Australian Antarctic Division: Can solar variability influence climate?

I think I understand most of this, except for the effects of changes in resistance in the upper atmosphere.
So the idea is that less solar wind -> more cosmic rays -> more upper atmosphere ionization -> less resistance to dissipate electrical charge in upper atmosphere -> ?fewer/less severe thunderstorms?

A hundred years from now, people will marvel at how little we knew about climate and weather in 2009.
The fact that we would seriously consider imploding our economy over how much plant food is in the atmosphere when there are hundreds of Super Fund toxic dumps in the United States alone, slowly but steadily leaching toxic chemicals into the food chain and our bodies, is astonishing.

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

Well, according to Mann “In regard to the science of climate change, as Clive Hamilton has put it, the only decision citizens have to make is not what to believe but who. ”
So it really is more about personalities than facts, I suppose.

As for upper atmosphere electrical dynamics controlling thunderstorms…eh…maaaaaaby. Remember, lightning and the static electrical build-up in the storms is mainly driven by the turbulent mixing of the ice particles in the storm which is a result of the windflow within the storm. I would think that would have such an over-powering effect on the lighting dynamics as opposed to the electrical characteristics of the area ‘above’ the storm. However – the upper atmosphere *may* have a bigger effect on the types of lightning which go up out of the storms (red sprites, blue jets, etc. – google it) as opposed to the *normal* lighting which is focused down toward the ground.
Just my $ .02
Jeff

Jim Steele (07:40:24)
Interesting, what you described is exactly the conclusion that I had reached a few weeks ago. I’m in the process of doing some research to see if what you describe is true, but it seems sensible to me

This variance and its affects may be true, but it is probably buried in the MUCH stronger oceanic affects on land temperatures. I am convinced that people have old, buried, instinctive notions about the Sun. Yes, it heats the planet everywhere it shines. But the planet cools itself everywhere the Sun doesn’t shine. That explains daytime and nighttime temps. The Sun is the constant. The Earth’s natural processes (those in the water, in the air, in and on the land, and in the upper atmosphere) are the sources of variation. Daily, monthly, seasonally, decadally, and beyond. Yes, there are solar affects but these don’t tell us whether or not to start storing food, or the reverse, to plant long season, Sun-loving crops.
This same “Earth is the variance, Sun is the constant”, relationship can be found in all instances of talk that it is the Sun that causes the variation that we see, feel, and can measure in trends. The mechanisms are there and easily understood as well as modeled regarding the natural processes of the Earth. The Sun, not so much. The notion is there, the mechanism is not. The far less romantic notion of the Earth being the source of temperature variations just doesn’t tickle us and our deeply held instincts about the Sun. In a way, our notions about the Sun are still tied to Stonehenge.

To my previous point. If you plot Global Angular Momentum data ( found here http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/climateindices/ ) since late 1950’s there is a slight increasing trend up until the timing of the strong El Nino (and solar max) around 1998.
Like global temperature (and solar activity), the Global Angular Momentum has then shown a flattening or decreasing trend since 1998. Global Angular Momentum is correlated with Global Temperature (and solar) – why?

I suppose if this is true we should see a correlation in thunderstorm total electrical energy vs solar activity (or vs the current measured by this device… I wonder how much history there is.
I don’t see how changing electrical conductivity in the atmosphere would regulate thunderstorm intensity, the intensity intuitively should be a result of temperature differential / moisture, convection, etc. Whether more lightning is developed or not would seem to be unrelated to the convective inputs, though could be related to ionization levels. We have super low conductivity spread over a vast volume… I would think it’s pretty easy to strike a balance there given the sheer volume of the medium.

Jim Steele (07:40:24) :
“However the magnetic field was continuing to grow throughout the 1900’s. ”
To the best of my knowledge, the Earth’s magnetic field is weakening, and rapidly so.
“The magnetic field is unusually intense in the south Atlantic and planes avoid flying over that area for fear of damage to their electronics.”
Again, untrue. The field is unusually WEAK there, allowing Van Allen radiation to be much stronger. Planes avoid the area to avoid exposing passengers, crew and electronics to radiation. Attempts are made for satellites in orbit to avoid this region as well.
The combination of the South Atlantic Anomaly combined with the rapid weakening of Earth’s magnetic field has led many to speculate that a pole reversal is underway.

