Guest post by Frank Lansner, civil engineer, biotechnology.
(Note from Anthony – English is not Frank’s primary language, I have made some small adjustments for readability, however they may be a few passages that need clarification. Frank will be happy to clarify in comments)
It is generally accepted that CO2 is lagging temperature in Antarctic graphs. To dig further into this subject therefore might seem a waste of time. But the reality is, that these graphs are still widely used as an argument for the global warming hypothesis. But can the CO2-hypothesis be supported in any way using the data of Antarctic ice cores?
At first glance, the CO2 lagging temperature would mean that it’s the temperature that controls CO2 and not vice versa.
Click for larger image Fig 1. Source: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm
But this is the climate debate, so massive rescue missions have been launched to save the CO2-hypothesis. So explanation for the unfortunate CO2 data is as follows:
First a solar or orbital change induces some minor warming/cooling and then CO2 raises/drops. After this, it’s the CO2 that drives the temperature up/down. Hansen has argued that: The big differences in temperature between ice ages and warm periods is not possible to explain without a CO2 driver.
Very unlike solar theory and all other theories, when it comes to CO2-theory one has to PROVE that it is wrong. So let’s do some digging. The 4-5 major temperature peaks seen on Fig 1. have common properties: First a big rapid temperature increase, and then an almost just as big, but a less rapid temperature fall. To avoid too much noise in data, I summed up all these major temperature peaks into one graph:
Fig 2. This graph of actual data from all major temperature peaks of the Antarctic vostokdata confirms the pattern we saw in fig 1, and now we have a very clear signal as random noise is reduced.
The well known Temperature-CO2 relation with temperature as a driver of CO2 is easily shown:
Fig 3.
Below is a graph where I aim to illustrate CO2 as the driver of temperature:
Fig 4. Except for the well known fact that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, the supposed CO2-driven raise of temperatures works ok before temperature reaches max peak. No, the real problems for the CO2-rescue hypothesis appears when temperature drops again. During almost the entire temperature fall, CO2 only drops slightly. In fact, CO2 stays in the area of maximum CO2 warming effect. So we have temperatures falling all the way down even though CO2 concentrations in these concentrations where supposed to be a very strong upwards driver of temperature.
I write “the area of maximum CO2 warming effect “…
The whole point with CO2 as the important main temperature driver was, that already at small levels of CO2 rise, this should efficiently force temperatures up, see for example around -6 thousand years before present. Already at 215-230 ppm, the CO2 should cause the warming. If no such CO2 effect already at 215-230 ppm, the CO2 cannot be considered the cause of these temperature rises.
So when CO2 concentration is in the area of 250-280 ppm, this should certainly be considered “the area of maximum CO2 warming effect”.
The problems can also be illustrated by comparing situations of equal CO2 concentrations:
Fig 5.
So, for the exact same levels of CO2, it seems we have very different level and trend of temperatures:
Fig 6.
How come a CO2 level of 253 ppm in the B-situation does not lead to rise in temperatures? Even from very low levels? When 253 ppm in the A situation manages to raise temperatures very fast even from a much higher level?
One thing is for sure:
“Other factors than CO2 easily overrules any forcing from CO2. Only this way can the B-situations with high CO2 lead to falling temperatures.”
This is essential, because, the whole idea of placing CO2 in a central role for driving temperatures was: “We cannot explain the big changes in temperature with anything else than CO2”.
But simple fact is: “No matter what rules temperature, CO2 is easily overruled by other effects, and this CO2-argument falls”. So we are left with graphs showing that CO2 follows temperatures, and no arguments that CO2 even so could be the main driver of temperatures.
– Another thing: When examining the graph fig 1, I have not found a single situation where a significant raise of CO2 is accompanied by significant temperature rise- WHEN NOT PRECEDED BY TEMPERATURE RISE. If the CO2 had any effect, I should certainly also work without a preceding temperature rise?! (To check out the graph on fig 1. it is very helpful to magnify)
Does this prove that CO2 does not have any temperature effect at all?
