Archibald: Solar Based Climate Forecast to 2050

Guest post by David Archibald

When I started out in climate science in 2005, the climate people ignored the solar physics community. A casual perusal of the literature though indicated that the difference in climate outcome from Dikpati’s (NASA) estimate for Solar Cycle 24 amplitude of 190 and Clilverd’s (British Antarctic Survey) estimate of 42 amounted to 2.0°C for the mid-latitudes.

Since then, the prognostications of astute scientists with respect to Solar Cycle 24 amplitude have come to pass. Some commentators though are over-reaching and predicting a recurrence of the Maunder Minimum. We now have the tools to predict climate out to the mid-21st Century with a fair degree of confidence, and a repeat of the Maunder Minimum is unlikely. A de Vries Cycle repeat of the Dalton Minimum is what is in prospect up to the early 2030s and then a return to normal conditions of solar activity, and normal climate.

The three tools we have to predict climate on a multi-decadal basis are the solar cycle length – temperature relationship, the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide and Ed Fix’s solar cycle prediction. Let’s start with the solar cycle length – temperature relationship, first proposed by Friis-Christensen and Lassen in 1991. This is the relationship for Hanover, New Hampshire:

The relationship established for Hanover is a 0.7°C change in temperature for each year of solar cycle length. Solar Cycle 23 was three years longer than Solar Cycle 22, and thus the average annual temperature for Hanover, New Hampshire will be 2.1°C lower over Solar Cycle 24 than it had been over Solar Cycle 23. Why did I pick Hanover? Governor Lynch recently vetoed New Hampshire leaving the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

Professor Jan-Erik Solheim of Oslo University replicated this methodology for ten Norwegian temperature records, and thus this methodology is confirmed as valid:

These ten Norwegian temperature records all confirm a solar cycle length – temperature relationship, and predict that temperatures of these stations will be about 1.5°C colder over the next ten years than they have been over the last ten years.

The second tool to use is the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was approximately 290 ppm. It is currently 390 ppm. The first 20 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere provides half the heating effect to date. By the time we get to the current concentration, each additional 100 ppm provides a further 0.1°C of heating. We are currently adding 2 ppm to the atmosphere each year so carbon dioxide will provide further heating of 0.1°C every 50 years. That said, the temperature fall over the next 22 years should result in a higher rate of carbon dioxide uptake by the oceans. The logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide is shown by this graph, using data derived from the Modtran site at the University of Chicago:

 

Lastly, to put a multi-decadal climate forecast together, we need a prediction of solar cycle length that comes with a very good hindcast match. This is provided by Ed Fix’s long ephemeris simulation. This simulation is described in Ed Fix’s paper which is included in an Elsevier volume edited by Don Easterbrook, “Evidence-Based Climate Science”, due out in September. You can put advance orders in for it now:

This is a window of Ed Fix’s simulation:

 

The green line is the solar cycle record from 1914 to 2010, with alternate cycles reversed. Solar Cycles 19 to 23 are annotated. The red lines is the model output, from which the lengths of individual solar cycles in the mid-21st Century can be calculated.

Combining all the above tools, this is the climate forecast for Hanover, New Hampshire, which is a good proxy for what is going to happen along the US-Canadian border:

Solar Cycles 24 to 27 are annotated. For the next thirty years odd, temperatures will be at mid-19th Century levels. With the two year decrease in the length of Solar Cycle 26 from 25, temperatures will rise by 1.4°C by mid-century to late 20th Century levels.

By then, anthropogenic carbon dioxide will be providing a very welcome 0.2°C to the temperature.

The graph shows that quantified solar effects dwarf the quantified anthropogenic carbon dioxide effect.

David Archibald

12th July 2011

About these ads

195 thoughts on “Archibald: Solar Based Climate Forecast to 2050

  1. Does black carbon / “soot” emission factor into any changes in albedo at the poles or on mountaintops and can it cause genuinely largescale changes in temperature or local flooding etc.?

  2. To quote the article:

    “For the next thirty years odd, temperatures will be at mid-19th Century levels. With the two year decrease in the length of Solar Cycle 26 from 25, temperatures will rise by 1.4°C by mid-century to late 20th Century levels.”

    …and then substracting 2 degrees Celsius again to correct the heat-island-effect of misplaced thermometers will STILL make for a Maunder Minimum.

    Brrrrrrr…

  3. David Archibald:

    Thankyou. You provide an interesting hypothesis derived from empirical data that provides a possible method to predict future local annual temperatures. This is useful
    (a) because people live in localities and not globally,
    and
    (b) because it provides a large number of possible predictions (i.e. each locality has a unique prediction of future annual temperatures) that can each be assessed within a decade.
    So, your method is real science.

    However, you don’t state a mechanism by which solar cycle length affects climate so every warmist will say you must be wrong whether or not your method provides correct predictions (sigh).

    Richard

  4. Fascinating! While this shows the 1950 to 1970 New Hampshire temperatures reduced by only 1°C (when all the concerns arose over the world entering a new ice age) it forecasts a reduction of a whopping 3°C over the next 4 years, at most. Brrr – the CO2 warming will be welcome indeed!

    And hopefully by mid-century humankind will be well on the way to having CO2 sequestration technology robustly sorted out, so we can target CO2 levels to whatever the politicians can then agree on.

  5. This prediction will fail because it doesn’t take account of the release of stored heat from the ocean. The more than averagely active Sun pumped excess energy into the oceans from around 1934 to 2003 (aided by a terrestrial amplification of solar variation caused by change in cloud cover).

    This excess accumulation of ocean heat content has been coming back out of the ocean since the cloud increased again in 1999 (Palle et al project Earthshine) and the sun started going quiet in 2004. It will help support surface temperatures globally for quite some time during any protracted solar minimum which may occur. However, the outlook for the northern latitudes will include cold snaps in the winters as loops in the jet stream caused by blocking highs over Greenland will pull frigid arctic air down into northern Europe, Russia and Canada. These blocking high’s are a feature of the phase of the Arctic oscillation we are heading into over the next few decades.

    All this means that David Archibalds prediction for the Canadian US border may turn out correct, but for different reasons than those he proposes. If the lowered temperature does come to pass, it is likely to be because of exceptionally cold winters rather than a general lowering of temperature throughout the year. This means the effects on agriculture may not be as bad as he fears. Though the growing season will likely be shortened by cold spring weather, the generally high sunshine hour summers will offset this to some extent.

    Time will tell.

  6. I think Mr Rossi has just done for the 0.2 degree rise due to CO2.

    Much more important, what will lower temperatures do for crop yields?

  7. Just from eyeball correlation, it looks like the Norwegian results are much better from the coastal sites and noisier inland, which I guess adds further weight to the “it’s the sea, stupid” argument.

  8. “The three tools we have to predict climate on a multi-decadal basis are the solar cycle length – temperature relationship, the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide and Ed Fix’s solar cycle prediction.”

    Where are the clouds?
    Send in the clouds.

  9. David

    Your prediction for the next 10 years or so seems to be based on the fact that SC23 was longer than SC22 so temperatures over SC24 will be cooler. In fact this is more or less exactly ehat you assert here:

    The relationship established for Hanover is a 0.7°C change in temperature for each year of solar cycle length. Solar Cycle 23 was three years longer than Solar Cycle 22, and thus the average annual temperature for Hanover, New Hampshire will be 2.1°C lower over Solar Cycle 24 than it had been over Solar Cycle 23.

    Using the same methodology we would, then, expect temperatures over Solar Cycle 21 to be lower than over Solar Cycle 20 because Solar Cycle 20 was longer than Solar Cycle 19. SC19 was 10 years and 5 months long while SC20 was 11 years 7 months long, i.e. ~1.2 years longer. This corrresponds to a drop in temperature of 0.84 deg C.

    However, no such drop in temperature was observed at Hanover or at any of the Norwegian stations. It is, of course, possible that an anomalous warming effect offset the solar cooling effect in Hanover and Norway but this seems unlikely since it is well recognised that most of the Northern Hemisphere began warming just as SC20 was ending and SC21 beginning, i.e. in ~1976. In fact, the stations you have selected were the ones possibly least affected by the warming which began in the mid-1970s. So, in answer to this question in your post.

    Why did I pick Hanover?

    Because it best fits your dodgy predictions, perhaps?

  10. tallbloke says:
    July 13, 2011 at 1:26 am

    This prediction will fail because it doesn’t take account of the release of stored heat from the ocean.

    When that happens the sea level will drop. Awkward for the CaCa Crew.

  11. With the L&P hypothesis on disappearing sunspots, svensmarks theory of increased cloudiness, drops in ocean temps, increased snowcover, sea level drop along with cold pdo, more prevalent and stronger la ninas, possibly more volcanic eruptions i reckon the drop will be along the curve and not stepped but to a deeper level – with the rise taking a lot longer to come up. As tallbloke says the oceans will need time after the sun has gets higher sunspot cycles to recover their warmth.

  12. As Tallbloke says “Time will tell”. I am concerned that the major academies and orgs like CSIRO have totally ignored any possibility of cooling whatever the cause. Thus their predictions are predicated on a false premise and are guaranteed to fail with very real adverse consequences.

  13. tallbloke says:
    July 13, 2011 at 1:26 am
    …. it doesn’t take account of the release of stored heat from the ocean.

    I agree about stored heat content from the ocean. It is by far the largest source of the latent energy accumulated during past decades. In specific case of the Nordic countries and the wider North Atlantic climate , the stored energy is carried by the Atlantic currents and it is released in the North Atlantic and the Nordic seas. These events result in climatic process known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), currently in its negative phase, with more details and some graphic illustrations, as described here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htm

    (comment from Dr. Judith Curry on her blog ‘looks good’)

  14. An interesting hypothesis. The author deserves credit for predicticting a significant temperature change over the next few years (in the same way that Einstein predicted the bending of starlight and the orbit of Mercury). If the prediction proves to be accurate then the hypothesis will be elevated to the status of a theory worthy of serious consideration. A good example of the scientific method IMHO.

  15. ’tis somewhat unrealistic to expect a cliff edge drop of 3 degrees in temperatures. Perhaps the solar climatologists should have used solar cycle length to predict temperature trends, not absolute temperatures.

    As to the solar cycle forecast to mid-century, I have no faith in it. As always it’s easy to fit a nice curve to existing data – but the next question is, how good is it at predicting the future? Generally the answer is not very good.

  16. David…could you provide further references for the graph of CO2 ppmv per unit temperature? The only solid relationship I know is that of ppmv and the extra Watts/square metre calculated at some height in the atmosphere (wherever -19 degrees C occurs). The consensus figure for a doubling to 560 ppmv is 3.7 Watts. Varying factors, known as Lambda are used to derive a surface temperature – ranging from 0.8 to 0.4 in IPCC working groups (with IPCC preferring 0.8). That gives a range of 1.5 to 3 degrees C, with the lower figure still five times your Chicago-graph’s 0.2 for the next 200 ppmv. Clearly, it is not an easy matter to translate from the ‘radiative forcing’ at such altitude to a heating effect at the surface – as water vapour, aerosols and clouds all intervene.

    I actually agree and think that Lambda is much lower than 0.4….if as low as 0.1 the expected rise by 560ppmv would be 0.37 C. Where does your estimate come from?

  17. tallbloke,

    Could you provide some references on the heat content of oceans?

    Thank you.

  18. I agree with tallkbloke in general terms but am not so sure that even his comments cover all the oceanic variables.

    A recent paper suggests that more solar energy than previously thought gets past the top 700 metres of ocean and gets advected into the thermohaline circulation (THC) which is 1000 to 1500 years long.

    Therefore we have to consider horizontal temperature variations along the entire route of the THC with the effects coming out 1000 to 1500 years after the solar variations that induced those same temperature discontinuities.

    So we may now be getting the benefit of warmth injected into the THC around 1000AD with the cooler ocean waters from the LIA still to come to the surface thereby (depending on timing) offsetting or supplementing whatever the sun might be doing at that time.

    Mind you I do think that now that the role of CO2 is looking minor if not insignificant we are getting back on the right track by looking more closely at solar and oceanic variations.

  19. The amplitude of Ed Fix’s graph (which only goes back a very short way) would appear to be sunspot counts if this is the case then his graph is seriously at odds with Livingston and Penn forecasts and the other recent forecasts of ‘something wrong with the Sun’. While it is nice to see something based on actual observation, I feel the ‘forecast’ is based on ‘a model’ which is fitted against the few consistent solar cycles in the last century and the assumptions that the cycle length effect in the last few cycles will repeat even with a quiet sun and that the next cycle will be more active. Neither the model nor the assumption appear to have any justification.
    What if the Sun goes into the mode of the late 1600’s as L&Ps observations seem to indicate may be the case? What if the cycle length during that mode does not stay in a nice tidy Hale cycle?

    The observations show that it is highly probable that it will get colder because of the length of the last cycle. The forecast of future cycles does not seem to be soundly based due to current observations of Solar activity..

  20. the oceans will take up all the heat no problems , look into the cold cycles for australia we are heading into a very cold winter look at all the records being broken . I think all caused by the sun minium cycle

  21. I do like these gently reasoned pieces of analysis.

    But it is tricky to relate the logarithmic impact of increased CO2 on the temperature to the histogram provided. Do all the blobs since the Industrial Revolution add up to 0.2 Centigrade perhaps?

  22. Tallbloke, I understand your theory as to the ocean heat bank but that is depleting rapidly by melting ice in the Arctic. The sun now in quite mode and apparently increased cloud cover is not being topped up as shown by the cooling oceans. The lag to warm the oceans will be much longer than the heat dump occurring now. Ten to twenty years longer I fear than this study shows, and the effect on high latitude farming may be profound as it was in the past.

  23. Moderators:

    My comment posted at July 13, 2011 at 1:04 am is labelled as still awaiting moderation after about an hour, but a comment from tallbloke that was posted at at July 13, 2011 at 1:26 am (i.e. more than 20 minutes after mine) appeared almost immediately.

    I do not see how my post transgresses the blog rules so I wonder if I am being subjected to special moderation. If so, then I would be gratefulto be told why.

    Respectfully

    Richard

    [Reply: Nothing nefarious. Tallbloke is a moderator, so his comments appear when he posts them. It would be helpful if mods approved the comments previously awaiting moderation at the same time they post their comments (hint ☺). ~dbs, mod.]

  24. If anything, few scientists give much credit to the Sun with regard to impact on Earth’s climate. To me it is as clear as day that the changing solar activity has had a historical impact. What has clouded many scientists minds is that rising CO2 levels will overwhelm all other influences. In geological history there is no correlation between rising CO2 levels and temperature so why should there be any in the future. Archibald does us all a great service.

  25. Interesting, but I seriously doubt that anyone can predict future climate, whether sceptics or true believers. And, as previously pointed out, what about clouds?
    However, I think it is quite likely that the next decades will be dominated by global cooling rather than global warming.
    The basic greenhouse warming mechanism is well understood (and predicts very small future warming). But, as far as I’m aware, the best historical record (the ice cores) provides absolutely no evidence of greenhouse warming, and there is no sign of any claimed positive feedback (warmer oceans releasing more CO2 and CO2 causing more warming). This is probably due to powerful negative feedback effects, maybe linked to cloud formation.
    But if so, it’s bad news. It implies that even if we massively increased our CO2 emissions it would do virtually nothing to reduce the cooling.
    As I said, no one can accurately predict the future climate. But I have a horrible feeling that our children will look back at the 20th century as a kind of golden age when the climate was pleasently warm….
    Chris

  26. JOHN DOUGLAS says:
    July 13, 2011 at 1:43 am

    I think Mr Rossi has just done for the 0.2 degree rise due to CO2.

    Much more important, what will lower temperatures do for crop yields?

    And if it isn’t Mr. Rossi’s invention, there are several other similar but competing approaches so the probability of it happening is practically assured. We may be forced to burn carbon-based fuels in the future just to keep our planet more hospitable and productive even those such methods of energy production will soon be deemed archaic.

  27. correction: SC25 would be off the Friis-Christensen and Lassen chart on higher temperature.

  28. I am on the record as (Steve Mosher says ‘a voice in the wilderness’) ‘going on’ about the geomagnetic field. I had also a personal disagreement with Dr. Hathaway about my formula ( http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm ), time did tell who was right, so here is another quote from Dr. Hathaway’s paper :
    In conclusion, this study has shown that solar/geomagnetic cycle forcing is embedded in the annual mean temperatures at Armagh Observatory, Northern Ireland. Removal of this effect, however, does not fully explain, especially, the rapid rise in temperatures now being experienced,(I agree with, my bold)
    this possibly being a strong indication that humankind is contributing to climatic change. …. ‘possibly being a strong indication’ …..looks like he is not totally committed to the CO2 case, but hey, he still has a job to do.

  29. Interesting stuff, thank you. But this layman is still baffled as to how that first 20 parts per million of CO2 causes any sort of global warming. Surely after all these years there must be tutorials that a layman can understand. Anybody have a link or two, please?

  30. Very interesting — But is your regression directly of temperature on years, or of years on temperature and then inverted? The correlation will be there either way, but the slopes will differ by a factor of R2 = .53. Although cycle length has a lot of measurement error, solar activity is clearly exogenous, so the former would be preferable IMHO. But eyeball inspection suggests you did the latter.

    The Hanover USHCN site has a nice long, complete record. Anthony at http://surfacestations.org/USHCN_sites.htm only gives it a 4 because of a builiding within 10m, but the photos on the gallery suggest this is not a dominating factor.

  31. “So we may now be getting the benefit of warmth injected into the THC around 1000AD with the cooler ocean waters from the LIA still to come to the surface thereby (depending on timing) offsetting or supplementing whatever the sun might be doing at that time.”

    That’s just a little disconcerting. Talk about some wild weather events.

  32. The accuracy of the solar cycle length to temperature doesn’t look very good and the number of data points is small. There are many same length cycles where temperature in one cycle is near the minimum and temperature in another cycle is near the maximum. I’m not saying there’s no causal connection but it is apparent there are other factors in play that are stronger and cause the relationship to be inverse. It’s a bias at best not a rule. The rule, if there is one, appears to be cumulative solar activity over a number of cycles rather than just the length of individual cycles.

