations caused by aerosols from volcanic eruptions, as these brown clouds:
    http://www.giurfa.com/venice.jpg

  52. Here the link:
    earth.boisestate.edu/home/jmcnamar/hydro08/Readings/water_peculiar.pdf

  53. captdallas2 says:

    Yawn, pico amperes, 1/5 of a degree variation in magnetic field. To simplify equations I eliminate the insignificant. Solar variation is only insignificant if GHG influences are over estimated, which I believe is true by a factor of three. Natural influences I believe are under estimated by a factor of two. If I am right, solar, GHG and natural variation are all significant.

    For natural variations, negative PDO, AMO etc. result in an attempt to heat the tropics which are near maximum temperature to begin with resulting in more convection. More tropical convection results in more heat loss with minimal global temperature rise. In reverse, positive oscillations result in higher temperatures less prone to convection. This results in global temperature rise due to simple math.

    The MWP would be a regional event because it occurred in a region more easily influenced by temperature change. Northern Europe can have a three degree temperature rise during a positive oscillation, while the tropics would barely make a 0.3 degree temperature rise during a negative oscillation.

    I still think you guys should read more Tsonis.

  54. Ron de Haan (13:27:08) :
    If you quote me, please make a correct quote, I stated NO measurable effect.
    We can measure temperatures to a very small fraction of a degree, like 0.001 K or better. So if the effect was 0.002 K it would be measurable. You do not really mean ‘measurable’. You meant ‘discernible’ which means that if the CO2 had a 0.5 degree effect that can easily be measured], but was buried in 2 degrees [say] of natural ‘noise’, then one could say ‘not discernible’, but certainly measurable. When I said ‘NO effect’ I meant ‘NO measurable effect’, with the implicit assumption [which is always there - stated or not] that anything that is smaller than we can measure [as limited by our instruments] is NO effect.

  55. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: Pamela Gray (08:45:34) & (12:29:17)

    It seems you are trying to suggest everything is well-understood.

  56. jorgekafkazar (12:44:46) :
    I thought the voltage difference between the ionosphere and the surface was created by the effect of solar electromagnetic radiation on the upper atmosphere, particularly from the shorter wavelengths, plus a small contribution from solar wind and cosmic rays.
    It is not [careful reading of your link will show you that they don't don't say that]. The Solar radiation and wind only ionizes the air, that is removes an electron from an atom, leaving you with no net charge [it was neutral before, now has a negative electron and a positive ion, still a total of zero], so no voltage difference with the surface.

    Mike McMIllan (12:48:02) :
    Anyway, using Leif’s 0.72K for 1%, a 100% increase in solar output would add 72K to our temperature. In Celsius, 15 + 72 = 87°C. So doubling the sun’s output would not boil our oceans away.
    You calculation is not quite correct, because the simple formula dT/T = 1/4 dS/S is only valid for small changes (dS and dT). If you double the Sun’s output the temperature goes up by a factor equal to the fourth root of 2, which is 1.19, for a total temperature of 342K or 69C. Still lower than 100C, though. However at lot of limestone would probably release a lot of CO2 at that temperature, plus there would be a lot more H2O vapor, so it is possible that the combined greenhouse effect might led to runaway. This probably happened on Venus, where solar input to the system is about twice of what it is for the Earth.

  57. Paul Vaughan (15:05:30) :
    Re: Pamela Gray (08:45:34) & (12:29:17)
    It seems you are trying to suggest everything is well-understood.

    If so, Pamela errs, as it seems there are people out there that clearly do not understand this.

  58. Mark T says:

    Leif Svalgaard (14:54:47) :

    We can measure temperatures to a very small fraction of a degree, like 0.001 K or better.

    Um, we cannot measure the global “temperature” to that level of accuracy (or precision). Most of the thermometers being used in the field are not the sort a physicist would use in a lab.

    Of course, that global “temperature” means anything must also be taken as a given. Given the context of Ron’s statement, it’s all but a certainty that’s what was being referred to.

    Mark

  59. Arn Riewe says:

    Harold Ambler (08:03:11) :

    “A hundred years from now, people will marvel at how little we knew about climate and weather in 2009.”

    This reminds me of Michael Crichton’s observation at man’s audacity at trying to solve the problems of civilization 100 years in the future. Paraphrasing from memory so don’t hold me accountable for total accuracy:

    If scientist in NYC in 1900 were considering the problems that civilization was facing in the year 2000, they’d probably be thinking “how can we breed enough horses to meet transportation needs in 2000, and what are we going to do with all the horse#$%”

    I wish Michael had lived much longer. He was a clear, logical and non-emotional thinker which drove the warmists nuts! Eventually I believe his prescience will be recognized.