No. For some reason the temperature falls are not as fast as the temperature rises. So although CO2 certainly does not dominate temperature trends then: Could it be that the higher CO2 concentrations actually is lowering the pace of the temperature falls?
This is of course rather hypothetical as many factors have not been considered.
Fig 7.
Well, if CO2 should be reason to such “temperature-fall-slowing-effect”, how big could this effect be? The temperatures falls 1 K / 1000 years slower than they rise.
However, this CO2 explanation of slow falling temperature seems is not supported by the differences in cooling periods, see fig 8.
When CO2 does not cause these big temperature changes, then what is then the reason for the big temperature changes seen in Vostok data? Or: “What is the mechanism behind ice ages???”
This is a question many alarmists asks, and if you can’t answer, then CO2 is the main temperature driver. End of discussion. There are obviously many factors not yet known, so I will just illustrate one hypothetical solution to the mechanism of ice ages among many:
First of all: When a few decades of low sunspot number is accompanied by Dalton minimum and 50 years of missing sunspots is accompanied by the Maunder minimum, what can for example thousands of years of missing sunspots accomplish? We don’t know.
What we saw in the Maunder minimum is NOT all that missing solar activity can achieve, even though some might think so. In a few decades of solar cooling, only the upper layers of the oceans will be affected. But if the cooling goes on for thousands of years, then the whole oceans will become colder and colder. It takes around 1000-1500 years to “mix” and cool the oceans. So for each 1000-1500 years the cooling will take place from a generally colder ocean. Therefore, what we saw in a few decades of maunder minimum is in no way representing the possible extend of ten thousands of years of solar low activity.
It seems that a longer warming period of the earth would result in a slower cooling period afterward due to accumulated heat in ocean and more:
Fig 8.
Again, this fits very well with Vostok data: Longer periods of warmth seems to be accompanied by longer time needed for cooling of earth. The differences in cooling periods does not support that it is CO2 that slows cooling phases. The dive after 230.000 ybp peak shows, that cooling CAN be rapid, and the overall picture is that the cooling rates are governed by the accumulated heat in oceans and more.
Note: In this writing I have used Vostok data as valid data. I believe that Vostok data can be used for qualitative studies of CO2 rising and falling. However, the levels and variability of CO2 in the Vostok data I find to be faulty as explained here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/17/the-co2-temperature-link/
Sponsored IT training links:
Pass PMI-001 exam fast using self study 70-290 guide and 350-029 tutorial.
William (14:51:48) :
There’s pretty good evidence that many of the mass extinctions were associated with tectonic events, the consequences of which were considerably raised global temperatures from greenhouse gas emission (CO2 but also methane) as well as ocean anoxia. The early Jurrasic extinction is associated with very long lived greenhouse gas enduced warming (200,000 years worth); e.g.:
Svensen H et al (2007) Hydrothermal venting of greenhouse gases triggering Early Jurassic global warming Earth Planetary Sci Lett 256 554-566.
The end Permian mass extinction is asociated with raised temperatures from greenhouse gas emissions probably from the massive Serbian Traps tectonics; e.g.:
Fraiser ML et al. (2007) Elevated atmospheric CO2 and the delayed biotic recovery from the end-Permian mass extinction. Palaeogeog. Palaeoclim. Paleoecol. 252, 164-175
The extinction associated with the Paleo-Eocene-Thermal Maximum (PETM)55 MYA is probably the best characterised example of massive tectonic processes (the opening up of the N. Atlantic as the plates seperated) associated with enhanced atmospheric greenhouse gases CO2 (and/or methane), ocean acidification etc.; e.g.:
M. Storey et al. (2007)Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum and the Opening of the Northeast Atlantic Science 316, 587 – 589
The end-Cretaceous extinction (demise of the dinosaurs!) is somewhat contentious. The overall event is associated with greatly raised temperatures from greenhouse gas emssions.. The timing/ultimate causes haven’t been quite sorted I think. A significant part of the warming and extinctions are dated to periods of several 100,000’s years after the Chicxulub (Yucatan peninsula) impact, and are temporally associated with the massive tectonic events that gave rise to the Deccan Traps in now India. There is evidence of an impact (associated with the K/T boundary) that blasted into limestone-rich depositis vapourising the carbonate back into CO and was responsible for much of the raised CO2 and warming; e.g.:
Beerling DJ et al. (2002) An atmospheric pCO(2) reconstruction across the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary from leaf megafossils Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99 (12): 7836-7840
“This finding reinforces previous evidence for major climatic warming after the KTB impact and implies that severe and abrupt global warming during the earliest Paleocene was an important factor in biotic extinction at the KTB.”