  33. >>Vuk
    >>I agree about stored heat content from the ocean. It is by far the
    >>largest source of the latent energy accumulated during past decades.

    Decades?

    The North Sea varies by a whole 10oc between winter and summer. Now I presume that reflects the upper levels of the sea, while the lower levels stay more constant, but even so, 10oc per year is a huge temperature difference. How certain are you that the oceans can store energy for decades, rather than just a few years?

    .

  34. Professor Jan-Erik Solheim of Oslo University replicated this methodology for ten Norwegian temperature records, and thus this methodology is confirmed as valid

    There’s something wrong with his chart for Oslo (which is the only one I checked, the other chart’s might be off too). The x-axis is the length of the solar cycle in years, from 9.0 to 13.5 years. The y-axis is the average temperature for the city during the following solar cycle. For example, the red dot with the circle around it (on the far left), represents the average temperature during solar cycle 23 (from 1996-2008). The dot aligns with 9.6 on the x-axis because solar cycle 22 was about 9.6 years long, and the short length of cycle 22 is hypothesized to have influenced the average temperature during solar cycle 23, making it warmer.

    Oslo has 3 dots that align with 9.6 on the x-axis while the other cities have only 1 dot aligned with 9.6 on the x-axis (which can only be for solar cycle 22). At first glance this makes sense since Oslo’s temperature record begins at 1816. However, it is clear that there have only been 2 solar cycles of length less than 10.0 between 1800 and 2011. So why does Oslo show 3 dots? Further scrutiny reveals that, over the same time period, there were 6 solar cycles in the range of 11.0 to 11.9 years and yet Oslo clearly shows only 4 dots in that range, not 6. What is going on here?

  35. Richard111:

    At July 13, 2011 at 5:11 am you ask;
    “Interesting stuff, thank you. But this layman is still baffled as to how that first 20 parts per million of CO2 causes any sort of global warming. Surely after all these years there must be tutorials that a layman can understand. Anybody have a link or two, please?”

    The best explanation for Laymen that I know is provided by Jo Nova at

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/

    Simplisticly, what happens is as follows.

    The Earth’s surface is heated by the Sun and the heated surface loses this heat. One of the ways the surface loses heat is to emit heat radiation (i.e. infra red radiation, IR). This IR is energy.

    Some of the IR from the surface passes through the atmosphere to space. But CO2 in the air absorbs some of the IR from the surface and re-emits it as radiation in random directions. So, half the re-emitted energy goes up and half goes downwards. The re-emitted energy that goes downwards is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and heats it some more. Hence, the effect of CO2 in the air is to increase the Earth’s surface temperature by ‘catching’ some of the energy from the surface and ‘recirculating’ some of the energy it ‘catches’ back to the surface: i.e.
    The Sun heats the surface by giving it energy,
    The surface loses the energy from the Sun,
    CO2 in the air returns some of the energy lost from the surface back to the surface.
    Hence, the surface is inhibited in its ability to lose the heat it gets from the Sun so is hotter than it would be without CO2 in the air.

    The effect declines logarithmically because as each increment of CO2 is added to the air there is less IR from the surface available for additional CO2 to absorb.

    An analogy for this logarithmic effect is paper over the inside of the glass in a window to a room. Light (i.e. radiated energy) enters the room through the glass. A sheet of paper covering the glass absorbs some of the light from outside so prevents its entering the room (as CO2 absorbs some IR from the Earth’s surface and prevents it entering space). A second sheet of paper absorbs additional light so even less light enters the room. Consider that each sheet of paper absorbs half the light that falls on it, then the first sheet absorbs half the light that passes through the glass but the second sheet absorbs a quarter of the light that passes through the glass. When 10 sheets cover the glass then an eleventh sheet makes little difference to how much light enters the room.

    Similarly, the first 20 ppm of CO2 in the air absorbs much IR from the Earth’s surface (just as the first sheet of paper absorbs much of the light from through the glass). But the hundredth 20 ppm of CO2 absorbs little IR from the Earth’s surface (just as the hundredth sheet of paper absorbs little of the light from through the glass).

    Of course, all of this ignores the other ways that heat is lost from the surface (i.e. evaporation and conduction) and ignores other ways that heat is inhibited from entering and leaving the surface (e.g. effects of clouds). And it ignores water vapour which is by far the most effective greenhouse gas (it absorbs over the entire IR spectrum but CO2 only absorbs the IR from the surface over two narrow bands of wavelength). And it ignores several other important factors.

    But I said the explanation is simplistic.

    I hope this helps.

    Richard

  36. Richard111:

    I should have mentioned that the link I provided is based on a peer reviewed paper published by David Archbald who wrote the above article.

    The explanation in my post is my own.

    Sorry for the unintended omission.

    Richard

  37. “The three tools we have to predict climate on a multi-decadal basis are the solar cycle length – temperature relationship, the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide and Ed Fix’s solar cycle prediction.”

    Only three tools? With all of the variables involved in climate, are these sufficient to make multi-decadal predictions with any confidence? What about the effect of oscillations in the ocean climate system? Does increased vulcanism, on land and below the ocean, play any role in your model? How do you know that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, especially when there has been a continuing increase in CO2 with no apparent increase in temperature for the past decade?

    Forgive me. I’m a novice when it comes to climate “science.” (My area of research as a graduate student was biofeedback.) However, it seems to me that you are making the same sort of mistakes that are made by all climate modelers.

    Regards.
    Jbird

  38. I think that the CAGW believers will continue to mention the “hidden ocean heat”, the “heat in the pipeline”, the “CO2 is overriding the natural signals” for quite a while.

    I’m waiting to see the panic from the climate scientists when the GISS temperature curve falls below “zero”.

    Just ask them. Ask them if they can predict, with 95% certainty, that the temperature anomalies will NEVER fall below “zero” again.

  39. In reply to Tailbloke’s comment:

    “All this means that David Archibald’s prediction for the Canadian US border may turn out correct, but for different reasons than those he proposes. If the lowered temperature does come to pass, it is likely to be because of exceptionally cold winters rather than a general lowering of temperature throughout the year. This means the effects on agriculture may not be as bad as he fears. Though the growing season will likely be shortened by cold spring weather, the generally high sunshine hour summers will offset this to some extent.”

    Crop Yield (Solar Cycle 24’s current affect on planetary temperature)
    Crop yield is (summer 2010, summer 2011) significantly down due to very heavy snowfall, late spring, and a very, very, wet spring. As there has been a step change in weather, the question is what caused the step change and will the cause persist such that the step change in weather becomes a step change in climate.

    The data that supports Archibald observation that planetary temperature tracks solar cycle length is interesting. The question is why? What is the mechanism? Anyone notice the record cold temperatures and snowfall in the Southern Hemisphere. As to predicting whether cycle 24 – using solar observations or extrapolating past cycles to the future – will be a precursor to a Dalton or Maunder minimum or to a Heinrich minimum, it is likely not possible now as Solar physicists only have detailed full spectrum solar observational data from the last 50 years.

    There is in the paleo record a suite of very peculiar unexplained observations that coincide with the Heinrich events. The current observed increase in volcanic activity, increase in earthquakes, increase in precipitation, and fall in sea level also occurred (order of magnitude greater) during a Heinrich event. The question again is what is the mechanism? (i.e How is the sun changing to cause those specific observed changes?)

    http://www.agcanada.com/Article.aspx?ID=38402

    Pasta Makers Fret As U.S. Durum Area Hits 50-Yr. Low
    The U.S. wheat industry is bracing for a tight supply of premium pasta wheat this year after the USDA projected durum acres this week to be the lowest in 50 years as heavy rains and flooding prevented planting.

    However Canada is in a very similar situation and their supply was fairly tight last year because they had low acreage,” said Erica Olson, marketing specialist with the North Dakota Wheat Commission.

    http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/newsroom/releases/2011/news_release.jsp?news=061411.jsp

    Water woes pose dire prospects for Prairie crops: CWB
    Winnipeg – Unrelenting rain across large areas of Western Canada will severely impact grain production and leave more than six million acres unseeded this year, the CWB announced today in its preliminary forecast. For the second year in a row, crop prospects are dismal on the Prairies.

    “Many farmers in the wettest areas have planted next to nothing this spring, while others are watching their newly emerged crops drown,” said Bruce Burnett, CWB director of weather and market analysis, at the CWB’s annual grain industry briefing. “This is occurring at a time when grain prices are extremely high, adding insult to injury.”

    In total, between six and eight million acres of farmland will go unseeded across the Prairies, according to the CWB. Wheat acres, only slightly larger than last year, will be the second-smallest since 1971 at 20.3 million acres, down 1.7 million acres from average.

    Cold spring, dry fields lower 2009 crop prospects in Western Canada
    “Cold weather across the Prairies this spring has had a detrimental effect on planting and early crop development in most growing regions,” said Bruce Burnett, CWB director of weather and market analysis, at the annual CWB grain industry briefing today. “In addition, soil moisture levels are dangerously low in parts of Alberta and western Saskatchewan, where dry conditions have persisted since last fall.”

  40. Archibald’s theory still suffers from the dog chasing its tail syndrome: If a long cycle predicts a weak cycle (which will be longer) then we have an infinite chain of ever weaker cycles and failure is guaranteed. Now, I’m a CO2 skeptic and ever desirous of a good story, but lets have one that does not contain a self-destruct mechanism. As for Ed Fix, we’re waiting…

  41. It is my opinion that suggestions of cause and effect without plausible mechanisms clearly outlined as part of the post does a huge disservice to the debate. Until the subpar aspects of this post are corrected, I consider this post a fail.

  42. David Archibald
    Thanks for your excellent cross disciplinary perspective.
    The temperature-solar correlation by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) and by Jan-Erik Solheim might be improved by incorporating the Pacific Decadal Oscillation-temperature correlation detailed by Don Easterbrook e.g. see Fig. 7 in The Looming Threat of Global Cooling.. Similarly, Fig. 18 shows Easterbrook’s predictions.

    I suggest combining those PDO-Temperature variations with the combination of Fix’s solar cycle with this improved solar-PDO-temperature correlation could refine the temperature predictions over the next few cycles.

    PS Note WJR Alexander found the ~22 year Hale cycle driving the precipitation/flow records in Southern Africa. Fix’s model may refine Alexander’s model.
    Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development W J R Alexander et al. J. South African Institution of Civil Engineering • Vol. 49 No. 2 June 2007 pp 32-44

  43. Richard;
    Here’s my fave mental model.
    Imagine the atmosphere as present, but with no CO2. Suddenly, it’s added. Warmth radiating from the ground gets partly intercepted (about 8% of it) and re-radiated about, because it’s coming up in a frequency band that CO2 resonates to. Some (about half) gets back to the ground, and slightly warms it. Then it’s re-radiated, and 92% of the half of the 8% makes it out, leaving a small amount to recycle the next round.

    The re-radiated heat had thus hung about on or near the ground for a little longer than it would have pre-CO2, and this “lag warming” is what is attributed to the CO2 “greenhouse” effect. The temp the ground now stabilizes at is slightly warmer than it was before.

    Now, to complete the model demo, we remove all the CO2 in an instant. For about as long as the “lag”, the temp remains slightly elevated, but this time all the radiated heat gets out, and the temp falls back to what it was pre-CO2.

    So in effect, the total heat added was the amount that could be bounced back towards the ground (about half the 8%, above) during the duration of the initial lag. A very short period, probably a few milliseconds. It is replenished as fast as it escapes, so creates a new “normal” or stable level.

    The “logarithmic” issue described above is like a law of (very rapidly) diminishing returns. About half the theoretical total the CO2 could trap is handled by the first 20ppm, about 1/20 of current levels. We’re down to shaving tiny splinters off the last small splinter.

  44. In reply to Richard111’s question why does the first 20 ppm of Co2 have the greatest warming effect and how does the CO2 greenhouse effect work.

    CO2 absorbs a specific narrow band of frequencies of radiation. The initial concentration of CO2 absorbs and delays the transmission of those narrow bands of energy. The greenhouse molecule emits those bands of radiation in all directions up to space as well as down to the earth. The portion that is emitted down to earth delays the radiation reaching space.

    The actual observed warming at higher concentrations of CO2 based on the paleo record supports the assertion that the greenhouse mechanism becomes saturated such that more and more CO2 has less and less affect on planetary temperature. In the past CO2 levels have been high when the planet was cold and low when the planet was warm. It is only in the last 1 million years that CO2 levels track with a 2000 year delay planetary temperature.

    See this paper for details.

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf

    GREENHOUSE MOLECULES, THEIR SPECTRA AND FUNCTION IN THE ATMOSPHERE

    Jack Barrett
    The absorption values for the pre-industrial atmosphere add up to 86.9%, significantly lower than the combined value of 72.9%. This occurs because there is considerable overlap between the spectral bands of water vapour and those of the other GHGs. If the concentration of CO2 were to be doubled in the absence of the other GHGs the increase in absorption would be 1.5%. In the presence of the other GHGs the same doubling of concentration achieves an increase in absorption of only 0.5%, only one third of its effect if it were the only GHG present. Whether this overlap effect is properly built into models of the atmosphere gives rise to some scepticism.

  45. The second figure (Norway) shows ellipses for the predicted temp change which accounts for regression residual. The first figure (Hannover) does not have this ellipse, but should.

    Finally, in Fig 5, the predicted temperatures for Hannover, should show that uncertainty, somehow, perhaps as a shaded band around the orange line.

    Just eyeballing Fig 1, that ellipse is probably about +/- 0.4 deg C, so the Fig 5 band ought to be +/- 0.4 deg C.

    The other fault I have is that figure 1 and 2 perform the regression assuming that the data points are independent of each other. It assumes that Cycle N has no statistical bearing on Cycle N+1. I’m not ready to believe that without a regression plot that shows little correlation.

    Good point, tallbloke.

  46. With a higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere isn’t it more likely infrared is absorbed by a CO2 molecule higher up in the atmosphere? What effect would this have on surface temperatures if any?

  47. Climate should not be equated to temperature, ignoring hydrology. Seems to me that no WUWT commenters have yet realized that RATE OF CHANGE of solar cycle length GENERALIZES changes in beats even across UNKNOWN spatiotemporally-nonstationary terrestrial cycles.

    Perhaps when followers have been conditioned for many years to expect complicated explanations, they cannot readily recognize simplicity that was overlooked by mentors from previous generations.

    In a discussion where myth & truth are afforded equal status, is there even any point in volunteering grass-roots hours? The question is at least worth asking. Gravy-train riders have endless reasons for displaying collegiality. Those earning their own way: perhaps not so much.

    As for these recurring nonsensical notions about lags:
    Hydrology is a function of absolutes, not anomalies. Suggestion: Stop ignoring the annual cycle. Thinking solely in temperature anomalies is a fatal plague on sensible conceptualization.

  48. Great to see the divergence of discussion here, as opposed to other places where only party lines may be considered.

  49. Stephen Rasey wrote (July 13, 2011 at 7:02 am)
    “The other fault I have is that figure 1 and 2 perform the regression assuming that the data points are independent of each other. It assumes that Cycle N has no statistical bearing on Cycle N+1.”

    Refreshing to see a bold display of absolutely razing common sense, particularly in a thread where, yet again, we see PDO-temperature relations being pushed by people who don’t take the time to understand how PDO is calculated.

  50. Brian H:

    To avoid misunderstanding, I agree with your post at July 13, 2011 at 6:58 am, and I think your post agrees with my post at July 13, 2011 at 6:20 am.

    I most certainly agree your paragraph that says;
    “The “logarithmic” issue described above is like a law of (very rapidly) diminishing returns. About half the theoretical total the CO2 could trap is handled by the first 20ppm, about 1/20 of current levels. We’re down to shaving tiny splinters off the last small splinter.”

    The way I usually put it to laymen is as follows:

    The AGW hypothesis is that a trace atmospheric gas which is the very stuff of life itself may – if it increases its atmospheric concentration – become Shiva, the Destroyer of Worlds. In fact, it’s worse than that. Nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 for every molecule of CO2 emitted by human activities so AGW suggests that a minute increase to the annual emission of this essential trace gas could cause Armageddon. Furthermore, in the geological past and during ice ages the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been more than ten times greater than it is now.

    If you had never heard of AGW and somebody came in off the street and tried to sell it to you would you say, “Oh dear! Of course, we must change the economic activity of the entire world”?

    Richard

  51. @Peter Taylor

    I understand that the higher values include expected water vapour forcing (H2O being a much stronger GHG than CO2). Of those 5 watts, most is from water vapour (anticipated/modelled).

    Something missing from all discussions on the subject I have seen is the influence of average wind velocity. Sublimation and evaporation are strongly affected by wind velocity. If a cooler earth is windier (stronger overall temperature differences) the atmosphere will be better mixed and moister which increases temperature. If a warmer planet is (as we are often told) warmer at the poles, mostly, then the temperature difference is less and the planet might be less windy. This would reduce the amount of moisture in the air, reducing CO2-induced forcing from additional H2O.

    Adrian Bejan (“Convection Heat Transfer” ISBN 0-471-27150-0) says the Earth works like a giant heat engine and vents heat more efficiently as it increases in surface temperature (see Ch 5.5 “Enclosures heated from below”). Ch 5.5.3 “Constructal Theory of Benard Convection” is also relevant.

    The combination of increased CO2 and H2O in the real atmosphere indicates that additional heat will in fact be collected and it will be more efficiently transported to space resulting in a pretty constant temperature for a pretty wide range of CO2 concentrations. Even when CO2 reached 7000 ppm the global average temperature was only 24 C, and that was largely because of 21 degree Polar Oceans, not because it was boiling hot at the equator.

    Main stream climate science suffers from a lack of understanding of heat transfer in moving fluids that can easily be provided by real experts like Bejan for whom the subject is too simple to bother much with.