    If you ever feel the debate is spinning out of control, go to his website and look at his speeches on the deterioration of science over the last generation:

    http://www.michaelcrichton.net/

  60. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: Leif Svalgaard (15:16:39)

    My theory was that Leif Svalgaard would rush to Pamela Gray’s defense since Pamela Gray appears to have adopted Leif Svalgaard’s “consensus” view without question.

  61. captdallas2 says:

    Paul Vaughan (15:05:30) :
    Re: Pamela Gray (08:45:34) & (12:29:17)
    It seems you are trying to suggest everything is well-understood.

    If so, Pamela errs, as it seems there are people out there that clearly do not understand this.

    I think Einstein said the universe was simple. He never mentioned the atmosphere.

  62. Leif Svalgaard (15:12:42) : “…so it is possible that the combined greenhouse effect might led to runaway.This probably happened on Venus, where solar input to the system is about twice of what it is for the Earth”
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
    Ron de Haan (13:38:27) :

    Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

    By Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner

    Full paper, 114 pages, 1.54MB at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

  63. a jones says:

    I came across this paper, Gerlich & Tscheuschner, a couple of months ago and was agreeably surprised since it embodies and restates arguments which I have been making for years.

    It is clear, well argued and in my view sound, however I suspect non physicists might have a rather hard time of it.

    Moreover it suffers from setting its scope a little wide and whilst being thorough is rather ponderous. This is not unusual for German physics papers. Moreover I assume it is a translation and some of the wording, although understandable, might strike the native English/American speaker as a bit whimsical.

    What i will try to do, rather boldly, in the next couple of weeks is prepare a short summary of it for the more general reader and I hope post it on here.

    Kindest Regards

  64. Open the windows!!, too much greenhouse in here!, let it go up up and away! :)
    This is what Gerlich & Tscheuschner say, in just a sentence.

  65. Joel Shore says:

    a jones says:

    I came across this paper, Gerlich & Tscheuschner, a couple of months ago and was agreeably surprised since it embodies and restates arguments which I have been making for years.

    It is clear, well argued and in my view sound, however I suspect non physicists might have a rather hard time of it.

    I don’t think it is the non-physicists who have a hard time with it as much as us physicists who don’t really like people blatantly misapplying the laws of thermodynamics. I would strongly recommend running as far and fast as possible away from G&T if you want to have any dream of being taken seriously in the scientific community. If the “skeptic community” can’t distinguish between G&T and real science, you folks frankly have no hope of having any serious impact on the scientific discourse.

  66. Mark T (15:24:01) :
    Of course, that global “temperature” means anything must also be taken as a given. Given the context of Ron’s statement, it’s all but a certainty that’s what was being referred to.

    Global temperature has a very precise and physically real meaning, namely that temperature that will produce an emission of radiation equal to that measured by a satellite at some distance from the Earth. In a hundred years time that will be the way we’ll measure the ‘global temperature’, just as we today measure the TSI to high precision. In fact, a very good project would be a satellite at L1 looking at and measuring the total radiance of the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, and some stars at the same time.

  67. peter_ga says:

    Although I am reasonably skeptical, I find all these attacks on the greenhouse affect to be fairly unscientific. There is no doubt that greenhouses work by inhibiting convection, and the warming mechanism by which co2 inhibits long wave radiation emission from the earth is completely different. But this is the postulated warming mechanism, and for want of a better metaphor, it is termed the greenhouse affect. While the papers conclusions are not necessarily incorrect, they are hardly well developed or demonstrated.

  68. Joel Shore (18:44:24) :
    I would strongly recommend running as far and fast as possible away from G&T
    Hear, hear.

  69. Paul Vaughan (15:52:33) :
    Pamela Gray appears to have adopted Leif Svalgaard’s “consensus” view without question.
    Nothing said anything about consensus. If you question everything, you’ll learn and understand nothing.

  70. Mike Bryant says:

    ” If the “skeptic community” can’t distinguish between G&T and real science, you folks frankly have no hope of having any serious impact on the scientific discourse.”