Keller G (2005) Impacts, volcanism and mass extinction: random coincidence or cause and effect? Austral. J. Earth Sci 52 725-757.
.”Faunal and geochemical evidence from the end-Permian, end-Devonian, end-Cretaceous and Triassic/Jurassic transition suggests that the biotic stress was due to a lethal combination of tectonically induced hydrothermal and volcanic processes, leading to eutrophication in the oceans, global warming, sea-level transgression and ocean anoxia”
recent reviews on the subject support massive tectonic events (and associated greenhouse-induced warming, ocean anoxia and other consequences in extinctions:
Wignall P (2005) The link between large igneous province eruptions and mass extinctions Elements 1, 293-297
R. J. Twitchett (2006) The palaeoclimatology, palaeoecology and palaeoenvironmental analysis of mass extinction events
Palaeogeog., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol. 232, 190-213
And so on…
Leif Svalgaard said ” I don’t think there will be a significant up ramp. There will be a gentle climb [with the usual wiggles superposed] to R ~ 75 in several years time ”
I am curious what you would predict for the sun cycle 25?
Lief: I AM observing that Livingston is right. Those spots that do appear these days are the devil to see on projection. If you have good weather where you are in the North Bay, by all means, check it out for yourself next spot.
You are still welcome to come visit this skeptic, and we’ll chase down a spot while supplies last. I am of the mind that in the coming years, we may not have such opportunity.
Probably setting myself up to get shot down here.
Is there any evidence to support the hypothesis that radiative dissipation is a major cause of surface heat loss?
It’s obvious that ultimately the loss to space must be that but the transfer to a point where radiation takes over is surely convective.
DaveE.
“Taking others work and reinterpreting it no *doing* science.”
When Mann does it and creates a hokey stick, it’s apparently deemed outstanding science….
Robert (22:14:16) :
Sorry to taks so long getting back to you on this, been busy doing other things. For a link to some experimental data which is actually an examination of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi’s paper try Dr. Noor van Andel here. http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?do=show&id=introduction.
Unfortunately I have collected a rather extensive library on this subject over the past 10+ years and I am not the best organizer in the world so it takes a little time.
Dav in actual fact at -60 deg C the water saturation pressure is equal to 34 ppm at +25 deg C it is around 30 000 ppm when compared to 1 atmos. of air. Since water vapour is about 5 times as effective as CO2 when it comes to greenhouse gas effect and the physical mechanism is identical i.e. same laws of physics apply how come we do not see a runaway effect with water and why does the logrithmic law that IPCC says applies to CO2 does not apply to water.
Jon read the paper by Dr. John Nicol it is the best fundamental physics paper there is. You can find it in ICECAP library.
I noticed earlier on someone asked why CO2 did not settle out at the surface because it is heavier, this may have been answered but gasses are not like liquids which will do this, each gas exists as if it were completely on its own that is the law of partial pressures so the distribution of CO2 is completely independant of any other gas which may be around it.
Mary Hinge (12:31:01) :
Your article above is based on the tenous link between sunspot numbers and temperature.