Edward (08:15:31) :
A bit off topic, but here’s a recent study that shows:
“They found that the glaciers around Mount Cook, New Zealand’s highest peak, reached their largest extent in the past 7,000 years about 6,500 years ago, when the Swiss Alps and Scandinavia were relatively warm. That’s about 6,000 years before northern glaciers hit their Holocene peak during the Little Ice Age, between 1300 and 1860 AD.
That finding was a surprise to some scientists who assumed that the northern cold phase happened globally. The record in New Zealand shows other disparities that point to regional climate variations in both hemispheres, including glacial peaks during classic northern warm intervals such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Age Optimum.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090430144535.htm
Glaciers advanced for the 500 years during the Little Ice age and now that they have been retreating the last 150 years it’s because of CO2 and not some natural cycle.
Thanks
Edward”
Edward,
If the “high” CO2 levels cause glasciers to melt, tell me why major glaciers all over the world, from Europe to Alaska, from New Zealand to South America are now expanding?
Please check the facts before you make statements that bear no proof.
Time will learn that CO2 has NO measurable effect on earth temperatures.

“”” Pamela Gray (08:45:34) :
This variance and its affects may be true, but it is probably buried in the MUCH stronger oceanic affects on land temperatures. I am convinced that people have old, buried, instinctive notions about the Sun. Yes, it heats the planet everywhere it shines. But the planet cools itself everywhere the Sun doesn’t shine. That explains daytime and nighttime temps. The Sun is the constant. The Earth’s natural processes (those in the water, in the air, in and on the land, and in the upper atmosphere) are the sources of variation. Daily, monthly, seasonally, decadally, and beyond. Yes, there are solar affects but these don’t tell us whether or not to start storing food, or the reverse, to plant long season, Sun-loving crops. “””
Slow down there lady; “But the planet cools itself everywhere the Sun doesn’t shine. ”
Not quite so; the planet cools itself everywhere. And it cools itself best where the sun DOES shine. Specifically the hottest midday deserts that reach +60 C surface temperatures or more, are the reall planetary coolers, with a radiant emittance that is about doube what it is at the global mean temperature of about 15 C.
The polar regions in contrast are total pikers when it comes to cooling the planet; with some parts having a radiant emittance that is 6 times lower than the global mean and 12 times less than the hottest regions.
Same goes for UHIs, they are among the better coolers around developed areas, and when the sun goes down, their temperatures really crash because of their higher spectral emissivity.
Your car’s radiator cools better when it is running hotter; because that is when it transports energy to the atmosphere most efficiently.
George

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

Headline in Daily Telegraph the newspaper not on line?
“Dust off the Barbecue its going to be a sizzling summer.” Article by Richard Alleyne.
Last Paragraph same article
But the Met Office forecasts have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Last April it predicted a return to a “typical British summer” with the risk of exceptional rainfall on the same scale as the summer before “a very low probability”
It turned out to be the seventh wettest summer on record.
May Day May Day

Though I have no training in this area, I’d like to ask, is this a reasonable mechanism for cooling the earth?
As sunspots decrease, cosmic rays hitting earth increase, and this increases cloud formation and rainfall.
Both cloud formation and rainfall involve condensation of water vapor in the atmosphere. The water vapor, in order to condense, must release heat into the atmosphere. The higher up the condensation, the closer the heat is to where it can be radiated out into space. As a result, the earth, by losing this heat, cools to some extent.
Each additional cloud formation and rainfall event occurs locally, but all the local action adds up to a global phenomenon – a global cooling.
The net effect is limited by the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere before the sunspots decreased. But, could this represent a significant cooling effect?