    Is that the “real science” that has been pushing these myths?

    http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25401759-5000117,00.html

    And these from Roger Sowell’s great comment?
    “EPA stated “The effects of climate change observed to date and projected to occur in the future–including but not limited to” (my responses in parentheses)
    1. the increased likelihood of more frequent and intense heat waves, (even if valid, which is debatable, given the dust bowl years of the 1930s, these are more likely related to Jet stream and El Nino, which are natural events and very cyclical)
    2. more wildfires, (likely not a valid statement, given the short period of records, plus modern fires are more likely due to forest mis-management, lighting strikes, arson. I made a point earlier on a WUWT thread that evidence of massive wildfires in the form of layers of charcoal can be found in the banks of rivers and streams)
    3. degraded air quality, (air quality laws are improving air quality)
    4. more heavy downpours and flooding, (storm intensity index not higher as stated by Bolt, but more damage occurs due to population growth and location in areas prone to flooding)
    5. increased drought, (droughts are cyclical, more severe droughts in the past are known, some areas of drought are caused by poor land management)
    6. greater sea level rise, (see the answer already given by Bolt)
    7. more intense storms, (refer to the answer for more heavy downpours and flooding, above)
    8. harm to water resources, (non-sequitur; water resources are affected by agricultural runoff, overuse, population growth, but not CO2)
    9. harm to agriculture (no evidence provided, crop shortages and failures not noted, instead, cold weather is inhibiting planting and is shortening growing seasons).
    10. harm to wildlife and ecosystems-(polar bear populations are growing, coral atolls are thriving)
    Looks to me like the EPA is 0-for-10 on this one…that is even worse than Michael Jordan’s minor league batting average.”

    The United States cannot afford any more of this gobbledygook poliscience that passes for science…

  71. Smokey says:

    a jones, I look forward to your post.

    And don’t listen to the grumblers who fervently hope this site has no serious impact on the scientific discourse. It’s already having an impact.

    Here are some more peer reviewed papers that falsify the hypothesis that CO2 = AGW:

    Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
    (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
    - Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon

    Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
    (Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
    - Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas

    Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
    (Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
    - C. R. de Freitas

    Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
    (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
    - Richard S. Lindzen

    Can we believe in high climate sensitivity?
    (arXiv:physics/0612094v1, Dec 11 2006)
    - J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves

    http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/AGW_hypothesis_disproved.pdf

    Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
    (AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
    - Lee C. Gerhard

    - Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
    (AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
    - Lee C. Gerhard

    Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
    - V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos

    Climate Change Re-examined
    (Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
    - Joel M. Kauffman

    CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
    (Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1999
    - Sherwood B. Idso

    Crystal balls, virtual realities and ’storylines’
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
    - R.S. Courtney

    Dangerous global warming remains unproven
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
    - R.M. Carter

    Does CO2 really drive global warming?
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
    - R.H. Essenhigh

    Does human activity widen the tropics?
    (arXiv:0803.1959v1, Mar 13 200
    - Katya Georgieva, Boian Kirov

    Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
    - C.D. Idso

    Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 200
    - Patrick J. Michaels

    Global Warming
    (Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
    - W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas

    Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
    - Dennis Ambler

    Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
    (Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
    - Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman

    Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
    - Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong

    Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
    - M. Leroux

    Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation
    (arXiv:0803.1239v1, Mar 10 200
    - Serge Galam

    Global warming: What does the data tell us?
    (arXiv:physics/0210095v1, Oct 23 2002)
    - E. X. Alban, B. Hoeneisen

    Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
    (Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, p. 183-183, April 20, 1999)
    - S. Fred Singer

    Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
    - A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis

    Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    (Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
    - Soon, Willie

    Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
    - Indur M. Goklany

    Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
    (Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
    - Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo

    Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
    (Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
    - Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

    - Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)
    (Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
    - Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

    - Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.
    (Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
    - Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

    On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?
    (Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
    - L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar

    On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system
    (Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 260-268. Sept. 2007)
    - Olavi Kamer

    Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
    (Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
    - A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese

    Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
    (Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
    - Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

    Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
    (arXiv:0707.1276, July 2007)
    - Soon, Willie

    Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 200
    - Klaus-Martin Schulte

    Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
    (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
    - Richard S. Lindzen

    Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system
    (Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
    - Olavi Kärner

    Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
    - S. Fred Singer

    Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
    - Richard S. Lindzen

    Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
    - Vincent Gray

    Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
    - Olavi Kärner

    The Carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18, January 1999)
    - N. Calder

    The Cause of Global Warming
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
    - Vincent Gray

    The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
    - Douglas J. Keenan

    The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
    - David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

    The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
    - H. Jelbring

    The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
    - A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes

    The IPCC future projections: are they plausible?
    (Climate Research, Vol. 10: 155–162, August 199
    - Vincent Gray

    The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change – the Failure of Science
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
    - William J.R. Alexander

    The UN IPCC’s Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
    - Wojick D. E.

    “The Wernerian syndrome”; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
    (Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
    - Lee C. Gerhard

    Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
    - Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSENMARSCHALLENGE.pdf

  72. Robert Bateman says:

    So, Leif, are you are saying that TSI and CO2 have an effect, they are both measurable, but neither one is significant enough to explain changes to global temperatures?
    That narrows it down a bit.
    Next.