Frank wrote:
But this is the climate debate, so massive rescue missions have been launched to save the CO2-hypothesis. So explanation for the unfortunate CO2 data is as follows:
First a solar or orbital change induces some minor warming/cooling and then CO2 raises/drops. After this, it’s the CO2 that drives the temperature up/down. Hansen has argued that: The big differences in temperature between ice ages and warm periods is not possible to explain without a CO2 driver.
Read that again. Frank is stating that orbital changes are used by AGW proponents to reconcile the lag in CO2 concentration. Frank gave no hypothesis explaining what starts temperature increases.
Where did Frank mention sunspots?
Time and time again there has been shown to be no link yet you persist in repeating this nonsense. Also you delight in misquoting (dodgy memory again?). For instance “Hansen has argued that: The big differences in temperature between ice ages and warm periods is not possible to explain without a CO2 driver.” becomes only a couple of paragraphs later “This is essential, because, the whole idea of placing CO2 in a central role for driving temperatures was: “We cannot explain the big changes in temperature with anything else than CO2″.
This gives a totally distorted view.
Insert the word ” Antarctic” in front of temperature in the second quote and move on.
Thankfully we have peer review
Unfortunately, experience has convincingly shown me that some of the brightest individuals migrate toward high-paying (relative to government) jobs where peer review isn’t an option. I would hope that you will argue the science here and not semantics, (with people here who know better than I) and not the method of publication. I’m weary of you beating that horse.
Jim Steele (13:01:12) :
“Only I would re-word it to ask you and Hansen “why do you think only 3 decades of recent rising temperatures can be explained by CO2 only.” ONce again you can’t have it both ways, as much as you try.”
Now we’re getting somewhere. I think you’ll agree that attributing causes to the past few decades is much easier than doing so for a few thousand-year interval that occurred at least 100,000 years ago. For example, satellite radiometers and cosmic particle capture experiments demonstrate that TSI and cosmic ray flux show no overall trend over the past few decades, eliminating solar variability and cosmic ray cloud seeding as possible forcings. Atmospheric [CO2] is easily measured through direct air sampling and is attributable to fossil fuel burning through isotope studies. The amount of increase is consistent with observed warming of the troposphere and simultaneous cooling of the stratosphere. Satellite readings also demonstrate a dimming of IR coming from the earth in the expected GHG spectral bands over the past 20-30 years. The excess CO2 put into the atmosphere (as calculated from fossil fuel use) is predicted to be absorbed by the ocean, a prediction consistent with direct measurements of increasing pCO2 and acidity of the oceans. Very little of this direct information is available for the MIS Stage 5d-like events.
“recent reviews on the subject support massive tectonic events (and associated greenhouse-induced warming, ocean anoxia and other consequences in extinctions:
Wignall P (2005) The link between large igneous province eruptions and mass extinctions Elements 1, 293-297”
What a load of cobblers!
A large rent opens in the Earth’s crust. There are vast amounts of super-heated gases poured into the atmosphere. 10,000s of square miles of ground are volcanically heated 24/7 to way above any solar daytime figure. This will set off a hyper-hurricane that will dominate the Earth’s weather/climate for the time.
With the Earth surrounded by dust and aerosols and more water in the atmosphere than we can guess at, it seems rather unlikely that reabsorbed long infra-red radiation would even be detectable.
Science is going to have lot of trouble removing the fools who are prepared to lie for a grant. It is going to have even more trouble regaining its credibility. Still, every scientist who published or posted to the ‘net in support of the CO2 delusion is on record and their future work can be accorded the respect it deserves.
EM Smith, (and the others who have discussed the role of the biosphere in modulating CO2 levels)
First thanks to everyone for the fascinating discussion and to Frank for his excellent paper, and of course to Anthony for this wonderful site.
When I read people’s arguments about the effect of the biosphere on CO2, they tend to focus mainly on plants, but we animals play a role too.