  52. Ian Bryce says:
    July 13, 2011 at 12:17 am
    I had lunch with a Liberal Party senator today. I will be speaking at the anti-carbon tax rally in Canberra on 16th August.
    Jim Butler says:
    July 13, 2011 at 12:49 am
    Because the hindcast match is so good. I have played with the model live. I am very grateful to Ed Fix for having made this major advance in solar science.
    Richard S Courtney says:
    July 13, 2011 at 1:04 am
    It doesn’t matter that we know the detail of how it works or not. It works. The FDA has approved cancer drugs without knowing how they work. It is only important that they work. My work has been replicated by other scientists. That is the gold standard.
    tallbloke says:
    July 13, 2011 at 1:26 am
    Same answer as to Richard Courtney. It doesn’t matter how it works. The stats says it works. You are right in saying that most of the temperature decline will be from colder winters. The crop impact comes from them being longer. From http://www.virtualmetals.co.uk/pdf/ABNAC1106.pdf in discussing this year’s North American plantings – “the relative lateness of the seeding means higher risk of damage later this season, either through hot and dry summer weather or possible frost damage towards the end”
    M.A.Vukcevic says:
    July 13, 2011 at 1:37 am
    Sorry Vuk, Ed Fix’s model has won the race to model solar behaviour. It has a lot of fine detail. That good hindcast match you see in the window above goes on for centuries.
    JOHN DOUGLAS says:
    July 13, 2011 at 1:43 am
    When I started out in climate science, my dream was to make it to the US Senate. That happened on 10th June when I gave a lecture in a US Senate hearing room. But I gave a more interesting lecture the day before at the Institute of World Politics, a graduate school for the CIA and State Department. That lecture is online at: http://www.iwp.edu/docLib/20110630_FourHorsemen.pdf In short, crop yields plummet and hundreds of millions of people die from starvation.
    Geoff Sharp says:
    July 13, 2011 at 1:48 am
    Ed’s paper is in an Elsevier publication. It therefore follows that all that has been taken care of.
    John Finn says:
    July 13, 2011 at 2:03 am
    I remember, I remember when I started out in this field and the warmers were constantly at Steve McIntyre to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. So I will make the same comment to you. If you don’t like my work, displace it in the literature by doing better stuff. There is no point in whining because your world view is being beaten up by reality.
    Lawrie Ayres says:
    July 13, 2011 at 2:12 am
    The CSIRO has gone totally venal. I put out more work than the entire CSIRO climate staff on a budget of $120 million.
    Peter Taylor says:
    July 13, 2011 at 3:00 am
    Peter, why not go to the one true source of climate data – Real Climate? They discuss my work here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/my-model-used-for-deception/

    I’ll give you a hint. Prior to the tipping point of myth and legend, all heating is the same. That is to say that the climate doesn’t care if it gets heating from the first 20 ppm or the 20 ppm between 300 ppm and 320 ppm. If Modtran tells you that the first 20 ppm provides half the wattage up to 300 ppm, then it provides half of the heating up to 300 ppm.
    Stephen Wilde says:
    July 13, 2011 at 3:10 am
    We alll know that the oceans smear out heating events from the Sun and that is what makes the Earth so livable. But Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory works and it doesn’t matter if we know how it works or not. Game over.
    Ian W says:
    July 13, 2011 at 3:10 am
    The reason for this post is that some people were going all Maunder Minimum. Ed Fix’s beautiful, beautiful model gives us confidence about the Sun for decades in advance, because the hindcast match goes back for centuries.

  53. It is interesting that the solar cycle length hypothesis of Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) is still being used, given that Laut (2003) demonstrated that the analysis in Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) had serious data handling errors, and that Lassen himself co-authored a paper in 2000 that updated and re-analysed the data and concluded that “since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature. “. The flaws in Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) have been identified and discussed in the litterature, it really isn’t science to base an argument (even partially) on such a paper without mentioning the known flaws.

    There is a good discussion of this paper at Skeptical Science here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm

    Essentially correllation is not causation.

    Laut, P. “Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations”, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, vol. 65, pp. 801-812, 2003

    P. Thejll and K. Lassen, “Solar forcing of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature: New data”, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 62, Issue 13, September 2000, Pages 1207-1213

  54. as always, plenty of lip service to co2.

    one may be brilliant in some area but hey- john wayne gacey was a terrific clown until you got to his basement.
    you can build bridges all your life, but pay lip service to co2 and i’m not about to label you a bridge builder…lol

  55. I would argue that the CO2 heating effect is not a simple tool for predicting future climate, even as one of several factors. The Beer’s Law relationship is good, but relates less than half the story.

    One has to recognize that heating by CO2 would ramp up the atmosphere’s convectional heat engine and increase the rate of heat transfer to altitude. As the water vapor formed at the surface is not sensible heat, this effect would remove some heat form the assumed total.

  56. Paul Vaughan (7:07) I for one cannot recognize simplicity in spatiotemporally-nonstationary terrestrial cycles.

    Was that a spoof?

  57. Pamela Gray says:
    July 13, 2011 at 6:50 am

    “It is my opinion that suggestions of cause and effect without plausible mechanisms clearly outlined as part of the post does a huge disservice to the debate. Until the subpar aspects of this post are corrected, I consider this post a fail.”

    Pamela,
    I think that you are being overly harsh and critical of this post. I agree that an official scientific paper should propose a mechanism in addition to trying to extract pasterns and correlations (possibly spurious) from disparate data (can we say bristle-cone pines?). On the other hand, there is room on these informal blogs for people to play with the data and look for interesting patterns that lead to discussion. Finding patterns is just a clue that says “dig here”. There is no guarantee of treasure at the location.

  58. Anthony: “We now have the tools to predict climate out to the mid-21st Century with a fair degree of confidence”

    Sorry Anthony, but I call BS on that statement. We can barely predict the weather 72 hours ahead and you expect me to have faith in a 40 year forecast? It’s not happening. And please don’t give me the old canard that “climate is not weather”, because that is BS too. Climate is the average of weather over a long period of time.

    I understand that we know about the cyclical events such as the PDO, etc, but I have zero confidence in any climate forecasts. There are too many unknowns, too much chaos, and extremely limited computing power.

    I am happy or you to publish any climate forecasts you wish to publish and let our children see if they are accurate in 40 years. I doubt either of us will be around for the truth.

  59. If CO2’s effect on temperature is “logarithmic”….
    ….then CO2 levels have been too low

  60. David Archibald says:
    July 13, 2011 at 7:27 am
    Sorry Vuk, Ed Fix’s model has won the race to model solar behaviour. It has a lot of fine detail. That good hindcast match you see in the window above goes on for centuries.

    Hi Dr. Archibald
    Not yet, not until we see some numbers!
    1.
    Anyone can draw a line around sunspot cycle, now even a simple pc program will do it if you give it few reference points, and will look nice, smooth and convincing, and the E. Fix’es line looks too good. On the other hand you can have half a dozen sinusoids and pc will synthesise it all together, but if numbers do not relate to factual known parameters again it’s just a ‘numerology’.
    What is required is a formula to which this line works, to what the numbers are relating, planets, b… centre, comets, Parker spiral or what?
    Next: how does it back extrapolates to the Maunder minimum.
    SC24 does not look too convincing.
    If it is in publishing, no reason why formula can’t be released. As a scientist you well know until is reproducible it isn’t science.
    Till then it’s just proverbial ‘smoke and mirrors’.
    2.
    As far as my formula is concerned

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm

    it was published in Jan 2003, and its derivative for the Sun’s polar magnetic field is an absolute first and by far the best available:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

  61. “…and then a return to normal conditions of solar activity, and normal climate.”

    “Normal Climate?” What’s that, exactly? “Normal” when compared to what previous period of time?

  62. Ralph says:
    July 13, 2011 at 5:54 am
    …………….
    From: The National Oceanography Centre, Southampton
    Why the Atlantic is special
    The Atlantic is the only ocean where heat is transported north across the equator. Here warm surface water from the tropics reaches further north than in anywhere else.
    The relatively warm, salty water of the Gulf Stream system remains at the ocean surface west of Svalbard to a latitude of about 80 degrees before it dips underneath the much fresher and less dense polar water. The heat released by this warm water makes the climate in regions bordering the eastern North Atlantic warmer than at similar latitudes elsewhere. The results of this warm flow can also be seen in the extent of Arctic Sea ice, which differs markedly from that in the Pacific region of the Arctic. The effect of this Atlantic heat conveyor is most noticeable in winter.

    http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/rapid/sis/atlantic_conveyor.php

  63. With all due respect, the regression in the first graph looks completely wrong. There are five points below and just three closer above on the left, while on the right the situation is even worse – none below for three above. This is definitely NOT how a calculated regression looks like. You just drew a line through, didn’t you? I guess the deduced temperature difference would be about halved if it was done right.
    Regressions in the Norway image look correct but for some reason all ‘current’ points in it are way above the regression line which in my opinion may have some statistical significance.

  64. David Archibald says:
    July 13, 2011 at 7:27 am

    John Finn says:
    July 13, 2011 at 2:03 am
    I remember, I remember when I started out in this field and the warmers were constantly at Steve McIntyre to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. So I will make the same comment to you. If you don’t like my work, displace it in the literature by doing better stuff. There is no point in whining because your world view is being beaten up by reality.

    David ‘your work’ fails the first simple test. It breaks down on the last occasion we had a significant change in solar cycle length, i.e. from SC19 to SC20 which, according to you, means a ~0.8 drop in temperature over SC21 (1976-86). It didn’t happen. It wasn’t even close. It’s not me that’s being “beaten up by reality”

    When you first embarked on your climate change ‘research’ some years ago you just about got away with the SC19/SC20 problem because you used the Butler & Johnson method which used the temperatures centred on the maximum and minimum of the current cycle. In ~2006 I asked you (on Warwick Hughes blog) to confirm the method of calculation you used (which you did). However, as it became clear that temperatures during Solar Cycle 23 were not going to play ball you moved the goalposts and changed the time of temperature observations to the following cycle. I notice you didn’t mention the B&J Armagh analysis in the above post. You also fail to mntion the “high quality” satellite observations that you were quite keen on a few years back.

  65. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    July 13, 2011 at 2:20 am
    “I agree about stored heat content from the ocean. It is by far the largest source of the latent energy accumulated during past decades.”

    latent? So you are expecting the oceans to freeze?

  66. I hope this is an accurate prog. It is what I consider a best case scenario based on:
    1) No super volcano explosions
    2) No downturn of any overarching ultra long term cycle (e.g. the outright end of the interglacial)
    3) No WW3
    4) No NEO strikes

  67. John F. Hultquist says:
    July 13, 2011 at 9:25 am
    latent? So you are expecting the oceans to freeze?

    Hi Mr. Hultquist
    Thanks for the reminder. Not beyond what is already known.
    Apparently
    latent = dormant, hidden, buried, concealed, embryonic, underlying, suppressed.
    You can take it as:
    latent = underlying

  68. Well, it’s an interesting effort, regardless of mechanism, if there is one. A few points: (1) an r² value of 0.53 is not much to write home about. (2) a linear fit has an implicit assumption therein; I think i see some downward bowing in the data. (3) Extrapolation is always iffy, especially when the mechanism(s) are not as yet well understood.

  69. I do not know about Hanover, N.Hampshire, it might have such a dramatic fall off as in your last plot.

    We do have though the ice core records, and they do not show such sharp drops in the later Holocene. Have a look at J.Storrs. Hall’s simple extraction of averages from the Holocene bumps and troughs. Transitions in ice are much smoother and much smaller. Considering that the maximum average temperature changes seen are of the order of 2C in the arctic from 1951 to now, i.e. most sensitivity in anomalies is in the arctic I think that your prediction will fail in how fast and how long it will last. The ice core data show a smooth fall off as having higher probability of materializing.

  70. David: I have only the point of where this Grand Minimum ends up on the scales to differ with. There are a lot of forecasts out there for longer than 2 cycles, and 4 to 5 low cycles have been predicted. It’s like everything else with models/formulas: we don’t know all the things that can go on with the Sun.
    My view of where the Eddy Minimum lands is somewhere between Dalton & Maunder, and only because there are no 2 Minimums alike.

  71. David,

    Ed has stated in his paper and publicly that his model does not hindcast the Maunder Minimum.

    Has there been a change to his model?

    And I believe my 2008 “model” which forecasts the same result is way ahead of Ed’s and can hindcast the Holocene. Some perspective please.

  72. ” thus this methodology is confirmed as valid… These ten Norwegian temperature records all confirm a solar cycle length ”

    Maybe I missed some huge points made in the post, but all I could see is correlations stacked on other correlations to make predictions. Other than the logarithmic relationship of CO2 with atmospheric temperature, did I miss the physical mechanism causing these correlations?

  73. The Gray Monk says:
    July 13, 2011 at 12:27 am
    Fascinating. And borne out by real data

    ____
    A model forecast is “borne out by real data”? Wow, data from the future traveling back in time!

    The influence of the solar cycle was, at one time, the primary short-term cyclical forcing, but CO2 is muting those effects, and has since around 1980 or so at least.

    Anthropogenic forcing now seems to dominating the longer-term forcings from solar cycles, long or short. I Expect no big cool-down even from a Maunder Minimum, and so the next few years will be most interesting to watch.

  74. Sarge says:
    July 13, 2011 at 9:05 am
    “…and then a return to normal conditions of solar activity, and normal climate.”

    “Normal Climate?” What’s that, exactly? “Normal” when compared to what previous period of time?
    ______
    Excellent point. But looking back nearly a million years, the most non-normal event that we can measure is the current high level of CO2. But of course, according to skeptics, CO2 is a barely necessary “trace gas” that has very little impact on the climate.

  75. William says:
    July 13, 2011 at 7:00 am

    Good to see someone cite the work of the excellent Jack Barrett. Jack, an expert on various aspects of chemistry and spectroscopy, has been challenging the more extreme IPCC claims for the best part of 20 years. However, he is very little quick to dismiss some of the sillier sceptic arguments. On his web-site he writes:

    In their misguided attempts to destroy the theory of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect the enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the burning of fossil fuels and from deforestationsome people distort the underlying science either through misunderstanding it or by deliberately misunderstanding it. Such attempts to destroy a theory are bound to fail except that they might sway the opinions of those who have a bias towards the rejection of the ideas of man-made global warming. (Scepticism section)

    See http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/

  76. This means, as we all know ,that we are preparing for the wrong thing.

    Questions

    -What will be the effect on the jet stream ?

    -What will be the effect on the Polar Fronts ?

    -Will there be enough snow to organize the Barcelona 2022 Winter Games
    Barcelona bid to host 2022 Winter Games

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/winter-olympics/6996252/Barcelona-bid-to-host-2022-Winter-Games.html

    – If Earth gets colder there will be less water vapor in the atmosphere. As water vapor is in volume the biggest greenhouse gas, will this cool the Earth even more particularly during the night. ?

    -More Cosmic Rays will reach the colder Earth where there is less water vapor. What will happen to cloud formation ?

    Just some of my questions.

  77. So just when was it in earth’s geologic history, when atmospheric CO2 level was 20 ppm? At what point in time did it reach 100 ppm ?

    It seems to me that for the period of earth’s history for which we have actual analytical measurements of ACTUAL atmospheric CO2, rather than some Teraflop computer simulation of possible maybe CO2 amounts; the actual observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is no more than about 30% of one doubling of CO2 atmospheric abundance.
    The actual observed real world measured Temperature data for the Earth over that same interval of time, can not be shown to follow ANY sort of logarithmic relationship to the observed amounts of atmospheric CO2; nor can it be shown that such a possible relationship is actually linear.

    The Temperature and CO2 data that have actually been real world measured in recent historic times (last 200 years say) can just as easily be fit to the formula:-

    y = exp (-1/ x^2) with suitable scaling of variables; and moreover, this same function can be made to fit, regardless of whether (x,y) relate to (CO2, Temp) or whether (x,y) relates to (Temp, CO2); and the quality of fit that can be achieved is at least as good as that for a linear relationship (also with CO2 and Temp in either order) and also as good as a logarithmic relationship; and I might add with the variables either way round.

    In other words, it is no more likely that T = T0 + mlog(CO2/CO2,0) than it is that:-

    CO2 = CO2,0 + mlog T/T0)
    Where the variables have their quite obvious meanings.

    Moreover the above holds true, no matter what delay or time advance one puts between the CO2 data set, and the Temperature data set.

    And of course the purported logarithmic relationship (either way round) should also be demonstrable for CO2 going from 1 ppm up to 2 ppm, or from one CO2 molecule per kgmole of atmosphere to two CO2 molecules per kgmole of atmosphere.
    Unless that is true, we should stop claiming those two variables are logarithmically related. The logarithmic function has a precise and clearly understood mathematical definition; it is NOT just some nebulous non-linear curve; and so far we don’t have any two CO2/Temp data sets of sufficient precision to determine what if any empirical relationship may exist between the two, let alone any cause and effect relationship..

  78. mike sphar says:
    July 13, 2011 at 7:14 am
    Great to see the divergence of discussion here, as opposed to other places where only party lines may be considered.
    ___
    That’s why warmist and skeptic alike come here, and why it gets more hits than the others combined.

  79. Gates can’t be wrong all the time, but he makes a valiant effort with comments like: “…according to skeptics, CO2 is a barely necessary ‘trace gas’…”

    First off, CO2 is, in fact, a minor trace gas; no need for the quotation marks, which are used by Gates as alarmist spin in this case. And as skeptics know [but Gates apparently doesn't understand], CO2 is absolutely necessary for all life on earth. Projecting one’s own ignorance onto scientific skeptics — the only honest kind of scientist — is simply alarmist projection.

    The only two verifiable, observed facts regarding the effect of CO2 are that it is a harmless trace gas, and it is beneficial. Everything else is conjecture.

  80. R. Gates says:
    July 13, 2011 at 10:16 am
    “Excellent point. But looking back nearly a million years, the most non-normal event that we can measure is the current high level of CO2. But of course, according to skeptics, CO2 is a barely necessary “trace gas” that has very little impact on the climate.”

    Another Gatesism, to wit “current high level of CO2″. Technically correct in that CO2 is higher than the recent past but a Gatesism none the less due to no accompanying sense of magnitude.