  73. Robert Bateman (19:47:30) :
    So, Leif, are you are saying that TSI and CO2 have an effect, they are both measurable, but neither one is significant enough to explain changes to global temperatures?
    Pretty much. Except that ‘measurable’ is too fuzzy. I would say they are in principle measurable [and there are claims that they have been measured, e.g. a 0.1K influence of TSI], but difficult to ‘discern’ over the naturally occurring noise and stochastic’cycles’ as any complex phenomenon exhibits.

  74. Robert Bateman says:

    I am very familiar with noise from imaging. We dither fanatically, make hundreds of calibration images, dust the ccd chip, swoon over the equipment to eliminate as much tracking error as possible, drift align religiously, use ice in water buckets to keep that sensor as cold as possible, chase down every connection, clean the mirrors, flock the tubes, baffle the scope, sweat over backlash and spend days upon end decovoluting in hopes of gaining one more magnitude out of the background noise. I imaged NGC 5943 for an entire week, just to get a clearer picture of that wandering black hole trail, only to discover that I didn’t get enough 400-500 nm data.
    My conclusive data was, in the end, too fuzzy.
    The answer was too deeply buried in the noise for my 16″ to resolve.
    I needed a big observatory, or Hubble, but my proposal was turned down.
    Can’t justify it because I couldn’t prove it.
    Drat and double drat.

  75. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (19:01:45)
    “Nothing said anything about consensus. If you question everything, you’ll learn and understand nothing.”

    http://www.leif.org/research/Seminar-LMSAL.pdf
    “[...] a remarkable consensus is now emerging [...]“

    It’s not everyday I see a paper announced as a “Consensus” – beginning with the very first word in it’s title.

    Now I’m curious to know if journals that run papers related to climate science have any policies (including informal ones) on the inclusion of the word “consensus” in titles.

  76. Just Want Truth... says:

    I have posted this video before when something in the ballpark of this topic comes up. It’s a simple introduction :

  77. Paul Vaughan says:

    Smokey (19:30:33)
    “a jones, I look forward to your post.”

    I look forward to the post too.

    Even if the paper is garbage as some claim, it is a signal that conveys information about pockets of society.

    Rooted amongst the very deepest of human instincts is a fundamental value that transcends whatever message “climate science” is trying to hammer:

    People will choose freedom over slavery any day.

    (maybe even if it is “reason” that is trying to enslave them)

  78. Geoff Sharp says:

    Paul Vaughan (15:52:33) :

    Re: Leif Svalgaard (15:16:39)

    My theory was that Leif Svalgaard would rush to Pamela Gray’s defense since Pamela Gray appears to have adopted Leif Svalgaard’s “consensus” view without question.

    Your catching on Paul.

    I would like hear Leif’s account of how much CO2 is affecting world temps. His past statements to the press would suggest quite a bit?

  79. gary gulrud says:

    Leif Svalgaard (18:59:07) :

    Joel Shore (18:44:24) :
    I would strongly recommend running as far and fast as possible away from G&T
    Hear, hear.”

    ROTFLMAO

    Well, Ok. If doing so removes one still further from either of you two, then perhaps it is good advice. LOL

  80. Paul Vaughan (22:24:03) :
    “[...] a remarkable consensus is now emerging [...]“
    It’s not everyday I see a paper announced as a “Consensus” – beginning with the very first word in it’s title.

    This is not about climate, only that the previously disparate estimates of the Sun’s magnetic field field in the past are converging towards a consensus of the people involved. Nothing wrong with that. Good, actually.

    Geoff Sharp (04:21:01) :
    I would like hear Leif’s account of how much CO2 is affecting world temps. His past statements to the press would suggest quite a bit?
    I would estimate a few tenths of a degree at the most.

    gary gulrud (05:07:23) :
    Well, Ok. If doing so removes one still further from either of you two
    wish you would remove yourself completely, as you bring nothing to the table.

  81. Tim Clark says:

    Leif Svalgaard (19:54:17) :

    Robert Bateman (19:47:30) :
    So, Leif, are you are saying that TSI and CO2 have an effect, they are both measurable, but neither one is significant enough to explain changes to global temperatures?
    Pretty much. Except that ‘measurable’ is too fuzzy. I would say they are in principle measurable [and there are claims that they have been measured, e.g. a 0.1K influence of TSI], but difficult to ‘discern’ over the naturally occurring noise and stochastic’cycles’ as any complex phenomenon exhibits.

    Saved in “My documents”. Thanks Robert for outing Leif :~D.

  82. Ron de Haan says:

    Gerry (10:14:23) :

    Some of you may have read in the Wikipedia that Henrik Svensmark’s finding of an inverse correlation between solar activity, global temperature, and galactic cosmic radiation has been “discredited.” You need to also read this:
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Svensmark_FriisChtr-Reply%20to%20Lockwood.pdf

    Gerry,
    No it has not, don’t trust Wikipedia because it is run by warmists.
    Svensmark has replied to the claims from Lockwood.
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/10/svensmark-and-friis-christensen-reply.html

    If Wikipedia would have been a “neutral, unbiased collection of data”, these publications would have been added to the subject.