I like to think of atmospheric CO2 levels as partly the result of a race between the flora and the fauna.
The flora is busily trying to turn all the CO2 in their environment, together with water and various nutrients, into the complex carbohydrates that make up the plant, by using the sun’s energy to do the trick. The fauna are busily trying to turn those carbohydrates, directly or indirectly, into CO2 and energy to go hunting for more carbohydrates.
It’s worth remembering that most fauna are exothermic and even us endotherms require some heat to survive, so at lower temperatures there will be fewer, less active fauna. It is also worth remembering that most of this race takes place at the microscopic level.
Quite how this impacts CO2 levels, I’m not sure but I feel the need to point out that there are two sides to the biospheric effects on CO2.
Dave E. I sincerely hope that no one would shoot someone down for asking an honest question. We may get a little sharp when someone makes nonsensical comments but that is totally different.
The short answer to your question is NO there is no difinitve proof of how much heat is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere individually by convection, conduction, radiation, evaporation and sublimation. Heat is also lost directly to space through the clear sky by the radiation which is not captured by the greenhouse gasses. A very large numer of scientists have been grappling with this question for a long time and everyone must make a lot of assumptions and approximations. For example the cloud cover has varied from 63% to 69% over a period of 15 years.
An honest NASA scientist made the following observation on a NASA web site relating to clouds.
Such variations are referred to as “natural” variability, that is the climate varies naturally for reasons that are not fully understood. The problem for understanding climate changes that might be produced by human activities is that the predicted changes are similar in magnitude to those shown here. The difference between natural and human-induced climate change will only appear clearly in much longer ( >= 50 years) data records.
I fully expect with the change in political hierarchy in the U.S. in 2009 such comments by serious, honest and unbiased scientists will be censored out of NASA and NOAA web sites.
This is only one of the many complexities of the climate system which can not be input accurately into computer models.
The other side of the coin is how much heat is absorbed by the surface, again this calculation relies extensively on averages and assumptions since there are a large number of factors in this equation too.
Anybody know how to attach graphs through this interface?
Frank Lasner: By the way, since your analysis relies strongly on the details of the temperature drop into the glacial periods, you should probably have a look at this paper that argued that there are some artifacts in the deuterium data that need to be considered when making these sorts of details comparisons: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6846/full/412523a0.html
Woe, hold on here a moment. I hadn’t thought about it like this before. It just occurred to me that if this were true, would we not see in the graphs above, the rise of CO2 beginning, temperature rising in conjunction, then as CO2 rises more, shouldn’t the temperature begin to rise quicker and quicker? Wouldn’t this show an upward “curve” in the graphs? This is a multiplicative effect and should produce a graph with upward trending “curves” that would correlate to CO2 levels as they rise. Would it not?
I don’t believe I have ever seen a graph of CO2/Temperature correlations (outside of Gore’s Sci-Fi movie) that show this happening, either historically or currently. Does this fact not invalidate the “feedback heating” hypothesis?
barry moore (14:20:22) :
It’s not a law, it’s an approximation! It also breaks down at low concentrations (where the CO2 window isn’t saturated) and at high concentrations (where I guess even the borders have nothing to offer.
The CO2 window, see http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Atmospheric_Transmission_png or click my name above, is saturated in the middle, but not quite saturated at the borders. Increasing CO2 will push a bit and steepen the borders, and that’s where the extra absorbtion comes from.
The logarithmic relationship is just curve fitting and an approximation so that CO2’s effects can be readily handled by mathematics and casual conversation. I think it’s important to remember its just an approximation, but I fear most people have forgotten that or never learned that.
Water has several wavelengths that are not saturated, and is probably pretty tough to model (especially with varying concentrations and even more so with its penchant to turn into clouds).
ET (15:34:03) :
Anybody know how to attach graphs through this interface?
You can’t.
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/resources/#comment-65319 for how to use some
of the things you can use.