    Now Gates, what say you about the Eemian period?
    “The Eemian climate is believed to have been about as stable as that of the Holocene. Changes in the earth’s orbital parameters from today (greater obliquity and eccentricity, and perihelion), known as the Milankovitch cycle, probably led to greater seasonal temperature variations in the Northern Hemisphere, although global annual mean temperatures were probably similar to those of the Holocene.
    The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape (which is now tundra) in northern Norway well above the Arctic Circle at 71°10′21″N 25°47′40″E. Hardwood trees like hazel and oak grew as far north as Oulu, Finland. At the peak of the Eemian, the northern hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now, though some areas were actually slightly cooler than today. The Hippopotamus was distributed as far north as the rivers Rhine and Thames.[1] Trees grew as far north as southern Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago instead of only as far north as Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec, and the prairie-forest boundary in the Great Plains of the United States lay further west — near Lubbock, Texas, instead of near Dallas, Texas, where the boundary now exists. The era closed as temperatures steadily fell to conditions cooler and drier than the present, with 468-year long aridity pulse in central Europe,[2] and by 114,000 years ago, a glacial era had returned”

  81. Anthony: Is this a guest post by Archibald? If so, it would be helpful to label it as such — says “by Anthony Watts” at present.

    Thanks and keep up the good work!

    Cheers — Pete Tillman

    REPLY:
    I thought it was obvious from the title with his name in it, but sure I can add an extra line – A

  82. Robert Austin says:
    July 13, 2011 at 8:36 am
    Pamela Gray says:
    July 13, 2011 at 6:50 am

    “It is my opinion that suggestions of cause and effect without plausible mechanisms clearly outlined as part of the post does a huge disservice to the debate. Until the subpar aspects of this post are corrected, I consider this post a fail.”

    “Pamela,
    I think that you are being overly harsh and critical of this post. I agree that an official scientific paper should propose a mechanism in addition to trying to extract pasterns and correlations (possibly spurious) from disparate data (can we say bristle-cone pines?). On the other hand, there is room on these informal blogs for people to play with the data and look for interesting patterns that lead to discussion. Finding patterns is just a clue that says “dig here”. There is no guarantee of treasure at the location.”

    Everyone, AGW fanatics and skeptics alike continue to pursue the holy grail of a climate model without knowing or including the complex interations of all of the variables involved. Example, a few large volcanic eruptions could be game changers for all of the models. I do not believe these have been proven to be very predictable, though Iben Browning thought they were.

  83. Tom in Florida says July 13, 2011 at 11:12 am

    … no accompanying sense of magnitude.

    Is this what you’re after, Tom?

  84. “”””” Richard S Courtney says:
    July 13, 2011 at 6:20 am
    Richard111:

    At July 13, 2011 at 5:11 am you ask;
    “Interesting stuff, thank you. But this layman is still baffled as to how that first 20 parts per million of CO2 causes any sort of global warming. Surely after all these years there must be tutorials that a layman can understand. Anybody have a link or two, please?”

    The best explanation for Laymen that I know is provided by Jo Nova at

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/

    Simplisticly, what happens is as follows.

    The Earth’s surface is heated by the Sun and the heated surface loses this heat. One of the ways the surface loses heat is to emit heat radiation (i.e. infra red radiation, IR). This IR is energy. “””””

    Richard, as you well know ln(1+x) = x for small values of x.
    I submit that the believable observed (actual measurments) of atmospheric CO2 and earth surface Temperature, are not sufficiently noise free to distinguish between logarithmic, and linear; or for that matter any other definable function. Even if we accept the jonova argument postulating that because of “saturation”, the relationship is NON-LINEAR, that is no justification for asserting that the non-linear function is LOGARITHMIC.
    As to the up/down 50-50 split of the presumed isotropic LWIR emission from the atmosphere, I have several times pointed out that the escape path to space is favored over the return path to the surface, because the troposphere has both a density and a Temperature lapse rate with altitude; so any upper layer of atmosphere, always has a lower line width for emission spectrum lines or bands, since both Doppler(Temperature), and density (collision) broadening will be less, so recapture is lower probability going upwards, than it is going downwards, to a denser warmer air layer that has even wider Temperature and Density broadening of the absorption bands.

    Also though the “greenhouse capture” effect may warm the atmosphere (troposphere) an immediate result of that is that ordinary “heat” transport processes (conduction and convection) take effect, and it is obvious to anyone who is smarter than a fifth grader, that those processes invariably transport “heat” upwards, because that is the direction of the Temperature gradient; conduction and second law. The density gradient directs the convection also upwards, so the atmosphere does not significantly “heat” the surface by thermal processes, which together account for a good fraction of the energy transport in the atmosphere. And we shouldn’t forget, the transport of latent heat as a result of atmospheric evaporation and convection of water vapor.
    That leaves LWIR radiation to deal with the rest, and a most likely consequence of downward LWIR radiation, is absorption in the top 10-50 microns of water surface, since more than 70% of earth surface is water, and LWIR does not penetrate deeply as does solar spectrum energy, so the effect of downward LWIR radiation is to promote prompt surface evaporation, which immediately returns most of that energy to the atmosphere in the guise of latent heat, as well as additional water vapor, which directly blocks additional solar spectrum energy from reaching the surface.
    H2O in any phase anywhere in the atmosphere can absorb a significant fraction of the incoming solar spectrum energy. Not having a super Teracomputer to calculate, I have to simply eyeball available published spectral absorption graphs, for H2O, and I would put the likely H2O absorption as about 15% +/- 7.5% of the total solar spectrum energy. I of course have to allow for the traditional 3:1 fudge factor endemic to climate science.

    Even additional CO2 will absorb some small part of the incoming solar spectrum energy, and prevent it from reaching the ocean; so it may warm the atmosphere, but it cools the deep oceans where most of earth’s free clean green renewable solar energy is stored.

  85. Many thanks to Richard S Courtney at 6:20 am and Williamat 7:00 am above for your informative replies and links to more data which I will be reading shortly.
    I am currently trying to discover just how much energy is transported up from the surface assuming a global average temperature of 15C. If I assume a global average surface emissivity of 0.93 then I get a value of 362.8W/m^2 leaving the surface. This will be gray body radiation covering a wide IR band from about 3microns to beyond 100microns. My simplistic evaluation of the energy curve shows that the 15micron band carries just 5% of that energy, some 18W/m^2.
    I can well believe that all that energy is absorbed by CO2 molecules in the air but I cannot believe all that energy is reradiated without some of it heating the air. The question is how much heat goes into the air and how much is reradiated. My unverified calcs suggest just 2%, 7.25W/m^2, is returned to the surface in the 15micron IR band. And all of that “backradiation” can only happen at night under clear skies. Any clouds and and/or even limited daylight will totally swamp that CO2 “backradiation”.

  86. Gates is cherry-picking again:

    “…looking back nearly a million years, the most non-normal event that we can measure is the current high level of CO2.”

    The fact is that current CO2 levels are extremely low. Here’s the big picture.

  87. See http://www.agwnot.blogspot.com/ . I’m expecting a rather cooler period, but agree it will not be a Maunder Minimum. We should be in a Deep Grand Minimum like the Maunder, but we are well up the ca 1000 year warming half cycle, so not as cold. 2 different approaches, – similar conclusions.

  88. DA correlates temperature to SC length, and also tried SC amplitude. I suspect a better and simpler correlation : temperature to SSN direct. Anyones tried that? More noise of course. Also try F10.7 to temps for a further improvement.

  89. Smokey says:
    July 13, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    Gates is cherry-picking again:

    “…looking back nearly a million years, the most non-normal event that we can measure is the current high level of CO2.”

    The fact is that current CO2 levels are extremely low. Here’s the big picture.
    ==========================================================
    Of course……but I think he’s having fun with it, he can’t possibly be serious

    Co2 was higher, plants/diatoms/plankton/bacteria/etc came along and used it up, CO2 levels got so low that plants slowed down until they reached an equilibrium with the low amount of CO2 that’s available for them…..that holds CO2 levels at a very dangerous but stable low level
    ………obviously, because plants speed up when you increase CO2 levels

  90. More Cosmic Rays will reach the colder Earth where there is less water vapor. What will happen to cloud formation ?

    Cosmic rays are just trace particle. By smokey logic, since a trace gas cant impact the climate, a trace particle cant.

  91. Maybe I missed some huge points made in the post, but all I could see is correlations stacked on other correlations to make predictions. Other than the logarithmic relationship of CO2 with atmospheric temperature, did I miss the physical mechanism causing these correlations?

    Good eye. There are several things missing from this post.
    1. no description of the methods (not reproducealbe)
    2. No source and no data.
    3. No physical mechanisms.

    Worse than Mann, which is quite an accomplishment.

    And he leaves out the other half of human forcings ( C02 is only HALF the story). And he applies the warming due to c02 wrong.

    Be as skeptical of the stories you like to hear as you are of climate warming science.

  92. Tom in Florida says:
    July 13, 2011 at 11:12 am
    R. Gates says:
    July 13, 2011 at 10:16 am
    “Excellent point. But looking back nearly a million years, the most non-normal event that we can measure is the current high level of CO2. But of course, according to skeptics, CO2 is a barely necessary “trace gas” that has very little impact on the climate.”

    Another Gatesism, to wit “current high level of CO2″. Technically correct in that CO2 is higher than the recent past but a Gatesism none the less due to no accompanying sense of magnitude.

    Now Gates, what say you about the Eemian period?

    _____
    Well, it seems my skeptical friends always want to reject the fact that CO2 is 40% greater than it has been on average over the past million years, which of course incorporates the Eemian period. So now, during this this interglacial our temps are approaching the Eemian temps, and, if models are correct, we will exceed those temperatures in the next few centuries at least. A better example of the kinds of climate changes we may be in store for are perhaps more akin to the PETM.

  93. Smokey says:
    July 13, 2011 at 12:11 pm
    Gates is cherry-picking again:

    “…looking back nearly a million years, the most non-normal event that we can measure is the current high level of CO2.”

    The fact is that current CO2 levels are extremely low.
    ______

    It seems you’d like to forget that the evolution of the current basis of our grain supply came about during the mild weather of the Holocene, with its related range of CO2 averaging around 280 ppm. Grains are the foundation of our civilization, and tend not to like the steamy jungles of the planet when CO2 might have been much higher. We (i.e. modern humans and our civilization) pretty much evolved on a planet with CO2 in a range around 280 ppm, but if you think you’d like to return to a time when CO2 was much higher, I guess you’d like to see how things were when there were no grain plants and humans were tree-shrew like animals.

  94. David;
    “It doesn’t matter how it works. The stats says it works.”

    One replication validates your model? Not in my book. That’s the book I used to teach graduate research out of.

    Trying to boil down climate to a few simple variables that become predictive is, IMHO, a fool’s errand.

    Sorry. Ultimately your model, no matter how elegant, will be disproved.

    Regards.
    Jay

  95. P.S.

    I admire most of you on this blog for being so polite to David Archibald, when all climate modeling is really nothing more than the “Kings New Clothes” revisited. It became important because the government and various foundations threw so much money at it. In truth, climate modeling is where you START with real research. It has gotten completely out of hand with the net result that the credibility of science and scientists in general will take a long time recovering from the disgrace of “Climategate” and all the rest of it.

  96. R. Gates says:
    July 13, 2011 at 12:58 pm
    Grains are the foundation of our civilization, and tend not to like the steamy jungles of the planet when CO2 might have been much higher.
    =================================================================
    Grains are flowering grasses, they evolved in the early Cretaceous. CO2 levels were 2-4 times higher.
    What we grow for food has been hybridized and selectively bred from those………
    Companies like GreenSeeds, etc have developed grains, particularly rice, that do just fine in hot steamy jungles

  97. George E. Smith:

    Thankyou for your post at July 13, 2011 at 12:08 pm which comments on my post at July 13, 2011 at 6:20 am.

    Your post is quite long so I will address what I understand to be your points. If I miss any you think important then that is my failure to understand, so I would be grateful if you were to point it out.

    You say to me:

    “Richard, as you well know ln(1+x) = x for small values of x.”

    I did see this statement (which is correct in every way) but I fail to understand the point you are making so I cannot address it. Sorry.

    You then say;

    “I submit that the believable observed (actual measurments) of atmospheric CO2 and earth surface Temperature, are not sufficiently noise free to distinguish between logarithmic, and linear; or for that matter any other definable function.”

    Yes, your submission is absolutely right. However, the logarithmic relationship is derived from theory (Beer–Lambert Law) and laboratory experiments. Indeed, this relationship is why the observed data in the real world are too “noisy” to observe the logarithmic relationship.

    As my post explained, almost all the IR that CO2 can absorb is absorbed in the atmosphere. Much is absorbed by water vapour and CO2 absorbs almost all the rest. Indeed, the first 20 ppmv of CO2 absorbs about three quarters of the available IR, the next 20 ppmv absorbs about three quarters of what is left, and so on. By the time 200 ppmv is reached there is so little effect of additional CO2 that the effect is lost in the “noise”. This is clear from the graph in the link I provided; i.e.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/

    Anybody can see that the effect is so attenuated above 200 ppmv that little if any discernible effect results from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. And, as I said, other effects are important so this explains why I agree that CO2 is a GHG but any variations to its concentration above ~200 ppm can only have a trivial effect on climate that is too small to be discernible.

    You then say;

    “As to the up/down 50-50 split of the presumed isotropic LWIR emission from the atmosphere, I have several times pointed out that the escape path to space is favored over the return path to the surface, because the troposphere has both a density and a Temperature lapse rate with altitude; so any upper layer of atmosphere, always has a lower line width for emission spectrum lines or bands, since both Doppler(Temperature), and density (collision) broadening will be less, so recapture is lower probability going upwards, than it is going downwards, to a denser warmer air layer that has even wider Temperature and Density broadening of the absorption bands.”

    Yes, but so what?
    Almost all the IR from the surface that CO2 can absorb is absorbed in the lowest 100m of the atmosphere. I fail to understand how the effects you mention can be significant over a mere 100m altitude.

    Then you assert;

    “Also though the “greenhouse capture” effect may warm the atmosphere (troposphere) an immediate result of that is that ordinary “heat” transport processes (conduction and convection) take effect,”

    Hmmm. That one is interesting. Molecules do not warm by radiative excitation: they are raised to a higher vibrational and/or rotational state.

    However, an excited molecule can return to a lower excitation state by
    (a) emitting a photon
    or
    (b) collision with another molecule.

    Almost all the molecules in the air are nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) which are not greenhouse gases. So, collisional de-excitation of a CO2 molecule is almost certain to be by transfer of energy to N2 and O2 molecules which are accelerated (i.e. warmed) by the transfer. Hence, this does “warm the atmosphere” to some degree. Indeed, this is why the water vapour feedback which supposedly enhances the effect of atmospheric CO2 leads to the putative ‘hot spot’ (which is not detected as having occurred).

    But the effects of collisional de-excitation are to reduce (n.b. reduce and not remove) the amount of back radiation and also – as you say – to alter the lapse rate.

    And you add;

    “That leaves LWIR radiation to deal with the rest, and a most likely consequence of downward LWIR radiation, is absorption in the top 10-50 microns of water surface, since more than 70% of earth surface is water, and LWIR does not penetrate deeply as does solar spectrum energy, so the effect of downward LWIR radiation is to promote prompt surface evaporation, which immediately returns most of that energy to the atmosphere in the guise of latent heat”

    Yes!
    I very strongly agree (as I have repeatedly said in several places including on WUWT). But the important point In your statment is your word “most”. So long as there is some heating of the surface which is not released by evapouration then there is no alteration to my explanation of why the first 20 ppmv has most effect on surface temperature. And I remind that my post said evapouration releases heat from the surface.

    And you conclude that statement saying;
    “as well as additional water vapor, which directly blocks additional solar spectrum energy from reaching the surface.”

    Perhaps, but if it does “block” that solar energy then the “blocked” energy is added to the atmosphere and contributes to back radiation because molecules can be collisionally excited as well as collisionaly de-excited. So, this does not affect my explanation (which I admitted is simplistic).

    You conclude by saying;
    “Even additional CO2 will absorb some small part of the incoming solar spectrum energy, and prevent it from reaching the ocean; so it may warm the atmosphere, but it cools the deep oceans where most of earth’s free clean green renewable solar energy is stored.”

    Sorry, but I fail to understand this argument so I cannot comment.

    Again, thankyou for your response to my post. I hope this answer is sufficient to demonstrate that I genuinely appreciate your dispute of the explanation I gave Richard111, and I hope your arguments and my responses to them have both helped him in his ‘quest for knowledge’.

    Richard

  98. Ian Bryce says:

    July 13, 2011 at 12:17 am

    David, send this to Julia Gillard and all her Cronies. Maybe the Liberal party as well.

    Send it to Cameron and the idiot he has as our “Energy Minister.” Hopefully he’ll be gone soon if PC Plod ever gets round to enquiring about his driving habits!!

  99. Mr. George E. Smith, are you the one who used to work at Bell Laboratories, co-invented the charge coupled device and received the Nobel prize in Physics in 2009?

  100. Mr. Archibald’s prediction should be easy to verify: as per his graph, along 2011 a drop of more than 2.5 ºC should be happening in Hanover, New Hampshire.
    Are temperatures there behaving like that?

  101. “When I started out in climate science in 2005, the climate people ignored the solar physics community”

    That is such an absurd statement that it’s impossible to believe that anything you write can be serious.

  102. “The logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide is shown by this graph, using data derived from the Modtran site at the University of Chicago”

    This is a little bit dishonest, isn’t it? Modtran gives you radiative forcings, in W/m2. It doesn’t give you temperatures. To get those, you need to multiply the forcings by a climate sensitivity. And if you were being truthful, you’d have stated that you’d multiplied the forcings by a climate sensitivity that you’ve chosen, arbitrarily. You’ve used a value that is much smaller than any value found in the scientific literature. As a result, your graph is not meaningful.

  103. R. Gates says:
    July 13, 2011 at 12:49 pm
    “Well, it seems my skeptical friends always want to reject the fact that CO2 is 40% greater than it has been on average over the past million years, which of course incorporates the Eemian period. ”

    Yet the Eemian interglacial was warmer. And there is now permafrost where there wasn’t then, and where there is now tundra where forests once were. Perhaps you should consider CO2 is not that important. (but i am not surprised you used your favorite Gatesism: CO2 40% greater).