    Svensmark claim is currently investigated by CERN but problems with the gigantic magnets of the super collider have caused for a delay.

    Also other scienists like Nir Sharviv have problems with Lockwood (and Frölich)
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html

  83. Ron de Haan (09:37:14) :
    Some of you may have read in the Wikipedia that Henrik Svensmark’s finding of an inverse correlation between solar activity, global temperature, and galactic cosmic radiation has been “discredited.”
    It is human nature to believe what they want to believe no matter what the data shows. To wit: flat-earthers, astrology, AGW, GCRs, etc.

  84. Ron de Haan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (14:54:47) :

    Ron de Haan (13:27:08) :
    If you quote me, please make a correct quote, I stated NO measurable effect.
    We can measure temperatures to a very small fraction of a degree, like 0.001 K or better. So if the effect was 0.002 K it would be measurable. You do not really mean ‘measurable’. You meant ‘discernible’ which means that if the CO2 had a 0.5 degree effect that can easily be measured], but was buried in 2 degrees [say] of natural ‘noise’, then one could say ‘not discernible’, but certainly measurable. When I said ‘NO effect’ I meant ‘NO measurable effect’, with the implicit assumption [which is always there - stated or not] that anything that is smaller than we can measure [as limited by our instruments] is NO effect.

    Leif,

    Thank you for this explanation.
    I will adapt my reply:

    The science about the influence of CO2 on earth temperatures is not settled.
    If CO2 would be a driver of earth temperatures we would have seen an increase of temperatures related to the rise of atmospheric CO2 levels.

    This is not the case. As CO2 levels (still) rise, temperatures are going down.

    One of the problems is that we currently fail to determine the exact effect of the total CO2 budget on earth temperatures, because it’s signal is “buried”in the two degree of “Natural Noise”.

    So, if we can not determine the effect of the total flux of CO2 on earth temperatures, how can we conclude that Anthropogenic CO2, which is according to Professor Emiritus Jan Veizer less than 5% of the total CO2 flux, be responsible for the melting of glaciers, the Greenland Ice Cap, the Arctic Sea Ice and the Antarctica Icecap?

    The answer is, we can’t and as time goes by it will become clear that the entire AGW doctrine has been based on a hoax and it will also become clear that CO2 has NOTHING to do with it.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25376454-5013479,00.html

  85. Ron de Haan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (09:48:16) :

    Ron de Haan (09:37:14) :
    Some of you may have read in the Wikipedia that Henrik Svensmark’s finding of an inverse correlation between solar activity, global temperature, and galactic cosmic radiation has been “discredited.”
    It is human nature to believe what they want to believe no matter what the data shows. To wit: flat-earthers, astrology, AGW, GCRs, etc.

    Leif,
    Without any objective to insult you, you are sounding a bit like Al Gore.

    Only the fact that CERN is undertaking an attempt to do further research on Svensmark’s theory makes me extremely humble.
    Why don’t we wait for the outcome of this research. Who knows what they find out.

  86. Ron de Haan (10:25:10) :
    Why don’t we wait for the outcome of this research. Who knows what they find out.
    Fair enough. Except that proponents don’t seem to wait. And even if the SKY experiment turns out to work, does not mean that it works in the real atmosphere; so far the albedo measurements show that albedo does not track the solar cycle, so perhaps yet another mediator must be postulated. In the lab, I can get CO2 to absorb infrared light, does that prove AGW?

  87. Ron de Haan (10:25:10) :
    Without any objective to insult you, you are sounding a bit like Al Gore.
    Do I get a Nobel Prize too? :-)

    Only the fact that CERN is undertaking an attempt to do further research on Svensmark’s theory makes me extremely humble.
    I don’t think that CERN is undertaking this experiment. Rather Svensmark is piggy-backing on some of CERN’s facilities.
    Some of my wilder ideas are done at Stanford, this does not mean that Stanford is undertaking an attempt to further my wild ideas, just that Stanford supports a certain level of academic freedom.

  88. Ron de Haan says:

    peter_ga (18:57:55) :

    Although I am reasonably skeptical, I find all these attacks on the greenhouse effect to be fairly unscientific. There is no doubt that greenhouses work by inhibiting convection.

    peter_ga
    I always have thought that convection was stopped by inversion, not by a “greenhouse”.

  89. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: Leif Svalgaard (07:32:49)

    FYI: I found the use of the word “Consensus” in the title a little arrogant & over-bearing. I literally nearly spit involuntarily on the screen the second I saw it as the very first (not at all suggestive(?)) word of the title of the paper.