To Allan M R MacRae and Frank Lansner, and others:
You might be interested in this chart which shows the annual change in CO2 (moved back 5 months) versus temperature change back to 1958. (This is based on the same chart Frank posted on icecap and I guess Allan produced above).
I haven’t quite decided if the CO2 growth rate lags temperature by 5 months or whether the chart really shows 7 months. It is the change from 12 months previous (the annual CO2 growth rate) moved back 5 months. I guess it really is 7 months.
But the effect is striking – similar to what you both have posted but with the line chart (using thinnest lines of Excel rather than the usual climate chart which uses big thick lines that hide almost all the variation) it is very clear there is a direct correlation between CO2 growth and temperature.
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/879/co2lagkz2.png
Advice to everyone – use the thinnest lines you can when you are charting climate data since there is a lot more variation going on in the climate than we normally see in charts and it is hidden when you use the big thick lines that the IPCC and GISS like to use. The same goes for smoothing data or using annual or five-year averages.
Ric, In a previous post I think I mentioned that CO2 becomes saturated at 50 ppm and the same thing happens to water. It was a rhetorical question and I was being sarcastic sorry you missed that.
I have never been able to attach graphs to any blogs it sure would be useful I also notice all the special fonts get wiped out too.
http://www.gpsl.net/data/hadcrut_pdo_beck_el_al.png
I’ll leave interpretation to the reader.
Thanks to TonyB for the Beck datapoints, other data from the usual sources and processed from best available resolution, then decimated. Might be a few latest datapoints missing, with no material effect at that wide timeline.
Signal processing is experiemental, in development.
Rob (09:42:09) :
You sound like you might be a climate scientist, in which case things might be different where you are, but for the rest of science it goes something like this. Formulate your theory in a form that it can in principle be shown to be false. Make predictions that can be compared with observations. Make the observations. If the observations are reliable and disagree with the predictions, the theory is false.
The theory being examined by Frank is: CO2 causes temperatures to increase. There are two obvious predictions. 1. An increase in CO2 comes before an increase in temperature; 2. Higher CO2 levels lead to higher temperatures. Prediction 1 doesn’t agree with the observation that increases in temperature happen before increases in CO2 (the observations seems to be accepted by most climate scientists leading some to revise the theory by including a positive feedback loop involving water vapor). The new (to me) observation by Frank is that you can identify a CO2 level in the early phase of the cycle which is associated with warming (before the peak) but also CO2 levels higher than that which are associated with cooling (after the peak). According to Prediction 2 the temperature should be increasing at the higher CO2 level. Accepting the observation, the theory is shown to be false (and so is the revised theory involving an extra feedback loop).
You comment that other factors are involved. Yes, of course, but the theory that CO2 causes temperatures to increase (which is the basis of policies on carbon taxes) is not correct. The alternate theory that maybe you prefer (that CO2 could have a minor impact on temperatures but it is overwhelmed by other factors) is quite consistent with Frank’s observations (but a poor basis for a carbon tax).
foinavon (13:30:05) :
First of all, without extinctions we would not be here. Extinction of species is a common companion of evolution. A fossil record documents some 2 • 10 ^5 such extinctions. Only about 5% of all animal and plant species, ever originated on the Earth, are alive today.
Eg D. M. Raup and J. J. Sepkoski, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 81, 801
(1984).
J. J. Sepkoski, J. Geol. Soc. London 146, 7 (1989)
1) Why are they periodic and not always random.
Eg
A) Freeman Dyson “Infinite in all directions” page 27-30
B) J. G. Hills, Nature 311, 636 (1984).
C) P. Hut, Nature 311, 638 (1984).
2) Why do persistent errors arise in Paleoclimate studies and indeed test from affixing arbitrary stationary temporal points in orbital forcing ? Such as the albedo limit at 65n in the “fixed summer solsice” eg Crowley and North, 1991
This is clearly not the case eg
Temporal drift
Budyko, M.I., 1977. Izmeneniye klimata Climatic change.. Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad, 280 pp.