    “So now, during this this interglacial our temps are approaching the Eemian temps, and, if models are correct, we will exceed those temperatures in the next few centuries at least. ”

    Got to hand it to you, you always put in the disclaimer about “if models are correct”. However I do not recall you ever establishing you views on whether this modeled temperature increase is good or bad and whether we should try to remedy this, just in case the models are correct. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

  104. AJB says:
    July 13, 2011 at 12:02 pm
    “Is this what you’re after, Tom?”

    I have seen that chart many times but no I wasn’t after anything really. Just a reminder that our friend R Gates loves to insert certain “facts” that need to be put into proper context to have any real meaning. That is something R Gates never does hence the term “Gatesism”.

  105. @David Archibald says:
    “Fix’s beautiful, beautiful model gives us confidence about the Sun for decades in advance…”

    Like SC25 being only 7yrs long ?

  106. Unless there is more heating in the future Logan Pass just might not open during coming summers: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/glaciers_going_to_the_sun_road_finally_open/C41/L41/

    Park officials announced last week that Going-to-the-Sun Road would at last open in Glacier National Park today.

    According to the park’s website, they fulfilled that promise. The road is now open to vehicles and shuttle buses through Logan Pass, although there are limited services—and no water—at the visitor center there.

    Snow continued to fall at high elevations well into June. A flyover of the Big Drift, on June 4, revealed a snowpack that looked more like April than June. On July, the superintendent and chief of facility management, Chas Cartwright, visited Logan Pass and stood on the Big Drift roughly 30 feet above asphalt. This amount of snow at that time of year is unprecedented.

  107. stevo:

    At July 13, 2011 at 3:16 pm you quote Davis Archibald saying in his above article;
    “The logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide is shown by this graph, using data derived from the Modtran site at the University of Chicago”

    And you comment saying to him:

    “This is a little bit dishonest, isn’t it? Modtran gives you radiative forcings, in W/m2. It doesn’t give you temperatures. To get those, you need to multiply the forcings by a climate sensitivity. And if you were being truthful, you’d have stated that you’d multiplied the forcings by a climate sensitivity that you’ve chosen, arbitrarily. You’ve used a value that is much smaller than any value found in the scientific literature. As a result, your graph is not meaningful.”

    If there is any dishonesty it is your comment.

    Firstly, multiplying radiative forcing by a climate sensitivity merely alters the labeling on the y-axis of the graph. It does not change the shape of the graph in any way.

    And he was “truthful” when he used a value of climate sensitivity that – like the IPCC – he chose and he truthfully stated the value he had chosen.
    But so what? Use any value of climate sensitivity and that merely alters the labeling on the y-axis of the graph. It does not change the shape of the graph in any way.

    Furthermore, since you are calling Archibald “dishonest” and not “truthful” for no just reason, it is reasonable to point out that you have stated a simple falsehood when you said he “used a value that is much smaller than any value found in the scientific literature”. In fact, Archibald used a value larger than some in the literature and larger than several obtained by empirical methods instead of model ‘fudges’. For example, the eight independent ‘natural experiments’ conducted by Idso each provides a value smaller than that used by Archibald. See

    http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Idso_CO2_induced_Global_Warming.htm

    for a summary of the experiments’ findings and a link to Idso’s full paper which is
    Idso SB, ‘CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change’, Climate Research v10 69-82 (1998).

    Simply, your assertion that Archibald’s graph “is not meaningful” is plain wrong because each of the statements in your postis plain wrong and you present your points in abusive, untrue and offensive language.

    In summation, ‘troll’ hardly seems adequate to describe your post.

    Richard

  108. rbateman says:
    July 13, 2011 at 10:02 am

    Apart from Clilverd’s model, no other models are based in physical reality. They are simply exercises in arm-waving. Friends of mine have been promoters of Landscheidt for example, but Landscheidt’s minimum started with Solar Cycle 25 instead of 24. Science isn’t based on consensus. There are a number of people saying that we are entering a grand minimum but they have nothing more to base their predictions on than a feeling in their waters.

    Back in 2005, I concluded that if you could predict solar activity, you could predict climate. Until Ed Fix came along, I was going to try to do that myself. Ed saved me a lot of trouble in taking on something that I was incapable of in the first place. I will have more time for the medical research I should be doing.

    Climate science is just about all sorted now. I have one remaining research project in climate and that is to predict the onset conditions of the next glaciation.

    Following is the recommendation I wrote in trying to get Ed’s paper into a particular journal which ended up rejecting it on that the basis that it was too mathematical. A forbidden word on WUWT is replaced in the text:

    “This is a very important paper because it provides a physical explanation for solar cycle behaviour. Many of the existing observation-derived rules for explaining the fundamental properties of the sunspot cycle have not, until this paper, been quantified. To a large extent, existing solar science is based on non-mathematical observation. This paper’s treatment of the sunspot cycle as an ideal spring driven by (force that dare not speak its name) changes in radial acceleration will spark a re-assessment of solar science in the terms of this new paradigm. At the same time, this new model is consistent with the solar dynamo theory.

    In terms of some of the existing empirically-derived properties of solar cycle behaviour, this model shows that the Schwabe cycle is not important in itself and should be considered to be half a Hale cycle.

    From this paper, it can be derived that the Hale cycle is the natural resonance of the Sun to (force that dare not speak its name) forcing. This model explains why, for extended periods, a successive increase in solar cycle amplitude is seen before the system gets out of phase and phase destruction occurs. This paper explains why individual Hale cycles are not discrete magnetic events. The quantum of flux preserved in the system is the basis for the amplitude of the following cycle. Thus the sunspot cycle memory effect is explained.

    It also explains the Waldemeir effect – that strong cycles reach a maximum of amplitude in the shortest period of time. It also explains the amplitude-period effect (the anti-correlation between the peak amplitude of a cycle and the length of the preceding cycle) and the amplitude-minimum effect (the correlation between cycle amplitude and the activity level at the previous minimum).

    That said, this is a simple paper based on a simple concept. There have been a number of other papers demonstrating a correlation between (force that dare not speak its name) effects on the Sun driven by the gas giant planets, but none have provided the resolution that this model provides. This model hindcasts almost perfectly and that very close match, despite the model’s simplicity, suggests that it predicts very well.

    As a physical explanation for the periodicity seen in the solar dynamo, I expect this model to fill the vacuum currently there. While there are other (force that dare not speak its name) models that explain the timing of solar cycles, none does so through a physical mechanism within the Sun itself. Further, I expect most of the existing science on solar cycle behaviour to be re-expressed in the frame of reference provided by this model. That in turn will result in refining and extension of this model.”

    Geoff Sharp says:
    July 13, 2011 at 10:16 am
    The system hits the reset button through phase destruction.

  109. I fear DA is setting himself up for a fall here. It pays to do your homework which in this case does not look to have occurred and unfortunately reminds me of a smoke and mirror show.

    A lot of credibility at stake here.

  110. In reply to Dikran Marsupial’s comment:
    It is interesting that the solar cycle length hypothesis of Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) is still being used, given that Laut (2003) demonstrated that the analysis in Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) had serious data handling errors, and that Lassen himself co-authored a paper in 2000 that updated and re-analysed the data and concluded that “since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature. “. The flaws in Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) have been identified and discussed in the litterature, it really isn’t science to base an argument (even partially) on such a paper without mentioning the known flaws.

    Hi Dikran,
    I can defend the solar modulation of planetary cloud hypothesis. There are multiple mechanisms. The late 20th century warming has caused by an increase in solar wind bursts. The solar wind burst create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. Prior to 1994 there is close correlation to GCR levels which are modulated by the solar heliosphere strength and extent which changes depending on the strength and duration of the solar magnetic cycle.

    Please read Tinsley’s attached review paper on the mechanisms.
    Do you have any questions concerning the solar modulation of cloud mechanisms?

    http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/faculty/tinsley/Role%20of%20Global%20Circuit.pdf

    The role of the global electric circuit in solar and internal forcing of clouds and climate

    http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

    Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov

    We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

    In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

    See section 5a) Modulation of the global circuit in this review paper, by solar wind burst and the process electroscavenging where by increases in the global electric circuit remove cloud forming ions. The same review paper summarizes the data that does show correlation between low level clouds and GCR.

    http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

  111. Smokey says:
    July 13, 2011 at 12:11 pm
    Gates is cherry-picking again:
    “…looking back nearly a million years, the most non-normal event that we can measure is the current high level of CO2.”
    The fact is that current CO2 levels are extremely low. Here’s the big picture.

    = = = = = =
    Smokey,

    I appreciate the link to the graph with reconstruction of atm CO2 for geological timescales (>500 million yrs).

    Do have links to a similar timescale graph with reconstruction of earth temps for the same period superimposed on top of atm CO2? If you recommend one then I would appreciate a link.

    Thanks.

    John

  112. M.A.Vukcevic wrote (July 13, 2011 at 9:12 am)
    “Why the Atlantic is special
    The Atlantic is the only ocean where heat is transported north across the equator.
    [...] conveyor [...]“

    Respected WUWT commenter & oceanographer “sky” disagrees and convincingly paints a VERY different (& much simpler) picture. Please consider what sky has to say.

  113. Tom in Florida says:
    July 13, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    “Got to hand it to you, you always put in the disclaimer about “if models are correct”. However I do not recall you ever establishing you views on whether this modeled temperature increase is good or bad and whether we should try to remedy this, just in case the models are correct. Perhaps you could enlighten me?”

    ______

    Let’s put it this way, if someone told me we could keep CO2 in the range it’s been during the time our civilizations came into being because the climate was conducive to grain plants which allowed us to even have civilization, or we could allow CO2 to go to levels when human ancestors were tree-shrews and the world was covered with steaming jungles and there were no grains at all…I’ll take the range in which our civilization has come into being. Letting CO2 continually rise, is conducting a huge experiment (rather like rolling the dice) on the future of the planet. Last time I checked, we haven’t got a spare in case we bet wrong.

  114. “Climate science is just about all sorted now.”
    Utter nonsense. This guy is either a phoney, a supreme egoist or very callow. No more comments.
    Jbird

  115. R. Gates says:
    July 13, 2011 at 7:27 pm
    “Let’s put it this way, if someone told me we could keep CO2 in the range it’s been during the time our civilizations came into being because the climate was conducive to grain plants which allowed us to even have civilization, or we could allow CO2 to go to levels when human ancestors were tree-shrews and the world was covered with steaming jungles and there were no grains at all…I’ll take the range in which our civilization has come into being. Letting CO2 continually rise, is conducting a huge experiment (rather like rolling the dice) on the future of the planet. Last time I checked, we haven’t got a spare in case we bet wrong.”

    Disagreement #1: Your assumption that CO2 is the controlling element of climate.
    Disagreement #2: Your reliance on climate models as gospel
    Disagreement #3: Your assumption that the future will be like the past with no credit for evolution or adaptation.
    Disagreement #4: Your assumption that rises in CO2 are all caused by humans and that we are capable of controlling it.
    Disagreement #5: Your preference for a colder world. (My preference is for a toasty warm world)
    Disagreement #6: That a toasty warm world is harmful to humans. (We thrive in warm climates)
    Disagreement #7: That we should be guided by the precautionary principle and embark on the destruction of current civilization “in case we bet wrong”. It makes no sense to me to definitely destroy our way of life now to stop the possible destruction of our way of life in the future. It would be like the police killing a man to prevent him from committing suicide (that actually happened in Sarasota FL).

  116. “”””” George Steiner says:
    July 13, 2011 at 2:43 pm
    Mr. George E. Smith, are you the one who used to work at Bell Laboratories, co-invented the charge coupled device and received the Nobel prize in Physics in 2009? “””””

    George, I have several times issued the legal disclaimer, that NO ! I am NOT the George E. Smith who was the 2009 Nobel Physics Prize Winner for his invention of the Charge Coupled Device (CCD), while he was at Bell Telephone Laboratories. But our separate careers, have crossed paths for some 35-40 years. When he was prominent at Bell Labs, I happened to be the VP of R&D at a small start-up LED company named Litronix. We started the company literally on a shoestring; $350,000 business plan, which we funded out of our own pockets, with relatives and friends. We started literally on the President’s kitchen table, and with very little later equity funding, and mostly bank borrowing, we built the company till it was at one time the largest LED company in the world (in just LEDs) In the same time frame (1970s-80s) the Director of Research at Beckman Instruements was also a George E. Smith.

    My own personal George E. Smith hero, I can only aspire to half equal, was an enlisted sailor on board the Battleship Oklahoma in Pearl Harbor. When the ship rolled over from its torpedo wounds, George went over the side, into the water, and burning fuel. He managed to swim, sometimes submerged under the fire; but not always, till he reached safety; but was badly burned. He survived the war, and has (or had) his own web site. He is counted among Oklahoma’s notable citizens.


  117. David Archibald says:
    July 13, 2011 at 5:08 pm
    “…
    Climate science is just about all sorted now. I have one remaining research project in climate and that is to predict the onset conditions of the next glaciation.
    …”

    Emphasis added.

    While I enjoyed reading your post and agree with much of it, I believe you are far, far off in the above assessment of climate science.

  118. “”””” Sorry, but I fail to understand this argument so I cannot comment.

    Again, thankyou for your response to my post. I hope this answer is sufficient to demonstrate that I genuinely appreciate your dispute of the explanation I gave Richard111, and I hope your arguments and my responses to them have both helped him in his ‘quest for knowledge’.

    Richard “””””

    Well Richard, the last thing on my mind was to try and refute your explanation; perhaps to build on it.
    As for the ln (1+x) = x for small x; the whole point is that a logarithmic curve for small changes of the argument, is virtually indistinguishable from linear, and no yet observed earth measurments, are even close to resolving the difference.

    As for Beer’s Law being a theoretical argument for the existence of a logarithmic relationship, classical optical absorption calculations do indeed predict, an exponential decay of the transmission; but the Beer’s law model assumes that the absorbed energy is simply that; absorbed. Beer’s law takes no account of the subsequent radiation of some of the absorbed energy at some other wavelength, so experimental measurements of the transmission of energy at any and all wavelengths do not support the simple model.

    A classic example is the optical absorption for short wavelength sharp cut Schott Optical filter glasses. These glasses come in a variety of cutoff wavelengths, such as OG 590, or RG645, and the like; usually specified by the wavelength for 50% transmission (internal) for a 3.0 mm thickness sample. Accurate transmission curves taken; often in a double monochromator measurment, do indeed show attenuations of 10^5 and more for wavelengths not much shorter, than the cutoff wavelength, and near complete internal transmission for slightly longer wavelengths.
    However, a photomultiplier measurement of the total transmission for a significantly sub cutoff wavelength source, will show orders of magnitude higher energy transmission, and a spectral analysis, quickly shows that the absorbed energy is simply down shifted to a longer wavelength emission from the glass. No matter how many of those filters you stack up, the net transmission of the input energy is orders of magnitude higher than predicted from Beers law, which takes no account whatsoever of re-emission.
    I didn’t specify by what mechanism, the absorption of solar energy by H2O or even CO2 warms the atmosphere; but it seems we agree that it does warm the atmosphere. Is it not Ozone absorption of incoming solar spectrum energy that accounts for the higher temperatures in the Ozone belt.
    And the whole point of the line broadening shift, was simply to point out that downward propagating LWIR, from the upper layers, is much more likely to be re-absorbed before reaching the surface, than is the upward radiation, which encounters an ever less dense and cooler layer of air, and its included GHGs. So the net downward radiation would be expected to always less than 50%.

    I submit, that if atmospheric GHGs such as H2O, O3, and CO2 capture (partial blockage) some portion of the incoming solar spectrum energy (which therefore does not reach the surface as solar spectrum energy), and then less than half of the atmospheric emitted LWIR energy propagates downwards, then the overall result is still a net loss of solar energy to the earth’s energy storage tanks; the deep oceans. The roughly 50% of the atmospheric LWIR emission that radiates spaceward, as a result of original solar energy capture, is a guaranteed net loss of energy to the surface, and must result in a cooler surface.
    Ultimately, it is the stored solar energy that accounts for earth’s equilibrium Temperature range, and anything which ALWAYS reduces the amount of solar energy that reaches the surface must ultimately lead to a lower surface Temperature; regardless of what GHG absorption of surface emitted LWIR radiation.

  119. Tom in Florida says:
    July 13, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    To R. Gates:

    Disagreement #1: Your assumption that CO2 is the controlling element of climate.
    Disagreement #2: Your reliance on climate models as gospel
    Disagreement #3: Your assumption that the future will be like the past with no credit for evolution or adaptation.
    Disagreement #4: Your assumption that rises in CO2 are all caused by humans and that we are capable of controlling it.
    Disagreement #5: Your preference for a colder world. (My preference is for a toasty warm world)
    Disagreement #6: That a toasty warm world is harmful to humans. (We thrive in warm climates)
    Disagreement #7: That we should be guided by the precautionary principle and embark on the destruction of current civilization “in case we bet wrong”. It makes no sense to me to definitely destroy our way of life now to stop the possible destruction of our way of life in the future. It would be like the police killing a man to prevent him from committing suicide (that actually happened in Sarasota FL).

    _________
    Re: Disagreement #1: I assume nothing. I read everything from professional journals I can find on the subject. So far, nothing seems as plausible as the science behind anthropogenic climate change initiated by the rapid build up of CO2 over the past few centuries.

    Re: Disagreement #2: Global Climate Models are the best way to do testing (forward and backward) on different scenarios. They are not gospel, but tools. Like all tools, they are not perfect, but can and are being improved over time. Every single global climate model (created by different organizations all over the world) give the same result when looking at the rapid build-up of CO2 over the past few centuries…they all show global warming, seen first and strongest in the Arctic, secondarily in Antarctic and Greenland, and then throughout the world. Because the Arctic has been shown to be the earliest and where warming will be the most severe, it has always been the focus of my interest.

    Re: Disagreement #3: I do not think the future will exactly like the past as time’s arrow demands the continual evolution and change of the universe. But when it comes to the laws of physics behind the greenhouse effects of various gases in our atmosphere, how the earth responds to it, and has been shown to respond, I do think there is consistency over time in that.