    There may very well be a consensus emerging, but the paper is posted for public viewing by people who are very far removed from it (so the word “sheeple” comes to mind).

    To be clear: I respect your scientific contributions.

  90. Ron de Haan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (10:53:07) :

    Ron de Haan (10:25:10) :
    Without any objective to insult you, you are sounding a bit like Al Gore.
    Do I get a Nobel Prize too? :-)

    Only the fact that CERN is undertaking an attempt to do further research on Svensmark’s theory makes me extremely humble.
    I don’t think that CERN is undertaking this experiment. Rather Svensmark is piggy-backing on some of CERN’s facilities.
    Some of my wilder ideas are done at Stanford, this does not mean that Stanford is undertaking an attempt to further my wild ideas, just that Stanford supports a certain level of academic freedom.

    Leif,
    I really think you should earn a Noble Prize, only for replying to all the posters here at WUWT. On the other hand if I were you, I would be glad not to have one because the community of Nobel Prize winners like Gore, Crutzen and Steven Chu make up quite a bunch of loonies.

    I can not judge if Svensmark is piggybacking on CERN Facilities or not.
    I’m not an insider.
    But I certainly support the concept that any theory, no matter how wild, that could lead to a better understanding of the mechanisms that make this world tick should have a chance to be investigated. Objectively and without a political or corporate agenda.

  91. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (07:32:49) responding to gary gulrud (05:07:23)
    “wish you would remove yourself completely, as you bring nothing to the table.”

    I’m going to be forthright:

    No matter what Leif Svalgaard’s status – & value to the community – comments like this should not get through.

    Leif, WUWT Policy states:
    “Everyone who visits here is welcome to post”

    Who has a monopoly on multi-faceted concerns about the multi-dimensional climate controversy?

    One of the features I advertise most about this site in promoting it to others is the mix of participants (something which engenders broad appeal). I only wish the conduct was more decent & respectful.

  92. Stephen Wilde says:

    I think there may be some misunderstanding of Leif’s position as I see it.

    He is clearly not supportive of AGW and, irritatingly to some (including me sometimes) neither is he supportive of any other ideas that cannot yet be proved.

    His purpose is in applying scientific rigour to woolly and speculative concepts and that is fine because it tests one’s opinions very effectively.

    However the fact is that the science is indeed unsettled so speculation and judgement whether woolly or not is essential to give a direction to the research we need to get nearer the truth.

    Those of us who are trying our best to sort scientific wheat from chaff are helped rather than hindered by Leif’s useful scientific challenges.

    I don’t agree with Leif’s persistent negativism but he is entitled to apply it even if both he and those who receive the benefit of his comments occasionally become a little uncivil.

    This board is a model of civility compared to others.

  93. Paul Vaughan (14:13:11) :
    No matter what Leif Svalgaard’s status – & value to the community – comments like this should not get through
    I agree, but so should also not the posting to which this was a reaction [a posting you were not forthright to quote]. I hope that Gary has picked up his sorry a** after having laughed it off, as I did not wish him any bodily harm :-)
    By allowing such statements, the moderators wisely give the offenders [appearing so puerile and ridiculous] enough rope to hang themselves by. Your self-righteous complaining, on the other hand, serves little purpose and bring even less to the table.

  94. Stephen Wilde (15:39:44) :
    I don’t agree with Leif’s persistent negativism
    I might comment on this. I’m a very positive person, well conditioned to accept wild and far-out ideas [quoting Niels Bohr commenting on somebody's theory: 'his ideas were not wild enough to be true'] as some of mine are too [as people keep telling me]. I’m only objecting to what ideas, correlations, ‘theories’, etc, that I see as either unfounded [e.g. statistically insignificant], overstated, or violating physical laws [as I know them]. That that comes across as ‘persistent negativism’ may be a comment on the quality of most such…
    Not all ideas deserve ‘equal time’. Examples: ‘evolution’ vs. ‘creationism’, ‘young Earth’ vs. ‘geological time scale’, ‘neutron stars at the center of a iron Sun’ vs. ‘helioseismic evidence and direct neutrino measurements’, ‘electrical currents coursing through the Universe’ vs. ‘known plasma physics’, ‘spin-orbit angular momentum coupling’ vs. ‘Standard celestial mechanics guiding our spaceships successfully to distant planets’, etc.
    Most of these invalid ideas are very dearly held by their proponents and any opposition to them is bound to be met with outrage and hostility as so often displayed here. This is only human, but so be it, and as well as their ideas should get their 15-minutes, so should reasoned debunking of them, without that spilling into 800-comment threads.