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

Jim Steele (07:40:24) :

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

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

“By the way, many years ago Prof.Giorgio Piccardi observed a certain relation between sunspots and chemical reactions kinetics.”
It has also been observed that distance from the Sun seems to have an effect on radioactive decay. It seems the further the distance from the Sun, the less the radioactive decay rate.

Leif Svalgaard (11:43:41) :
Ron de Haan (11:02:18) :
Time will learn that CO2 has NO measurable effect on earth temperatures.
You are not helping the cause by such a categorical statement. CO2 DOES have an effect, it is just so small that it probably drowns in the natural variability to the point where we cannot confidently say “this blip is due to CO2″.
To claim that it has NO effect is nonsense.”
Leif,
If you quote me, please make a correct quote, I stated NO measurable effect.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
By Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Full paper, 114 pages, 1.54MB at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
This approved non-technical summary by Hans Schreuder, 24 June 2008
“The authors express their hope that in schools around the world the fundamentals of physics will
be taught correctly, not by using shock-tactic ‘Al Gore’ movies and not misinforming physics
students by confusing absorption/emission with reflection, by confusing the tropopause with the
ionosphere and by confusing microwaves with shortwaves.”
Abstract
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea the authors trace back to the traditional works of
Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896, but which is still supported in global climatology,
essentially describes a fictitious mechanism by which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump
driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the
atmospheric system.
According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in widespread secondary literature it is
taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this
paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles clarified.
By showing that
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and
the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,
(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 °C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,
(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero,
the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Introduction
Recently, there have been lots of discussions regarding the economic and political implications of
climate variability, in particular global warming as a measurable effect of an anthropogenic, i.e.
human-made, climate change. Many authors assume that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel
consumption represent a serious danger to the health of our planet, since they are supposed to
influence climate, in particular the average temperatures of the surface and lower atmosphere of
the Earth. However, carbon dioxide is a rare trace gas, a very small part of the atmosphere found
in concentrations less than 0.04 volume percent.
Among climatologists, in particular those affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate
Change (IPCC), there is a “scientific consensus” that the relevant climate mechanism is an
atmospheric greenhouse effect, a mechanism heavily reliant on the presumption that radiative heat
transfer dominates over other forms of heat transfer such as thermal conductivity, convection,
condensation, et cetera. Supposedly to make things more precise, the IPCC introduced the notion
of radiative forcing, tied to an assumption of radiative equilibrium.
However, as countless examples in history have shown, “scientific consensus” bears no
resemblance whatsoever to scientific validity. “Consensus” is a political term, not a scientific one.
From the viewpoint of theoretical physics, a radiative approach to the atmosphere — using physical
laws such as Planck’s and Stefan-Boltzmann’s, which only have a limited range of validity —
definitely fails to intersect with atmospheric dynamics and must be questioned deeply.
In other words, applying cavity radiation formulas to the atmosphere is sheer nonsense.
Global climatologists claim that the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect keeps it 33°C warmer than it
would be without trace gases in the atmosphere. 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water
vapor and 20 percent to the 0.0385 volume percent of CO2. If CO2 exhibited such an extreme
effect, however, this would show up as a thermal conductivity anomaly even in an elementary
laboratory experiment. Carbon dioxide would manifest itself as a new kind of ‘super-insulation,’
wildly violating the conventional heat-conductivity equation.
Such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed in CO2, of course.
The influence of CO2 on climate was discussed thoroughly in a number of publications that
appeared between 1909 and 1980, mainly in Germany. The most influential authors were Möller,
who also wrote a textbook on meteorology, and Manabe. It seems that the combined work of Möller
and Manabe has had a significant influence on the formulation of modern atmospheric CO2
greenhouse conjectures. In a very comprehensive report from the US Department of Energy (DOE),
which appeared in 1985, the atmospheric greenhouse hypothesis was cast into its final form and
became the cornerstone in all subsequent IPCC publications.
Of course, although the oversimplified picture drawn by IPCC climatology is physically incorrect, a
thorough analysis might reveal some non-negligible influence of certain radiative effects (apart