Sloan and Morrill described “persistent discrepancies” between climate model results and interpretations from proxy data in the Eocene.
‘Essential for development and testing of new models of Pangean climate requires proxy data with appropriate spatial and temporal scales. Sloan and Morrill (1998) pointed out the continuing discrepancy between global climate models (with higher pCO2) and geological and paleontological climate proxy data from times of “extreme climate”, such as the Late Triassic and Early Jurassic. They show that orbital forcing of climate can play a critical role in continental climate with extreme values of orbital parameters reducing the interior annual temperature range by 75%, resulting in cooler summers and warmer winters. As shown by Sloan and Morrill (1998), these orbital variations must be taken into account in comparing paleoclimate models to climate proxy records. While the latter comparison requires the specification of one orbital state, the geological proxies span many orbital cycles as well as the full range of orbital forcing. Indeed, it is quite reasonable to expect model-proxy comparisons to be valid only over intervals of time representing one orbital state or minimally the climate proxies should be drawn from homologous portions of several cycles (e.g., times of high insolation). Hence, paleoclimate proxy data from the geological record must be placed in a temporal framework appropriate for Milankovitch-scale modeling. While much remains to be done with outcrops, the workshop panels concluded that very long sections, such as those available through coring provided the best means of obtaining the needed high-resolution data for the next generation of models and model-data comparisons.”
Sloan, L.C., Morrill, C., 1998, Orbital forcing and Eocene continental temperatures: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v144, p. 21–35.
barry moore (15:29:11) :
Thank you sir.
I have never found a definitive answer either, however. I do have another question regarding the relative merits of greenhouse gasses versus natural warming.
If greenhouse gasses & radiative forcings were so important, why are greenhouses which allow greater IR transmission so effective?
I view a sceptic, so the question is not directly to you.
DaveE.
Anthony,
Re: Broken Links?
The links to the complete pages of the posts about Hansen’s former
supervisor, and Mr.Theon’s debunking of the statistcs don’t work.
I get an error:404 page cannot be found message, regardless of where
on site I try to link to them. Interestingly, all the other pages will open
up. Being of suspicious mind, one wonders if you have picked up a
hacker, who is blocking those links, as they are dynamite to the AGW
crew.
Joel Shore (07:41:32) :
nobwainer says:
The 100,000 yr Milankovitch cycle delivers an estimated 25% reduction in TSI at its most elliptical point in the orbit cycle. And I cant help but remind everyone, this is another cycle brought to you by our friendly Jovian planets.
25%, really?!? I don’t suppose you have some sort of reference for that estimate?
Estimates vary, but a simple look up on Wiki would give you:
Currently the difference between closest approach to the Sun (perihelion) and furthest distance (aphelion) is only 3.4% (5.1 million km). This difference is equivalent to about a 6.8% change in incoming solar radiation. Perihelion presently occurs around January 3, while aphelion is around July 4. When the orbit is at its most elliptical, the amount of solar radiation at perihelion is about 23% greater than at aphelion. This difference is roughly 4 times the value of the eccentricity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Rob (15:15:09) :
“For example, satellite radiometers and cosmic particle capture experiments demonstrate that TSI and cosmic ray flux show no overall trend over the past few decades, eliminating solar variability and cosmic ray cloud seeding as possible forcings.”
That is incorrect.Long term balloon studies do show a trend.In the stratosphere eg Bazilevskaya and Svirzhevskaya, 1998 On the stratospheric measurements of cosmic rays, Space Sci. Rev., 85, 31-521. Stozhkov et al., 2000; Ahluwalia, 2000
Over a 30-year period the solar minimum value of the stratospheric flux decreases by ~2.5%
A long-term decline has also been reported in the >95 MeV proton rate measured aboard the IMP 7 and IMP 8 satellites [Ahluwalia and Lopate, 2001].