  95. Ron de Haan (14:08:18) :
    should have a chance to be investigated. Objectively and without a political or corporate agenda.
    Most scientists pride themselves of investigating ideas objectively. Problem is that many ideas do not pass an obvious ‘smell test’ and so many scientists do not think it worth their time [and may not have the funding provided by both government and corporations to conduct research of other than what these consider relevant].

  96. Ron de Haan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (21:00:32) :

    Ron de Haan (14:08:18) :
    should have a chance to be investigated. Objectively and without a political or corporate agenda.
    Most scientists pride themselves of investigating ideas objectively. Problem is that many ideas do not pass an obvious ’smell test’ and so many scientists do not think it worth their time [and may not have the funding provided by both government and corporations to conduct research of other than what these consider relevant].

    Leif,

    Glad to hear from you that most scientists do perform objective investigation.

    But I am worried.

    I am worried about those scientists that are not objective and carry ideological hence political agenda’s and I am worried about the increasing influence of Government financing research at the scale announced by the Obama Administration.

    I rather see scientists selling their projects in an open market even if project financing is difficult that having to deal with a society that is based on the laws of corporatism which quite accurately describes the current developments.

  97. Ron de Haan (07:35:02) :
    I am worried about those scientists that are not objective and carry ideological hence political agenda’s and I am worried about the increasing influence of Government financing research at the scale announced by the Obama Administration.
    As far as politics is concerned, scientists are like other people [perhaps a little bit to the left...] with many of the same agendas, etc.
    And as far as Governments are concerned, a people [supposedly democratic] has the government they elected and therefore deserve. On the other hand, the US is not a democracy but a republic and US voters are easily manipulated.

  98. gary gulrud says:

    “I hope that Gary has picked up his sorry a** after having laughed it off, as I did not wish him any bodily harm :-)”

    No harm inflicted, just an wee tad jealous some are funnier unintentionally and unknowingly than I am by design.

    Charles spanked me once, that was enough.

  99. gary gulrud (10:25:43) :
    “I hope that Gary has picked up his sorry a** after having laughed it off, as I did not wish him any bodily harm :-)”
    No harm inflicted, just an wee tad jealous some are funnier unintentionally and unknowingly than I am by design.

    The little designer logo [ :-) ] was perhaps unknowingly overlooked.

    Charles spanked me once, that was enough.
    Let us all hope the effect doesn’t wear off too quickly.

  100. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: Ron de Haan (07:35:02)

    Recently when I was shopping around for some new channels of funding I was coming across websites instructing as follows:

    “Successful applicants will:
    1) demonstrate global warming,
    2) demonstrate impacts of global warming, &/or
    3) demonstrate projected impacts of global warming.”

    Those aren’t the exact words used, but if you filter off the fluff, that’s all there is.

    I won’t be surprised if there are soon some waves of funding for natural climate research because a lot is invested in the climate-alarm models and they will need to be tweaked towards reality. If such waves of funding arise, first recipients are likely to be those who served well in the past. (The waves may not be large enough to reach others.)

    Orders of magnitude more (not less) research funding is needed to ensure the sustainable defense of civilization; however, …

    … The trick is in the channeling of that flow. My experience has been that nasty administrative folks can make a real mess of anything. (I call it “adminabalism” – that’s a combo of administration, ballistic, & cannibalism — as ugly as it sounds – patently unethical.)

  101. On the subject of CERN and Svensmark, Jasper Kirby of CERN wrote a very good paper a year ago entitled “Cosmic Rays and Climate”. It is 44 pages on the solar influence on climate. There is plenty of evidence. It can be found at: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf

    We are due for a de Vries cycle cold event (210 year period) and a Bond event (1,470 year period). There is a good paper on the solar control of Alaskan glaciers at:
    http://web.cortland.edu/barclayd/publications/GPC_2008.pdf

  102. David Archibald (16:36:09) :
    On the subject of CERN and Svensmark, Jasper Kirby of CERN [...] There is plenty of evidence.

    Kirby’s conclusion is:
    “The question of whether, and to what extent, the climate is influenced by solar and cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of the anthropogenic contribution to present climate change. Real progress on the cosmic ray-climate question will require a physical mechanism to be established, or else ruled out.”

    This honest assessment by Kirby is a far cry from ‘there is plenty of evidence’.

  103. anna v says:

    Leif Svalgaard (10:44:46) :

    Ron de Haan (10:25:10) :
    “Why don’t we wait for the outcome of this research. Who knows what they find out.
    Fair enough.”

    Except that proponents don’t seem to wait. And even if the SKY experiment turns out to work, does not mean that it works in the real atmosphere; so far the albedo measurements show that albedo does not track the solar cycle, so perhaps yet another mediator must be postulated. In the lab, I can get CO2 to absorb infrared light, does that prove AGW? .