    Re: Disagreement #4: I’ve never said that all rises in CO2 were all caused by humans. CO2 has risen and fallen in near perfect unison with Milankovitch cycles over hundreds of thousands of years (usually following the initial warming of Milankovitch changes in solar insolation which initiates a positive feedback loop with outgassing of CO2 from the oceans that releases even more CO2, etc). The current rise in CO2 (since about 1750 or so) is out of phase with the Milankovitch cycle however, and can be conclusively shown to be caused by humans. I do think that humans, if they wanted to, could control the amount of CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere.

    Re: Disagreement #5: Now you’re just being silly. It would nice to see the climate remain in this nice zone we’ve seen during the Holocene (the period our human civilization has flowered) but one way or another, we’re probably coming to the end of that time.

    Re: Disagreement #6: We’ve thrived in a moderate climate, not too cold and not too hot. Again, the Holocene has been good to us, and warmer is not necessarily better.

    Re: Disagreement #7: Yes, I think an ounce of prevention is often worth a ton of cure, and some things get so messed up they can’t be cured. I currently do not favor any radical solutions to control climate change, however, I think the alarm bells are begin to sound a bit louder with each passing year, and within 10 years (at the very most) either they will be silent because they will be proven to be “false” alarms, or they will be pretty much the only thing that we will be hearing. We are indeed at a critical juncture for this issue, and the next few years will prove either the end of debating the issue, as some new data will come forth to show all the climate models were wrong, or all of our lives will begin to change in very significant ways as adjusting to climate change will become the focus of humanity. Either way, the time for debating this issue will be over soon enough, one way or another.

  120. Dikran Marsupial at July 13, 2011 at 7:38 am

    Dikran – there is a very easy proof of the pSCL-temperature negative correlation. Take the full HadCRUTv3 dataset, graph against pSCL. Then take the CET full dataset and also graph against pSCL. The regression lines are quite consistent with F-C&L and the other similar papers in that field.

    Its simple to do, takes a morning with a spreadsheet. All three datasets are readily available. That you cannot explain why a correlation exists does not mean it does not exist. We are on the way to an explanation. That Kepler didn’t know about gravity did not stop him calculating the orbits of the planets. I’d also point out that while Mr Archibald’s values for SC25 and following require extrapolation using Ed Fix’s model, the value for SC24 is a simple interpolation of the data in the first graph.

  121. that ‘black carbon is responsible for 50% or almost 1degreeC increased Arctic warming from 1890 to 2007’, and that ‘the climate-warming effects of these short-lived pollutants have largely been ignored by scientists and regulators focusing on climate policy’ —-that ‘decreasing concentrations of sulfate aerosols and increasing concentrations of black carbon have substantially contributed to rapid Arctic warming during the past three decades?
    Hiram Levy of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has said , ‘We found that these short-lived pollutants have a greater influence on the earth’s climate throughout the 21st century than people thought.’

    http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2009/04/drew-shindell-greg-faluvegi-black.html

  122. David Archibald says:
    July 13, 2011 at 7:27 am

    Ed’s paper is in an Elsevier publication. It therefore follows that all that has been taken care of.

    So far I have found a poor reproduction of Ed’s graph and one paragraph of general description in Easterbrook’s Book. This is hardly peer review.

  123. Bamftiger: [ sorry, something went wrong with my previous post---here is the whole thing]

    Dr Drew shindell of NASA and a number of other researchers testified to Congress on this.
    Shindell’s research found that ‘black carbon is responsible for 50% or almost 1degreeC increased Arctic warming from 1890 to 2007’, and that ‘the climate-warming effects of these short-lived pollutants have largely been ignored by scientists and regulators focusing on climate policy’ —-that ‘decreasing concentrations of sulfate aerosols and increasing concentrations of black carbon have substantially contributed to rapid Arctic warming during the past three decades?
    Hiram Levy of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has said , ‘We found that these short-lived pollutants have a greater influence on the earth’s climate throughout the 21st century than people thought.’

    http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2009/04/drew-shindell-greg-faluvegi-black.html

    Shindell’s advice —
    [ "We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we're just looking at carbon dioxide," Shindell said. "If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we're much better off looking at aerosols and ozone."] “

  124. There is evidence in the paleoclimatic record of gradual and rapid climate change events that coincide with peculiar solar changes. Svensmark and others have made progress working out the details as to how solar magnetic cycle changes affect the earth’s climate.

    How solar cycle 24 will affect the planet’s climate will depend on both solar physics and the mechanisms by which solar changes affect the earth’s climate.

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

    E. Palle´, C.J. Butler K. O’Brien
    The second process, considered by Tinsley and Yu (2003), namely electroscavenging, depends on the action of the global electrical circuit (see review by Rycroft et al. (2000)). The transport of charge by rapidly rising convective currents in the tropics and over continental land masses leads to a 200 kV positive charge of the ionosphere compared to Earth. This large voltage difference, in turn, necessitates a return current which must pass through the regions of the atmosphere where clouds are formed. As cosmic rays are the principal agent of ionization in the atmosphere above 1 km altitude, any modulation of the GCR flux due to solar activity is likely to affect the transport of charge to complete the global electrical circuit. Tinsley and Yu (2003) discuss how the build up of electrostatic charge at the tops and bottoms of clouds could affect the scavenging of ice forming nuclei (IFN) and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) by droplets, and how this can lead to greater rates of precipitation and a reduction in cloud cover. They find that the electroscavenging process is likely to be more important over oceanic rather than continental regions and that it leads to a positive correlation between clouds and cosmic rays at higher latitudes and a negative correlation at low latitudes.

    Thus the electroscavenging process can explain several of the most striking features of Fig. 5, namely: (1) the peak in significant positive correlations at latitudes around 50 degrees North and South (Fig. 5a); (2) the tendency for a less significant but nonetheless evident trend to negative correlation coefficients at low latitudes (Fig. 5a); and (3) the location of the peak in correlation over one of the principal oceans, namely over the North and South Atlantic (Fig. 5c). Although these aspects of our results are consistent with the predictions of the IMN and electroscavenging processes, it is too early to say that they provide real confirmation, particularly in view of the lack of field significance. Other mechanisms which rely on coupling between the upper and lower atmosphere as proposed by Kristjansson et al. (2002) and Haigh (1996) in which solar irradiance changes are the drivers of circulation changes and cloud cover variations remain a possibility.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0612/0612145v1.pdf

    The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays

    Henrik Svensmark
    Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly.
    The cooling effect is not evenly distributed. As shown in Fig. (2 a) it is minimal around the Equator and increases
    towards the mid-latitudes. In polar regions the clouds can have a warming effect if their re-radiation of long-wave energy downwards dominates over the loss of short-wave solar energy blocked by the clouds. This warming has been well recorded on the surface in both the Arctic and Antarctic [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]

    Figure (3) also predicts that a reduction in cloud cover of about 8 % is sufficient to warm most of the globe by almost 2◦C, which is in line with other estimates of cloud forcing during the 20th Century[1]. The effect is seen in the upper curve of Fig. (4a) (NASA-GISS data[20]). In a cloud interpretation the hesitations and advances in cloud reduction since 1900 follow the well-known changes in solar activity[1, 21]. The lower curve in Fig. (4a) shows the corresponding changes in Antarctica, and the operation of the Antarctic climate anomaly is plain to see. Note especially the fall in Antarctic temperatures in the 1920s contrasting with a surge in global temperatures, and the marked rise 1950–70 when global temperatures fell.

    Meanwhile, a chain of evidence appears to be complete, which links low-level clouds to the well-known modulation
    of galactic cosmic-ray intensity by solar magnetic activity, to the detected influence of galactic cosmic rays on cloudiness[1, 2, 3], and also to experimental evidence that electrons set free by passing muons help to make
    aerosols the pre-curser to cloud condensation nuclei at low altitudes[4]. The roles of cosmic rays and clouds as
    active players in climate change therefore merit closer attention in general climate modeling and in solar and heliospheric physics, with special regard to the high-energy galactic cosmic rays that ionize the lower atmosphere.
    Physics history comes full circle. More than 100 years …

  125. R. Gates says:
    July 13, 2011 at 7:27 pm
    “Let’s put it this way, if someone told me we could keep CO2 in the range it’s been during the time our civilizations came into being because the climate was conducive to grain plants which allowed us to even have civilization, or we could allow CO2 to go to levels when human ancestors were tree-shrews and the world was covered with steaming jungles and there were no grains at all…I’ll take the range in which our civilization has come into being. Letting CO2 continually rise, is conducting a huge experiment (rather like rolling the dice) on the future of the planet. Last time I checked, we haven’t got a spare in case we bet wrong”

    Those would be the same CO2 levels that allowed the formation of glaciers a mile thick over everything north of Virginia for 100,000 years with 10,000 year interglacial periods. The current interglacial began over 10,000 years ago.

    The level of ignorance in your blitherings, Gates, never ceases to amaze me.

  126. David Archibald says:
    July 13, 2011 at 5:08 pm

    That said, this is a simple paper based on a simple concept. There have been a number of other papers demonstrating a correlation between (force that dare not speak its name) effects on the Sun driven by the gas giant planets, but none have provided the resolution that this model provides. This model hindcasts almost perfectly and that very close match, despite the model’s simplicity, suggests that it predicts very well.

    Have you read my paper?

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1005/1005.5303.pdf

    As stated the theory can hindcast the 400 years of sunspot counts and then the Holocene through proxy records and so far remains unchallenged (or understood for that matter). There is also no need to reset the model when the correlations stop happening, this is the huge downside of Ed’s model.

  127. William/Bruce You are missing the point, Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) was deeply flawed, and the correllation that it highlighted broke down in 1990. To present work as having the support of a peer-reviewed paper, without mentioning that the paper was flawed and puported correllation did not pan out when further data was collected, is deeply unscientific (or at least demonstrates very poor scholarship if the author was unaware of it). Defending the theory doesn’t change that. I have an open mind about the GCR theory, but the data doesn’t give it strong support at the current time. The latest I have heard is that the CLOUD project at CERN has had difficulty reproducing the basic mechanism in clean laboratory conditions, never mind actual environmental conditions, where there are plenty of CCN anyway. Fitting models without proper diagnostic tests or out-of-sample performance estimates and poor scholarship is pretty unconvincing. Correllation is not causation; corellation with a physical theory that can explain the strength of the effect is the *starting* point – CGR has a lot of ground to catch up.

  128. As much as I’d love to see a dramatic cool off like the last graph shows (to see worldwide media and climate scientists go dumbstruck) I doubt this will pan out. Subtle warming as usual with the occasional dip will likely continue. My forecast: persistence. Boring? Yes. Right. Probably.

  129. Paul Vaughan says:
    ……….
    Paul, thanks for the note, I tend to follow line taken by one of these:
    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, National Oceanography Centre and Alfred Wegener Institute. However if you have a link to sky’s paper I certainly would be interested to take a look.
    regards

  130. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    July 13, 2011 at 1:37 am
    It would be useful to see Ed Fix’es exact formula, so his prediction curve can be reproduced (and possibly back extrapolated) before 1914.
    My formula has somewhat different forecast but it backtracks 400 years to the start of Maunder min.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm

    Ed’s curve isn’t generated by a fixed formula. There are ‘tweaks’ with supporting reasons for making them.

  131. A quote from Richard S Courtney in response to a comment by George E. Smith:
    “”Again, thankyou for your response to my post. I hope this answer is sufficient to demonstrate that I genuinely appreciate your dispute of the explanation I gave Richard111, and I hope your arguments and my responses to them have both helped him in his ‘quest for knowledge’.””
    Yes, indeed. Thank you both and many others on this blog for your comments. I can almost write my own layman’s tutorial. :-)
    In trying to understand the 50/50 isotropic radiation effect I divided the atmosphere into 1km layers and assigned each layer an average temperature as per the adiabatic lapse rate and calculated the mass of CO2 for each layer and came to the conclusion that the “favoured” radiation path is upwards, away from the surface. Thus the surface only recieves radiation from CO2 in the first few hundreds of metres of the atmosphere. Increasing levels of CO2 simply helps cool the atmosphere.

  132. “Correllation is not causation; corellation with a physical theory that can explain the strength of the effect is the *starting* point ”

    Current data such as it is suggests that an active sun destroys more ozone above 45Km for a net cooling effect for both mesosphere and stratosphere which then alters surface pressure distribution.

    The opposite when the sun is less active.

    I await further data to resolve the issue one way or the other.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1318425/Global-warming-theory-chaos-Increased-solar-activity-COOL-Earth.html

    ‘If solar activity is out of phase with solar radiative forcing, it could change our understanding of how processes in the troposphere and stratosphere act to modulate Earth’s climate.’
    ‘If solar activity is out of phase with solar radiative forcing, it could change our understanding of how processes in the troposphere and stratosphere act to modulate Earth’s climate.’

  133. Richard111 says:
    July 14, 2011 at 1:04 am

    In trying to understand the 50/50 isotropic radiation effect I divided the atmosphere into 1km layers and assigned each layer an average temperature as per the adiabatic lapse rate and calculated the mass of CO2 for each layer and came to the conclusion that the “favoured” radiation path is upwards, away from the surface. Thus the surface only recieves radiation from CO2 in the first few hundreds of metres of the atmosphere. Increasing levels of CO2 simply helps cool the atmosphere.

    Of course, it does. I can’t think what all the fuss is about and why there has been so much discussion on the subject over the past 100 years or so. Now if you can just submit a little diagram showing the 1km layers of the atmosphere (different colours for different layers would be nice) along with David Archibald’s first year undergraduate linear regression plots of SCL and temperature to the appropriate bodies we can all pack up and go home.

    Just a warning, though. Many, many scientists, both sceptic and warmer, have produced simple models which illustrate the radiative transfer between adjacent layers of the atmosphere. I haven’t yet come across one which shows a reduction in surface temperatures due to additional layers and/or the addition of IR absorbing gases. Yours may well be a first in that respect. It’s also possible that you may not fully understand the potential changes to the incoming/outgoing energy balance at the TOA (top of the atmosphere) due to the dominant influence of CO2 at the higher, colder and drier (i.e. less water vapour) layers of the atmosphere.

  134. david…thanks for the link to RealClimate…but i was hoping you had more than that! Their discussion goes back to Idso’s work…a long way back, and though that was empirical, it is not clear how it relates to the issue as it dealt with surface flux and temperature response.

    The modtrans data is tricky to interpret. The roughly 4 watts/square metre additional ‘forcing’ from the doubling of CO2 (from 280-560) already uses the log relation….the first 50 ppmv has already accounted for about 250 watts/square metre and so this nearly 300 extra ppmv only imparts 4 watts of additional energy. HOWEVER, as I understand it, this figure is computed for a point at some considerable altitude. It is not a simple matter to translate the forcing (RF) to a surface temperature. The IPCC favour a factor of 0.8 (the lambda factor used for calculating the sensitivity as in T = L. RF….so for an RF of 4, IPCC get 4 x 0.8, or 3.2 degrees C. They do however discuss the work of Keith Shine, a lead author of the working groups, who argued it could go as low as 0.4….leading to 1.6 C for the doubling (and hence their lowest estimate).

    RealClimate say that fundamental physics of black-body radiation says you can’t go below 0.3 for lambda (stephan boltzmann law)….but I am a poorly numerate biologist, so I can’t comment on that (yet) and this would take it to….1.2 C.

    All the above are calculated for an equilibrium….so am not sure how IPCC work that with the transfer of heat to the oceans.

    I tried to follow up this log relation some time back….it was hardly obvious in any IPCC reports, but was mentioned in the first (1990) – all the models relied then on Modtrans but it was only rferenced as an ‘online computer code’. It was actually developed by a lab at an USAF base! It has since been superceded by HIGHTRANS, a multi-national effort. That work confirms the roughly 4 watts/square metre forcing expected for the rise to 560 ppmv. But again, that is computed as a forcing at whatever altitude the earth system re-radiates the compensatory energy associated with the balance…which for reasons I don’t understand, is – 19 C, somewhere at altitude.

    It strikes me that this extra radiation – IR – has a long way to go to get to the surface, through cloud and aerosol before it creates global warming….and i am trying to find out what factor is appropriate to apply.

    I actually think that Idso is likely to be right….having looked closely at the ice-core record of Temperature and CO2….in those periods where they don’t correlate, with the help of my more numerate colleague, Jackson Davis….too many instances where rising CO2 coincides with falling T and vice versa. But I had wondered if you had taken it further and derived your 0.1 factor (which RealClimate state you must be using). They say that to get that low below the 0.3 fundamental, you have to have strong negative feedbacks.

    Anybody else out there know whether there is a natural limit for Lambda at 0.3?

  135. I don’t understand Archibald’s temperature predictions in the final figure (“Hanover NH Climate Forecast to 2050″). I do understand that his model would predict a big temperature drop during the current solar cycle 24, because the preceding cycle (23) was very long.

    But the chart he shows of forecasted solar cycles (from Ed Fix) shows the next four cycles each being only 8-9 years long — shorter than any of the ones in the history of the Hanover temperature station. Thus, shouldn’t Archibald’s predictions show a sharp drop in temperatures for Hanover from 2008-2017, and then much, much *higher* temperatures — right off the top of the chart, in fact — from 2017-2053?

    Maybe there’s something obvious that I’m not understanding. (It wouldn’t be the first time!) Can someone please explain it?

  136. Sorry to post two comments in quick succession.

    “Bruce of Newcastle” wrote: “Dikran – there is a very easy proof of the pSCL-temperature negative correlation. Take the full HadCRUTv3 dataset, graph against pSCL. Then take the CET full dataset and also graph against pSCL. The regression lines are quite consistent with F-C&L and the other similar papers in that field. Its simple to do, takes a morning with a spreadsheet.”

    I’m curious about whether you’ve actually tried this. I just followed your directions — I downloaded the HADCRUTv3 dataset, and computed the mean temperature for each solar cycle since #10 (the first one in the HADCRUT record).