from sunlight) on the weather and hence on its local averages, the climate, which could be dubbed
a CO2 greenhouse effect. But then, even if the effect is claimed to serve only as a genuine trigger
of a network of complex reactions, three key questions would remain:
1. Is there a fundamental CO2 greenhouse effect in physics?
2. If so, what is the fundamental physical principle behind this CO2 greenhouse effect?
3. Is it physically correct to regard radiative heat transfer as the fundamental mechanism
controlling the weather, setting thermal conductivity and friction to zero?
In the language of physics an effect is a not-necessarily evident but reproducible and measurable
phenomenon together with its theoretical explanation. Neither the warming mechanism in a glass
house nor the supposed anthropogenic warming is an “effect” in this sense of the definition:
• In the first case (a glass house) one encounters a straightforward phenomenon.
• The second case (the Earth’s atmosphere) one cannot measure directly, rather, one can
only make heuristic calculations.
Explaining the warming mechanism in a real greenhouse is a standard problem in undergraduate
courses, in which optics, nuclear physics and classical radiation theory are dealt with.
The atmospheric greenhouse mechanism is a conjecture that can be proved or disproved by
concrete engineering thermodynamics. Exactly this was done many years ago by an expert in this
field, namely Alfred Schack, who wrote a classical textbook on the subject. In 1972 he showed that
the radiative component of heat transfer by CO2, though relevant in combustion chamber
temperatures, can be neglected at atmospheric temperatures.
CO2’s influence on the Earth’s climate is definitively immeasurable.
The warming mechanism in real greenhouses
For years, the warming mechanism in real greenhouses, designated “the greenhouse effect”, has
been commonly misused to explain the conjectured atmospheric greenhouse effect. In school
books, in popular scientific articles, and even in high-level scientific debates, it has been stated that
the mechanism observed within a glass house is similar to anthropogenic global warming.
Meanwhile, even mainstream climatologists admit that the warming mechanism in real glass houses
must be strictly distinguished from the claimed CO2 greenhouse effect. Nevertheless, one should
look at the classical glass house problem to recapitulate some fundamental principles of
thermodynamics and radiation theory. In our technical paper the relevant radiation dynamics of the
atmospheric system are elaborated on and distinguished from the glass house set-up.
In section 2.1.5 many pseudo-explanations in the context of climatology are falsified by just three
fundamental observations of mathematical physics.
The Sun and radiation
A larger portion of the incoming sunlight lies in the infrared range than in the visible range. Most
papers that cover the supposed greenhouse effect completely ignore this important fact.
Especially on a hot summer’s day, every car driver knows about the greenhouse effect. One does
not need to be an expert in physics to explain immediately why the car gets so hot inside: The Sun
has heated the car’s interior. However, it is a bit harder to answer the question why it is cooler
outside the car, although there the Sun shines onto the ground without obstacles. Undergraduate
students with standard physical recipes at hand can easily “explain” this kind of a greenhouse
effect.
On a hot summer afternoon, temperature measurements inside and outside a car were performed
with a standard digital thermometer. These measurements are recommended to every climatologist
who believes in the CO2-greenhouse effect, because they show that the alleged effect has nothing
to do with trapped thermal radiation. Neither the infrared absorption nor reflection coefficient of
glass is relevant in this explanation of the real greenhouse effect, only the panes of glass hindering
the movement of air.
This text is a recommended reading for all global climatologists referring to the greenhouse effect:
It is not the “trapped” infrared radiation which explains the warming phenomenon in a real
greenhouse – it is the suppression of air cooling.
The fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects
Depending on the particular school and the degree of popularization, the assumption that the
atmosphere is transparent to visible light but opaque to infrared radiation supposedly leads to
• a warming of the Earth’s surface and/or
• a warming of the lower atmosphere and/or
• a warming of a certain layer of the atmosphere and/or
• a slow-down of the natural cooling of the Earth’s surface
•
and so forth.
Sir David King, former science advisor of the British government, stated that “global warming is a
greater threat to humanity than terrorism”. In countless contributions to newspapers and TV shows
in Germany the popular climatologist Latif continues to warn the public about the consequences of
rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Yet even today it is impossible to find a book on non-
equilibrium thermodynamics or radiation transfer where this presumed effect is derived from first
principles.
The main objective of our paper is not to draw the line between error and fraud, only to find out
whether the greenhouse effect appears or disappears within the frame of physics. Therefore, in
Section 3.3 several different variations of the atmospheric greenhouse hypotheses are examined
and disproved. The authors restrict themselves to statements that appeared after a publication by
Lee in the well-known Journal of Applied Meteorology 1973, see Ref. [109] and references therein.
Lee’s 1973 paper is a milestone. In the beginning Lee writes:
The so-called radiation `greenhouse’ effect is a misnomer. Ironically, while the concept is
useful in describing what occurs in the earth’s atmosphere, it is invalid for crypto-climates
created when space is enclosed with glass, e.g. in greenhouses and solar energy
collectors. Specifically, elevated temperatures observed under glass cannot be traced to
the spectral absorptivity of glass. The misconception was demonstrated experimentally by
R. W. Wood more than 60 years ago and recently in an analytical manner by Businger.
Fleagle and Businger devoted a section of their text to the point, and suggested that
radiation trapping by the earth’s atmosphere should be called `atmosphere effect’ to
discourage use of the misnomer. In spite of the evidence, modern textbooks on
meteorology and climatology not only repeat the misnomer, but frequently support the
false notion that `heat-retaining behavior of the atmosphere is analogous to what
happens in a greenhouse’ (Miller, 1966). The mistake obviously is subjective, based on
similarities of the atmosphere and glass, and on the `neatness’ of the example in
teaching. The problem can be rectified through straightforward analysis, suitable for
classroom instruction.
Lee continues his analysis with a calculation based on radiative balance equations, which are
physically questionable. The same holds for a comment by Berry on Lee’s work. Nevertheless, Lee’s
paper is a milestone, marking the day after every serious scientist or science educator is no longer
allowed to compare the greenhouse with the atmosphere, even in the classroom, which Lee
explicitly refers to.
In section 3.3 of our paper, many different versions of the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture are
examined and disproved. In conclusion, the authors observe the following:
• that even today the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not appear
– in any fundamental work on thermodynamics
– in any fundamental work on physical kinetics
– in any fundamental work on radiation theory
• that the definitions given in the literature beyond straight physics are very different and,
partly, contradict each other.
The conclusion of the US Department of Energy
All fictitious greenhouse effects have in common one and only one cause: A rise in the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere leading to higher air temperatures near the ground. Lee’s
1973 result that the warming phenomenon in a glass house does not compare to the supposed
atmospheric greenhouse effect was confirmed in the 1985 report of the United States Department
of Energy “Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide”.
In this comprehensive pre-IPCC publication MacCracken explicitly states that the terms
“greenhouse gas” and “greenhouse effect” are misnomers.
Section 3.5 discusses the concepts of absorption, emission and reflection, recommended reading for
those who wish to know the calculations behind the conclusions.
Section 3.6 the classic hypotheses of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius are analysed in detail, followed
by modern versions of it, and it is concluded that :
• In the 70s, computer simulations of the “global climate” predicted for a doubling of the CO2
concentration a temperature rise of about 0.7 – 9.6 degrees Kelvin.
• Later computer simulations pointed towards a null effect.
• In the IPCC 1992 report, computer simulations of the “global climate” predicted a global
temperature rise of about 0.27 – 0.82K per decade.
• In the IPCC 1995 report, computer simulations of the “global climate” predicted a global
temperature rise of about 0.08 – 0.33K per decade
• In 2005, computer simulations of the “global climate” predicted for a doubling of the CO2
concentration a global temperature rise of about 2 – 12K, whereby six so-called scenarios have
been omitted that yield a global cooling.
To derive climate catastrophes from these computer games and to scare mankind to death is a
crime.
Section 3.7 discusses the fallacy of radiative balance, from which the following pertinent points are
taken:
– For instance, “average” temperatures are calculated for an Earth without an atmosphere and for
an Earth with an atmosphere. Amusingly, there seem to exist no calculations for an Earth without
oceans opposed to calculations for an Earth with oceans.
– Though there exists a huge family of generalizations, one common aspect is the assumption of a
radiative balance, which plays a central role in the publications of the IPCC and, hence, in the public
propaganda. In the following it is proved that this assumption is physically wrong.
– Unfortunately this [conservation laws (continuity equations, balance equations, budget equations)
cannot be written down for intensities] is done in most climatologic papers, the cardinal error of
global climatology, that may have been overlooked so long due to the oversimplification of the real
world problem towards a quasi one-dimensional problem. Hence the popular climatologic “radiation
balance” diagrams describing quasi-one-dimensional situations (cf. Figure 23) are scientific
misconduct since they do not properly represent the mathematical and physical fundamentals.
The reader of this non-technical summary is urged to review all of sections 3.7 and 3.8 in their
original format in order to appreciate the issues in hand and understand this further point :
“that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the
issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of
local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if
physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally
valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of
computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature
field can be interpreted as both `warming’ and `cooling’ simultaneously, making the concept
of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed.”
Section 4 discusses the foundations of climate science, whilst the limits of computer models are
also pointed out, with this pertinent quote by eminent theoretical physicist Freeman J Dyson:
“The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is
much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models,
than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps
and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing in their own
models.”
“It cannot be overemphasized that even if the equations are simplified considerably, one cannot
determine numerical solutions, even for small space regions and even for small time intervals. This
situation will not change in the next 1000 years regardless of progress made in computer hardware.
Therefore, global climatologists may continue to write updated research grant proposals demanding
next-generation supercomputers ad infinitum. As the extremely simplified one-fluid equations are
unsolvable, the many-fluid equations would be more unsolvable, the equations that include the
averaged equations describing the turbulence would be yet more unsolvable, if “unsolvable” had a
comparative. Regardless of the chosen level of complexity, these equations are supposed to be the
backbone of climate simulations, or, in other words, the foundation of models of nature. But even
this is not true: In computer simulations heat conduction and friction are completely neglected,
since they are mathematically described by second order partial derivatives that cannot be
represented on grids with wide meshes.”
“Hence, the computer simulations of global climatology are not based on physical laws.
The same holds for the speculations about the influence of carbon dioxide.”
The reader is urged to review section 4.3 on “Science and Global Climate Modelling” in its entirety
in order to fully appreciate the closing remarks of that section :
“Modern global climatology has confused and continues to confuse fact with fantasy by introducing
the concept of a scenario replacing the concept of a model. In Ref. [29] a clear definition of what
scenarios are is given: Future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the product of very complex
dynamics systems, determined by driving forces such as demographic development, socioeconomic
development, and technological change. Their future evolution is highly uncertain. Scenarios are
alternative images of how the future might unfold and are an appropriate tool with which to analyze
how driving forces may influence future emission outcomes and to access the associated
uncertainties. They assist in climate change analysis, including climate modeling and the
assessment of impacts, adaptation and mitigation. The possibility that any single emissions path
will occur as described in scenarios is highly uncertain. Evidently, this is a description of a pseudo-
scientific (i.e. non-scientific) method by the experts at the IPCC. The next meta-plane beyond
physics would be a questionnaire among scientists already performed by von Storch or, finally, a
democratic vote about the validity of a physical law.
Exact science is going to be replaced by a sociological methodology involving a statistical
field analysis and by “democratic” rules of order.
This is in harmony with the definition of science advocated by the “scientific” website
RealClimate.org that has integrated inflammatory statements, personal attacks and offenses
against authors as a part of their “scientific” workflow.”
There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems in non-linearity. And for climatologists to
believe they’ve solved them with crude approximations leading to unphysical results that have to be
corrected afterwards by mystical methods — flux control in the past, obscure ensemble averages
over different climate institutes today, excluding incidental global cooling data by hand — merely
perpetuates the greenhouse-inspired climatologic tradition of physically meaningless averages and
physically meaningless statistical applications. In short, generating statements on CO2-induced
anthropogenic global warming from computer simulations lies outside of any science.
Section 5 is the final section of the paper and contains the ‘Physicist’s Summary’, which the reader
of this non-technical summary is again urged to review in its entirety. Simply quoting these few
lines do an injustice to the entire paper, but set the tone for discrediting the fallacy the UN IPCC is
perpetuating, aided in no small measure by many a skeptical scientist who also fails to grasp the
fallacy of the so-called greenhouse effect with its double-counting of radiant energy.
“The natural greenhouse effect is a myth, not a physical reality. The CO2-greenhouse
effect, however, is a manufactured mirage.
Horrific visions of a rising sea level, melting pole caps and spreading deserts in North
America and Europe are fictitious consequences of a fictitious physical mechanism which
cannot be seen even in computer climate models.
More and more, the main tactic of CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to be to hide
behind a mountain of pseudo-explanations that are unrelated to an academic education
or even to physics training.
The points discussed here were to answer whether the supposed atmospheric effect in
question has a physical basis. It does not.
In summary, no atmospheric greenhouse effect, nor in particular a CO2-greenhouse
effect, is permissible in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics.
It is therefore illegitimate to use this fictitious phenomenon to extrapolate predictions as consulting solutions for economics and intergovernmental policy.”
—