    The chaotic nature of climate has been discussed often enough here, so the concept of “albedo tracking the solar cycle” cannot be defended as such. “The solar cycle contributing to albedo ” might, and we would still need a chaotic model to see this.

    It would be naive to expect any single input driver to be in one to one correspondence with long range climate changes as it is for for CO2. It is a synergy that is being played out.

    In any case the albedo measured by Palle et al covers a very small time frame for anybody to be able to conclude much, except that currently it is rising. Do you have other data? Have you seen any current measurements?

  104. anna v (00:19:39) :
    In any case the albedo measured by Palle et al covers a very small time frame for anybody to be able to conclude much, except that currently it is rising. Do you have other data? Have you seen any current measurements?
    Not yet. They are busy reducing their latest measurements. I can’t wait.

  105. gary gulrud says:

    “Have you seen any current measurements?”

    Big Bear updated their site in the last year. A little graphic compares curves of Earthchine and the ISCCP project.

    http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/

    ISCCP results are running higher than Palle’s but are considered ‘broadly in agreement’.

    I don’t know about the deep thinkers but 2% increase in cloud cover seems like it might just be a significant player. I wonder what the noctilucent cloud contribution might be.

  106. gary gulrud says:

    “Kirby’s conclusion is:”

    Why, standard boilerplate in publicly funded research; suitable for the opening paragraph of the ‘current’ study as well as motivation for ‘further research’ as a concluding remark.

    This says nothing whatever about any evidence presented in the paper. One might have presented results or have simply outlined a funded proposal.

  107. anna v says:

    gary gulrud (09:11:24) :

    Thanks

    ISCCP results are running higher than Palle’s but are considered ‘broadly in agreement’.

    I don’t know about the deep thinkers but 2% increase in cloud cover seems like it might just be a significant player. I wonder what the noctilucent cloud contribution might be.

    go to http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Earth_temp.html

    and change the albedo by 2% to see the effect in the toy model. It is a 0.64C change in global temperature.

  108. gary gulrud (09:29:06) :
    One might have presented results or have simply outlined a funded proposal.
    Before wasting everybody’s mental bandwidth, go read the article and find out…

  109. I have only caught up with this discussion now.

    A good way into the vast literature on the phenomena being researched by the Australia’s Antartic Divison is the university web page of Brian Tinsley, Professor of Physics at the University of Texas Dallas
    here http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/faculty/tinsley.html

    Here’s a quote from it:
    “About half of the global warming over the past century can be accounted for by changes in the sun and the solar wind, and there are well documented correlations of climate during past millennia with cosmic ray flux changes. These can be understood in terms of electrical interactions between cloud droplets and aerosol particles responding to solar wind-induced changes in atmospheric ionization and in the latitude distribution of Jz, as discussed above.

    In a recent collaboration with Dr. Gary Burns of the Australian Antarctic Division we have confirmed with high statistical significance small changes in Antarctic surface pressure with small solar wind-induced changes in Jz, which are consistent with our hypothesized effects on Jz on cloud cover. In the Arctic the Jz changes are of opposite sign, as are the correlated pressure changes. Further, there are pressure changes that correlate with Jz changes due to changes in the current output of low-latitude thunderstorm generators, that have the same sign in the Arctic as in the Antarctic, as expected from theory. The implication is that global changes in Jz produce global changes in suitable types of clouds, and in some cases changes in precipitation.”

    Have in mind when considering the question “Does the Sun affect Climate?” that it is necessary to consider all of the ways in which solar activity impacts climate: the Sun’s gravitational and electromagnetic fields, the Sun’s plasma output and the Sun’s radiation output.

    The interaction effects between these classes of variables can be highly significant, sometimes amplyfying , sometimes damping each other. It is no good just considering any one class of these variables eg radiation , plasma, in isolation from the others and in without regard to interaction effects amongst them all. In addition, there is, of course, the climate periodicities that arise from phase synchronisation between the several large atmospheric/oceanic oscillations which are, afterall, the proximal cause of the Earth’s climate dynamics.

  110. gary gulrud says:

    “go read the article and find out…”

    That’s right Leif, I did inorder that our friends here did not have to waste their time.

  111. Paul Vaughan says:

    Richard Mackey (01:11:26) “Have in mind when considering the question “Does the Sun affect Climate?” that it is necessary to consider all of the ways in which solar activity impacts climate [...] interaction effects [...] phase [...]“

    A refreshing deviation from the pervasively-malicious, strictly-narrow linear-view that is undermining the sustainable defense of civilization – thank you Richard for sharing your grip on paradox.

Comments are closed.