    I then did a regression of mean temperature in Cycle [X] vs. length of cycle [X-1]. For cycles 10-20, the data actually do fit a linear model pretty well.

    But that model completely breaks down in recent decades. Temperatures during Cycles 21-23 were all 0.3 to 0.5 C too high. And of course Cycle 24, which followed a 12.5-year-long cycle, ought to be really cold … but so far it’s running 0.9 C above your model’s prediction.

    Bruce, I did exactly what you suggested, using the data sets you recommended (well, I haven’t bothered with CET yet) and the results don’t seem to be at all what you claimed.

    It looks to me like there might be some kind of correlation from 1850-1975, but from 1975 onward temperatures have not been following the solar cycle at all. I do not know much about this at all, but my suspicion is that the correlation during cycles 10-20 is mostly spurious.

  137. >>Vuc
    >>The effect of this Atlantic heat conveyor is most noticeable in winter.

    Errr, that would make the North Sea warmer, not colder.

    I was commenting on the fact that the North Sea (upper layers) has a 10oc variation between summer and winter. If the North Sea can loose 10oc of heat in one season, how can the oceans keep the earth warm for decades? Is there enough heat stored in the oceans for that?

    .

  138. Gates, each time I read your posts I become more convinced you are a career politician, maybe a member of Congress. You always add disclaimers, if ands or buts, and other various escape routes to allow you to debate without commitment to anything.

    To your responses I say this:

    #1: You say you assume nothing but then say “so far nothing seems as plausible” which makes your position an assumption.

    #2: Your faith in models ignores the GIGO factor. You are well aware that any climate model cannot possibly include the true reality of all climate drivers. Therefore any model result is always based on the “if/ then” scenarios that are programmed in.

    #3: We may be close on this one; however, I disagree with your assumption that CO2 is the devil that you say it is. Earlier I brought up the conditions of the Eemian interglacial period as an example

    #4: We are close on this one also, however, I again disagree that the SMALL amount of CO2 increase is going to do any harm. Being able to control the world wide human input of CO2 is pie in the sky dreaming unless you advocate a world dictatorship with the force to control everyone. That is the dream of most career politicians, with themselves (perhaps you?) as the “benevolent dictator” of course.

    #5: Clever dodge here, “but one way or the other we’re probably coming to the end of that time”. You are not saying Earth will warm too much do to AGW or that Earth is going to return to another 100,000 year period of glaciation due to orbital changes. A politician’s remark if ever there was one.

    #6 and #7: Now you contradict yourself (more evidence you are a career politician). If the precautionary principle is a good practice as you state in #7, then you must also apply it to #6. You say warmer is not necessarily better but we know as fact that colder is worse. Therefore we should be actively trying to warm the planet to counteract the upcoming and inevitable long period of glaciation that lies ahead.

    #7: A true politician’s ramble. You suggest there could be a problem, offer no solution, straddle the fence on which way it will go and use the escape clause of “one way or the other” one side will be proven wrong.

    The only question I have now is are you a local, state or national politician?

  139. Dave Springer says:
    July 13, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    R. Gates says:
    July 13, 2011 at 7:27 pm
    “Let’s put it this way, if someone told me we could keep CO2 in the range it’s been during the time our civilizations came into being because the climate was conducive to grain plants which allowed us to even have civilization, or we could allow CO2 to go to levels when human ancestors were tree-shrews and the world was covered with steaming jungles and there were no grains at all…I’ll take the range in which our civilization has come into being. Letting CO2 continually rise, is conducting a huge experiment (rather like rolling the dice) on the future of the planet. Last time I checked, we haven’t got a spare in case we bet wrong”

    Those would be the same CO2 levels that allowed the formation of glaciers a mile thick over everything north of Virginia for 100,000 years with 10,000 year interglacial periods. The current interglacial began over 10,000 years ago.

    The level of ignorance in your blitherings, Gates, never ceases to amaze me.
    _____
    My level of ignorance? Apparently you don’t know how to read, or perhaps your comprehension leaves something to be desired. Civilization began pretty much with the Holocene period. This interglacial has proven to be a nice range of CO2 for humanity.

  140. First I would like to thank George Smith and Richard S Courtney for getting to the meat of the issue.

    Richard states: And you conclude that statement saying;
    “as well as additional water vapor, which directly blocks additional solar spectrum energy from reaching the surface.”

    Perhaps, but if it does “block” that solar energy then the “blocked” energy is added to the atmosphere and contributes to back radiation because molecules can be collisionally excited as well as collisionaly de-excited. So, this does not affect my explanation (which I admitted is simplistic).

    Yes, it does contribute to back radiation and that radiation eventually is radiated back to the atmosphere . IWO, back radiation is a non-issue. It doesn’t change the amount of energy in the system. The key point is it also contributes to radiation to space. And, when additional GHGs are added to the atmosphere it INCREASES that heat loss from the coupled surface-atmospheric system. This is the often ignored cooling effect of GHGs.

  141. Stephen Wilde says:
    July 14, 2011 at 1:41 am

    (Quoting Mike Lockwood)

    ‘If solar activity is out of phase with solar radiative forcing, it could change our understanding of how processes in the troposphere and stratosphere act to modulate Earth’s climate.’

    I hope Mike Lockwood understands that coupled RC systems with long periods have long lag times. Translation: the response is necessarily out-of-phase with the forcing.

  142. steveta_uk asked (July 13, 2011 at 8:35 am) “Was that a spoof?”

    Certainly not:

    P'(s,t) =
    ( { |A(t)-B(s,t)| * [ A(t)*B'(s,t) + B(s,t)*A'(t) ] }
    – { [ A(t)*B(s,t) ] * [ ( A(t)-B(s,t) ) * ( A'(t)-B'(s,t) ) / |A(t)-B(s,t)| ] } )
    / ( A(t)-B(s,t) )^2

    A(t) ≠ B(s,t)

    I imagine this will make more sense to some readers in pictorial form – e.g. a color contour plot. (Another day.)

    Others (some of whom regard themselves as top world experts in their fields) who nonsensically demand stationary linear uni-grain uni-extent (i.e. patently spatiotemporally-blind) “illogic” won’t lift a finger to develop the conceptual foundation to understand; I literally do not have time to deal with their unproductively draining tangents and sub-Stat101-level “reasoning”.

    EOP (Earth Orientation Parameters) are the arbiters of climate disputes. They remind us that hydrology is a function of absolutes, not anomalies. Plain & simple: We cannot ignore annual & semi-annual cycles (…the way so many here do by brazenly & foolhardily limiting their attention to the study of temperature anomalies). Nor can we ignore gradients.

  143. Smokey says:
    July 13, 2011 at 7:40 pm
    John Whitman,

    “”””I’m not certain what you’re looking for, but here are a few CO2/T links:””””

    ——

    Smokey,

    Appreciate the 12 links.

    I am getting a feel for the geological timescale perspective of the earth’s CO2 versus Temps compared to the last 150 years.

    The alarmist claims seem quite insubstantial and ephemeral (with gossamer wings) when viewed through a far viewing geological lens.

    I am serene rather than alarmed about CO2 and Temp. Only am alarmed by the questionable possible ideological premises of AGW alarmist leadership.

    John

  144. William says:
    July 13, 2011 at 7:00 am

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf

    Thank you for the link to the Jack Barratt essay which I have now read in detail. A lot of interesting and useful information therein. But I do have a problem with the following statement from Page 1043:

    “The emitted radiation has an intensity given by the product of the Stefan-Boltzmann
    constant (5.67 ´ 10–8 W m–2 K–4) and the fourth power of the temperature of the
    blackbody. Taking the Earth’s emission as approximately blackbody radiation, the output
    of 235 Wm–2 is equivalent to a temperature of 253.7 K. The Earth’s surface temperature
    is generally agreed to be 288 K, thus the resultant global warming due to the effects of
    the GHGs, convection, evaporation of water from the oceans, clouds, aerosols, etc., is
    288 – 253.7 = 34.3 K.

    My bold. My reading tells me that if you remove the GHGs from the atmosphere you will still have almost the same temperature gradient entirely due to gravity. It is referred to as the dry adiabatic lapse rate.. The fact that the sun rises each day maintains that temperature gradient otherwise global temperature would drop below freezing in about 96 hours.

    Re-inserting the GHGs and water vapour and aerosols etc. will give us our weather. The Earth does not radiate to space from the surface. This is pointed out quite clearly in the essay. What is not mentioned in the essay is that the mean balancing radiative temperature of 288 K occurs at some 5,000 metres and upwards in the atmosphere. This is what the satellite measurements record.

  145. Ralph says: July 14, 2011 at 5:47 am
    ………..
    In my view (mind you not everyone agrees) the key to the understanding of how and why the North Atlantic area’s climate changes is the Greenland-Scotland ridge, so I suggest a quick look at these illustrations:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6840/fig_tab/411927a0_ft.html

    and a short article from Institute of Oceanography, University of Hamburg.

    http://www.ifm.zmaw.de/mitarbeiter/detlef-quadfasel/projects/overflow-over-the-greenland-scotland-ridge/

    there is also (with lot details):

    http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ocean_processes_of_climatic_importance_in_the_Arctic

    You can find many papers (use Google Scholar) on the subject.
    Your right to disagree is respected.

  146. Richard111:

    I am writing to add something to your comment at July 14, 2011 at 9:55 am that derives from your consideration of an item by Jack Barrett.

    Before I do that I need to declare that Jack Barrett and I are protagonists who have often strongly disagreed (including on this very day) over the years. Hence, it could be thought that I am prejudiced concerning his views.

    Jack is firmly convinced that the warming effect of atmospheric CO2 as asserted by the IPCC is correct. He makes very good arguments to support his views and I strongly recommend that you study his writings if you are interested in radiative effects within the atmosphere system. Unfortunately, he has difficulty considering other opinions than his own, and this inhibits discussion with him: you need to know this if you choose to communicate with him.

    You quote Jack and then – on the basis of that quotation – you say;

    “My reading tells me that if you remove the GHGs from the atmosphere you will still have almost the same temperature gradient entirely due to gravity.”

    Your statement leads directly to consideration of the Jelbring Hypothesis which several people – notably Jack Barrett and Hans Erren – strongly dispute. (Incidentally, please do not mention the Jelbring Hypothesis to Jack because his response will be to go ballistic).

    I do not know if the Jelbring Hypothesis is right or wrong, but I do know the arguments against it from Barrett and Erren are spurious.

    Simply, the Jelbring Hypothesis says the atmosphere of any planet that is heated by a sun (and has a significant atmosphere) will organise to provide a fixed adiabatic lapse rate which determines the planet’s surface temperature.

    According to this hypothesis, all the radiative, evaporative and convective effects within the atmosphere adjust to provide this lapse rate whatever the gaseous composition of the atmosphere.

    And, except for Mars, each planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere does have a lapse rate and surace temperature which concurs with the prediction of the Jelbring Hypothesis.

    Mars could be expected to be an exception to the Jelbring Hypothesis. It has little atmosphere of almost pure CO2 which freezes on the winter pole and sublimes in the Martian spring, so Mars never has a fixed atmosphere which could organise according to the Jelbring Hypothesis.

    Hans Jelbring published his hypothesis in a peer reviewed paper in E&E. In that paper he formally stated his hypothesis as follows.

    “In an ideal gas atmosphere, the adiabatic temperature lapse rate has to be –g/cp where cp is the heat capacity of the gas (ref 2 p. 49). Theoretical calculations are well confirmed by observational evidence in the atmosphere of Earth. The adiabatic temperature lapse rate on Earth is thus –9.81/1004 = –0.0098 K/m. As James R. Holton concluded after deriving this result: “Hence, the dry adiabatic lapse rate is approximately constant throughout the lower atmosphere.” The temperature lapse rate in our model atmosphere also has to be –g/cp, since its atmosphere is organized adiabatically.”

    Please note that I do not know if the Jelbring Hypothesis is right or wrong, but your comment indicates that you need to be aware of it.

    Richard

  147. For woodNfish on July 13, 2011 at 8;43 am above:

    Please remember, this posting was written by David Arcibald not
    Anthony Watts.

    When Mr Archibald says, “We now have the tools to predict the climate
    out to the mid-21st century with a fair degree of confidence…” he assumes
    and includes the paradigm that “that part of the science is settled” as
    part of the operant procedures and the final conclusions.

    Mr. Archibald’s track record on solar modeling and analysis has been
    very mixed to date. He predicted the attributes of one solar cycle almost
    perfectly, was sort of right on another, but his original model-based
    predictions and repreated corrections for Solar Cycle 24 look rather
    foolish now.

    To indicate a Solar Minimum of any length, strength, depth or global effect
    at this point goes way beyond the data available… and seems a special stretch
    by Dave to stay relevant to the discussion of solar activity and temperature
    change.

    Most of the climate models now in vogue rely on an ever-rising sand castle built
    on very questionable, now often questioned foundation of proxy studies.

    Hind casts can’t really be accurate back beyond the early 1700s due to the
    lack of quality sunspot data. Good, documented, northern hemisphereic
    termperature data doesn’t exist in any kind of accurate form going back
    more than 300 years in but a few select locations.

    Here come those good old studies by Mann, Jones, Briffa, et al., through
    the backdoor, unannounced and uncited, to help Mr. Archibald out in a
    professionally embarrassing moment.

    As much as I believe there’s a Minimum (the “Eddy” Minimum?) coming,
    Dave Archibald’s prognostications don’t add anything to my conviction.

  148. J at July 14, 2011 at 5:05 am

    J – I did not say there was no CO2 based warming in the last half century – indeed I did the exercise with the CET of using the Butler & Johnston 1996 (Armagh) slope to compare against the CET trend line slope – if you goal seek a 2XCO2 using the Mauna Loa data it comes out at about 0.7 C, not bad when you compare with Lindzen & Choi’s recent paper. Armagh is fairly close to the CET triangle in latitude and general climate.

    Before you get excited yes I know there are things like volcanoes, aerosols, UHI, soot, ocean currents, mixing, dogs cats & zebras to consider when producing a value for 2XCO2. I did that exercise only to smell test whether the low sensitivity or high sensitivity hypotheses make the most sense – and the number came out at 0.7 and not 3.5, which didn’t inspire me with confidence in the IPCC.

    My point is the correlation is there for all to see, and the magnitude of the slope is much higher than you might expect if you relate TSI to temperature – which is exactly the point the consensus people say (before they carefully ignore the inconvenient pSCL correlation). Butler and Johnston say this:

    In conclusion we may remark that, even though the physical mechanism(s) for solar-activity induced changes in climate are still unresolved, there is mounting evidence that a speeding up of the solar cycle appears to be accompanied by an increase in the efficiency of the solar dynamo that ultimately leads to an increase in the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere.

    As I point out, this is in 1996, now we are seeing the ‘unresolved’ being (or attempting to be) progressively resolved by groups such as the Uni of Aarhus people. No such attempts are being made by groups such as GISS, who appear to see this science as a personal economic and political threat.

    Now all I myself say is the correlation is there – commentators such as Dikram can try to poke holes in individual papers but the data is quite clear, unless you want to try and redefine what least squares linear regression is (to paraphrase a certain professor). I do not explain the cause of the correlation, but I am not a climate scientist. Climate scientists must explain it, for if they do not then the extraordinarily expensive political action many advocate is not then scientifically justifiable, as Mr Archibald points out with his data.

  149. John Finn says:
    July 14, 2011 at 1:43 am

    My bad. I think I should have said “increasing levels of CO2 helps the atmosphere to cool”. Without CO2 the atmosphere above the tropopause would have a much reduced ability to radiate to space.

  150. Tom in Florida:

    A politician…me? Not in this lifetime!

    But to your point about the uncertainty in my statements– at the most basic level, that’s the nature of the beast. I think it is most likely we’ll see warming ahead in the next few centuries, brought about not by some natural cycles, but by human caused greenhouse emissions. But as the sudden onset of the Younger Dryas period showed us, the climate can reverse direction very rapidly as there are always those “Black Swan” events that can tip a complex system in a direction opposite the long term trend. But the jest of what I was trying to say is it is increasingly unlikely the moderate climate of the Holocene will continue many more centuries, unless humans take the next step and actually begin wholesale geoengineering of earth’s climate.

  151. Bruce of Newcastle – I didn’t have to poke holes in Friss-Christensen and Lassen (1991), the holes had already been poked, one of them by Lassen himself. The fault here is with Archibald for covering over the holes, which as I said is deeply unscientific, as it suggests that his analysis has the backing of solid peer-reviewed science – it doesn’t.

    Also J took the time to try out the correllation on the HADCRUTv3 as you suggested and found that the correllation did indeed break down, just as Thejll and Lassen suggested. It is telling that you do not admit that you were wrong on the HADCRUTv3 correllation.

    An analysis that only shows correllations if you select the right dataset is non-robust, especially if an argument about global climate can only be made if you concentrate on e.g. Central England, Norway and Hannover. Station and sub-regional datasets tend to be very noisy, which means that you’ll generally be able to cherry pick one with a good correllation with more or less anything. However that doesn’t mean the correlation is meaningful.

  152. Richard S Courtney:

    Thank you for your enlightening and helpfull comment at 12:24 pm above.
    I have read Hans Jelbring in the DragonSlayer series of essays. I try to use logic and personal experience to help me understand what happens in the atmosphere. I once had the priviledge of visiting one of South Africa’s deepest gold mines on the Vaal Reef and commented on the high temperature. It was explained to me that this was due to the increased air pressure at some 2,000 metres below sea level. As it was not possible to pump cool air down to that depth, water was employed to control the working environment.

    I understand the difficulty of attempting to explain the effect of gravity on the adiabatic lapse rate. For example; take a well sealed, but not well insulated container, and increase the air pressure to say 2 bar. The temperature of the air in the container increases. After a while the temperature of the air in the container will reduce to the local ambient temperature but the pressure in the container is still at 2 bar. So the way I explain it is that the kinetic energy of the air molecules in the container are less than the kinetic energy of the air molecules outside the container. Thus we have two different levels of pressure at the same temperature. Now, release the air from the sealed container and it will feel quite cold! :-)

  153. Ooopsss… I said below “below sea level”… I should have said below ground level… :-(

  154. All of this is is just pure observational data and have no, I repeat NO, actual basis in… reality… I mean the models of course.

  155. Maybe it got missed along the way, but … is anybody able to explain what looks like a major calculation error in Archibald’s forecast?

    Archibald’s fig. 5 (predicted solar cycle length from Ed Fix) shows the next four solar cycles all being just 8-9 years long — shorter than any in the entire history of the Hanover met station. By Archibald’s model, then, temperatures in Hanover ought to be plummeting to Little Ice Age levels between now and 2017, then turning on a dime and soaring to unprecedented heights from 2017 to 2053.

    But that’s not at all what Archibald’s fig. 6 shows.

    I’m surprised that no one has picked up on this — it’s not just that there’s been no correction of the post, but it hasn’t even been remarked on in the comments.

    Am I missing something completely obvious? Or is Archibald’s forecast wildly incorrect, based on his own model?

    I hope someone else will chime in on this, because I’m starting to doubt my own grasp of basic algebra here.

  156. Bruce (of Newcastle), thanks for the reply. It sounds like you’re suggesting using multiple regression to predict temperature as a function of both log2(CO2) and pSCL … am I understanding that right? In other words, take the CO2 data for a given solar cycle and convert it to a number of doublings above 280 ppm, as the first independent variable, and the length of the previous solar cycle as the second independent variable.

    I like that suggestion, since it would be a great way to compare the relative effects of the two factors.

    But I don’t quite get how you used the Mauna Loa CO2 data with CET temperatures, since Mauna Loa only goes back to ~1959.

    As a quick test, I just took the Law Dome CO2 data (with a 20-year smooth) for the period up to 1960, and the Mauna Loa data from 1960 onwards, and calculated the mean CO2 during each solar cycle from the 1850s onward. I then calculated the number of doublings relative to the preindustrial 280 ppm (this was 0.03 doublings for solar cycle 10, up to 0.48 for the current cycle 24). I used this in a multiple regression model along with the length of the preceding solar cycle, to predict HADCRUT temperature as you suggested earlier.

    For cycles 10-24 (the latter not being complete yet), the model has an adjusted R2 of 0.87, and a standard error of 0.087C.

    The coefficient for CO2 is 1.9C/doubling (95% CI 1.5 – 2.2).

    The coefficient for pSCL is -0.03/year of solar cycle length (95% CI -0.09 to +0.02, so not significantly different from 0).

    Again, thanks for suggesting this. I don’t really “believe” in the results, since it’s still pretty simplistic analysis and it doesn’t account for stuff like aerosols, ENSO, volcanoes, cloud feedbacks, non-CO2 greenhouse gases, or the rest of the forcings. But it does seem to indicate that the solar cycle length might be a bit of a red herring.

  157. Magnus says: “All of this is is just pure observational data and have no, I repeat NO, actual basis in… reality… I mean the models of course.”

    Good point. We’re now about a third of the way through solar cycle 24. Does anyone know what the observational data from the Hanover met station look like, over the past couple of years? Is New Hampshire experiencing a “Little Ice Age” style cold snap, as Archibald’s model predicts? I think there’s a way to get station data from Weather Underground, but I don’t remember exactly how. Just curious….

  158. J asked (July 15, 2011 at 3:25 am) “Am I missing something completely obvious? Or is Archibald’s forecast wildly incorrect, based on his own model?”

    Not mutually exclusive.

  159. “”””” Richard M says:

    July 14, 2011 at 6:42 am

    First I would like to thank George Smith and Richard S Courtney for getting to the meat of the issue.

    Richard states: And you conclude that statement saying;
    “as well as additional water vapor, which directly blocks additional solar spectrum energy from reaching the surface.”

    Perhaps, but if it does “block” that solar energy then the “blocked” energy is added to the atmosphere and contributes to back radiation because molecules can be collisionally excited as well as collisionaly de-excited. So, this does not affect my explanation (which I admitted is simplistic).

    Yes, it does contribute to back radiation and that radiation eventually is radiated back to the atmosphere . IWO, back radiation is a non-issue. “””””

    First let me say that Richard (S. Courtney) is much closer to this subject than I am, and further more, I don’t have any access to some teracomputer or any modtran calculations of what CO2 or any other so-called GHG such as H2O or O3 is supposed to absorb in the way of electro-magnetic radiation energy.
    The news that such absorption of energy does not alter the atmospheric Temperature, is indeed a surprising revelation to me. But then I had always had this simplistic view, that “Temperature” was simply a measure of the purely mechanical energy stored in atoms or molecules (materials), by reason of the various modes of atomic or molecular “vibrations/rotations/translations/whatever”, so that Temperature has no meaning whatsoever in the absence of physical materials, and in particular is not a property of electro-magnetic radiation, as described by James Clark Maxwell, and his famous equations.

    But every credible plot that shows the spectrum of incoming solar energy, outside earth’s atmosphere (air mass zero TSI of about 1362 W/m^2 (according to a recent NASA report), shows a nearly black body like curve corresponding (roughly) to about a 6,000 K black body Planck radiation curve.
    But at the earth surface under normal incidence (air mass one), the spectrum is very different, although still somewhat BB like. The shorter wavelength regions (blue-green) are considerably attenuated evidently as a result of first, absorption by Ozone (O3); and please note, when I use the term “blocked”, I do not mean to the point of total extinction; only some photons are blocked, and in their case, it most certainly is to the point of extinction; those are permanently removed from the incoming solar spectrum stream. And of course there is the very important primarily Raleigh scattering of the blue-green region of the spectrum, which results in the day sky being blue, rather than black with stars.
    This blue sky is itself instructive, because it converts a nearly collimated near point source of blue-green radiation (sunlight) into a nearly isotropic diffuse source of same spectrum radiation that fills the whole sky.
    Moreover, as anyone who has ever flown to Hawaii, in daylight can attest, the blue sky looks the same looking down, as it does looking up. When you look up in daylight, the black sky with stars, is completely washed out by the blue scattered light. Well actually you can observe the stars n broad daylight, if you can just point your telescope to the exact direction of the star; they then become quite visible.
    And when looking down, you do not see the black ocean (2% reflectance) or the wind blown white cap “stars”. Once again, if you can point your telescope downwards, and focus on one of those ocean stars, they too become quite visible.

    The whole point of this explanation, is that any isotropic source of radiant energy looks the same from any direction. Skiers and other snow bunnies know full well what a white out looks like.
    This is exactly why the isotropic thermal radiation (LWIR) from the atmosphere is a roughly 50-50 split of upwards, versus downwards. It matters not a jot, whereabouts in the altitude range some sample atmospheric layer is, the isotropic emissions from THAT layer split about 50-50, upwards versus downwards. There is nothing magic about that particular sample layer, when it comes to absorption and emission of EM radiations. The layer above, and the layer below, will do exactly the same thing; doesn’t matter whether we talk about a 100 metre thick layer of a 100 micron layer; its nearest neighbor layers, will absorb and emit pretty much the same.
    But, as I pointed out, the upper layer (100 microns) is both colder, and lower density, as compared to the adjacent lower layer (100 microns), so the molecular or atomic absorption spectral lines or bands will be narrower for the upper layer, than they are for the lower layer. A given radiated spectrum, will be less gutted by a narrower absorption band above, than a wider one below. This near 50-50 split applies to every single layer, of whatever thickness, but the escape path upwards, is slightly favored, over the downward path, where recapture is more likely.
    But the bottom line end result, is that about half of the total isotropic emissions from the atmosphere must escape to space, and about half will eventually reach the surface; with the caveat, that we are talking about radiation effects only. Other energy bled off as a result of thermal (heat) processes is a different isue.
    So when the dust settles, ANY solar energy, that is extracted from the incoming nearly collimated sunbeam, by H2O,O3, or CO2, and is subsequently re-incarnated in some form as atmospheric LWIR emission, will have half escape to space, and only half reach the ground; which in my system of mathematics is ALWAYS a net loss of solar energy to the earth.

    Water in any form anywhere in the atmosphere MUST always result, in a net loss of solar energy to planet earth; and you don’t need any modtran or teracomputer to see that. Clouds also, whatever they may do to LWIR radiation ALWAYS result in LESS solar energy reaching the surface, where it can be stored as part of earth’s energy budget. Nobody ever observed it to warm up in the shadow zone of a cloud. The Temperature always drops; it never increases; despite what LWIR from the surface may get returned from that cloud; ANY cloud, ANYWHERE.
    And for the legal disclaimer; the intrusion of some other warm AIR mass from some other region is a convection process, and unrelated to solar energy blockage.

  160. How would volcanic activity at various rates (e.g. small eruption, large eruption, increased activity, decreased activity) affect this forecast?

  161. Has David Archibald or anyone else for that matter got a link to the Hanover data used in the analysis.

  162. I predict that it will turn out that each branch of science focuses on their own speciality and we get either global warming or global cooling. The real world does not recognise these man made boundaries so we will end up with the random events like Icelandic volcanoes chucking up muck ruining our summers and quiet years when we get good ones but overall the same tiny insignificant rise that has happened for thousands of years.

  163. J says:
    July 15, 2011 at 3:25 am
    Maybe it got missed along the way, but … is anybody able to explain what looks like a major calculation error in Archibald’s forecast?

    I’ve only just read this post and I think Anthony (Watts) should consider asking David Archibald to clarify the issue. J is right. The ‘Ed Fix’ Solar Cycle length sequence for SC24-SC27 is 9, 8, 9, 9 years respectively. Based on David’s calculations that means temperatures will drop by 2.1 deg over SC24 but then rise by ~2.5 deg over SC25 and a further ~0.7 deg over SC26.

    I notice one or two other readers have noticed the same thing (Ulric for one). I admit I missed it initially but there’s obviously a problem when you look at it closely. It’s complete nonsense and, lefit as it is, it doesn’t do much for the reputation of WUWT

  164. Apropos sunspots…

    “15 Jul 11 – “NOAA is inflating their Sunspot count by counting specks,” says reader Al Morris. To get a more scientific count that compares to the old Wolf Sunspot number please review the Landscheidt website.”

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50

  165. The purported logarithmic relationship between the atmospheric abundance of CO2 and the global mean surface Temperature; which cannot be confirmed using the available credibly measured atmospheric CO2 abundance that has been going on at Mauna Loa, since the International Geophysical Year in 1957/58, is alleged to have its theoretical basis in Beer’s Law; or the Lambert-Beer Law as it is sometimes called; which is a law relating to chemical solutions of light absorbing atoms/moleculaes, in non-light absorbing base liquids.
    In essence the law says that the the fraction of an incident light beam that is absorbed in a fixed thickness of the solution, is proportional to the molar concentration of the absorbing species; it also says that each constant increment of thickness (optical path length) absorbs the same fraction of the beam incident on that tickness element.

    This leads to an absorption equation of the form:
    (a) = 1-exp (alpha. t), where alpha is the absorption coefficient, and (t) is the thickness of the optical path.

    Careful texts do point out that Beer’s Law is an approximation, and is valid only for small concentrations of the absorbing species.
    Some other things the reader is urged to note. Beer’s law relates only to the direct absorption, of the incident light (EM radiation).. In particular it does NOT say anything about the absorption of energy, or the transmission of EM energy. Only absorption of the incoming incident radiation is affected by Beer’s law, and the assumption is that some of that incident radiation is absorbed, and is NOT subsequently re-emitted as some other EM radiation at some other wavelength or frequency (wve number).
    Beer’s Law, does NOT have anything to say about the net EM energy transmission of any photo-luminescent material or atomic/molecular species. It assumes that the absorbed EM radiation that was input, does not result in any subsequent radiative transition, but that only phonon transactions take place, and the energy is dissipated as heat, and ultimately conducted (or convected) out of the solution. Given enough thickness of the absorbing material, the net energy transmission ultijmately approaches zero, in the usual exponential fashion.

    And there is where the problem arises in atmospheric absorption of EM radiation, either directly of solar spectrum radiations, as H2O, O3, and CO2 do to different extents, or as LWIR radiation absorbed from the earth’s surface; or simply from some other part of the atmosphere.
    At ordinary atmospheric Temperatures, the LWIR emissions from the various atmospheric layers, is quite similar in wavelength to that emitted from the surface; and moreover, the atmosphere is continuously absorbing, and re-emitting LWIR radiant energy at pretty much the same range of wavelengths.
    Beer’s law simply does not cover such processes. The energy can be largely transmitted, with relatively little loss, in a continuous cascade of emission and absorption. In particular, a specific absorption band such as the CO2 15 micron band, can hardly become “saturated”. More CO2 simply means a thinner layer of atmosphere, is needed to achieve a given percentage of absorption, and the cascade of emissions and absorptions, simply becomes longer.

    LWIR emitted energy from the surface, is not simply blocked by the first few cm or metres of atmosphere; it undergoes a continuous string of absorption and re-emissions, that ultimately propagates some of that surface energy to outer space, as does the energy emitted from any layer of the atmosphere. Beer’s Law does not describe such processes.; it applies only to the exponential absorption of the original incident radiation.
    It certainly doesn’t establish that the logarithm of the atmospheric abundance of CO2 or any other so-called GHG is linearly related to the global mean surface Temperature.

  166. Global Orbit Decay (Updated Version)
    By: Willie McDonald
    cdnld30@gmail.com

    The events below were discovered by scientific organizations such as NASA, not by me! These events were discovered in 20th century, and are occurring simultaneously, and is slowly worsening. Many of of these events have been occurring for less, than a millennium (LTM). I believe they are now beginning to affect the earth’s climate. I’m a climate change expert with 28 years of experience. Green house gases has nothing to do with global warming. Many scientists believe the sun plays a larger role in climate change, than first thought. Global warming can be reversed go to http://www.orbital-decay1.blogspot.com, but if its not reversed in time all life on this planet will perish. Below are the reasons I believe the earth’s orbit around the sun is destabilizing, and is responsible for global warming.

    1. The earth is moving away from the moon.
    A. http://www.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/Notes/section4/new17.html

    2. The earth’s rotation is slowing down. (LTM)
    A. http://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html.

    3. The earth is shifting on its axis. (LTM)
    A. http://divulgence.net/axis%20shift%202.html.

    4. The earth is wobbling on its axis
    A. http://www.world-weather.com/world-weather/our-wobbling-earth-wobbled-by-the-worlds-weather/

    5. The earth is developing a breach in its magnetic field. (LTM)
    A. http://www.science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/16dec_giantbreach

    6. Both polar ice caps are beginning to be melted by the sun, during each ice caps summer season, and the oceans are rising. (LTM)

    7. The sun is getting hotter, and brighter. It’s possible earth is moving closer to the sun. (LTM)
    A. http://www.rs2theory.org/node/106
    B. http://telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3325679/the-truth-about-global-warming-its-the-sun-thats-to-blame.html
    C. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/sun-brightness.html
    D. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

    8. Many scientists are how saying that the IPCC report, and the green house gas theory is false.
    A. http://www.jimball.com.au/features/IPCC-False_evidence.htm
    B. http://www.mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm
    C. http://www.petitionproject.org

    References: NASA, NOAA, USGS, The American Astronomical Society, etc.
    If the links don’t open when you click on them, please enter them by hand.

    People shade themselves from the sun, not from the greenhouse effect. You will never get sun burn, sun stroke, or skin cancer from the green house gas effect, beware of the sun.

  167. “”””” Taylor says:

    July 14, 2011 at 3:00 am

    david…thanks for the link to RealClimate…but i was hoping you had more than that! Their discussion goes back to Idso’s work…a long way back, and though that was empirical, it is not clear how it relates to the issue as it dealt with surface flux and temperature response.

    The modtrans data is tricky to interpret “””””

    I would hardly call Modtran “data”. It’s a computer model.

    But then I notice that even guys like Peter Humbug talk about Modtran simulations as if they are real data; he even claims that such simulations “confirm” the various hypotheses about what CO2 does or does not do. So laboratory experiments confirm the logarithmic relationship between atmospheric CO2 abundance, and global mean surface Temperature.

    I would like to personally observe such an experiment in progress; of course using a REAL source of 288 K black body like LWIR radiation, such as is (on average) emitted by the earth surface, and having it peak pectral radiance at about 10.1 microns, and a Planckian spectrum covering say 5.0 to about 80.0 microns, which would contain about 98% of the total energy contained in a full BB spectrum at that 288 K Temperature.

    If your source of LWIR EM emissions does not have an equivalent BB Temperature of around 288 K, then please don’t claim to be conducting a lab experiment to confirm CO2 “greenhouse” phenomena..

  168. Geoff Sharp says:
    July 13, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    I appreciate your concern but solar cycle length explains up to 90% of climate variation in some locations. It is just about all we need to know. Everything else is noise.

    F. Ross says:
    July 13, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    See comment re Geoff Sharp above – up to 90% of climate variation (paper in press). What we don’t know is the mechanism by which a longer solar cycle means less solar magnetic activity in the following solar cycle. Understanding the mechanism is something for the solar physicists to get on to.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    July 13, 2011 at 11:00 pm
    I have a paper in the same volume and the peer review was rigorous. Elsevier need to maintain their reputation well after this climate thing has blown over.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    July 13, 2011 at 11:40 pm

    Sorry Geoff, I have played with Ed’s model live. Its fine detail is a lot better than yours or anyone else. The need to reset is a feature, not a bug, and tells us something about the solar process.

    Peter Taylor says:
    July 14, 2011 at 3:00 am

    Real Climate couldn’t break my graph which was inspired by a line graph by Willis Eschenbach. It’s simple. CO2 is 10% of the 30 degrees of greenhouse effect. That is 3 degrees. Then apportion the 3 degrees by 20 ppm increment. If the first 20 ppm provides half the heating effect, then it gets 1.5 degrees and so on. Once you have figured out something that works, no need to overwork the problem.

    J says:
    July 14, 2011 at 4:52 am

    Sorry J, what was unsaid was that interpretation of Ed’s graph is subjective. My take is that we will have two long, weak cycles instead of the three short cycles as predicted by the graph. This is all to do with the reset required by Ed’s graph. What I am trying to say in this post is that we are not headed for a Maunder Minimum.

Comments are closed.