crosspatch (13:11:12) :
I would add that his “activated water” it was just water a bit ionized. However, here we are approaching to the following: Sun- water (clouds and seas)- ionization -climate.
“Now this large heat capacity of water has an equalizing effect on our climate.
Long after the summer is gone, the oceans are still warmer than the continents, and areas close to the ocean enjoy a much milder climate than those remote from the seas.
earth.boisestate.edu/home/jmcnamar/hydro08/Readings/water_peculiar.pdf
Svensmark´s idea of clouds cooling the earth would be only a part of the phenomenon because these can cool or warm and viceversa ,relatively to their amount. Being possible also a cooling through enhanced loss of heat when there were no clouds or almost none.
So, apart of Svensmark´clouds´ forming due to CR there would be a variability caused by ionization (electrical charges), its effect on rain and heat balance.
Not taking yet into consideration the “accidental” variations caused by aerosols from volcanic eruptions, as these brown clouds:
http://www.giurfa.com/venice.jpg

Yawn, pico amperes, 1/5 of a degree variation in magnetic field. To simplify equations I eliminate the insignificant. Solar variation is only insignificant if GHG influences are over estimated, which I believe is true by a factor of three. Natural influences I believe are under estimated by a factor of two. If I am right, solar, GHG and natural variation are all significant.
For natural variations, negative PDO, AMO etc. result in an attempt to heat the tropics which are near maximum temperature to begin with resulting in more convection. More tropical convection results in more heat loss with minimal global temperature rise. In reverse, positive oscillations result in higher temperatures less prone to convection. This results in global temperature rise due to simple math.
The MWP would be a regional event because it occurred in a region more easily influenced by temperature change. Northern Europe can have a three degree temperature rise during a positive oscillation, while the tropics would barely make a 0.3 degree temperature rise during a negative oscillation.
I still think you guys should read more Tsonis.

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

Harold Ambler (08:03:11) :
“A hundred years from now, people will marvel at how little we knew about climate and weather in 2009.”
This reminds me of Michael Crichton’s observation at man’s audacity at trying to solve the problems of civilization 100 years in the future. Paraphrasing from memory so don’t hold me accountable for total accuracy:
If scientist in NYC in 1900 were considering the problems that civilization was facing in the year 2000, they’d probably be thinking “how can we breed enough horses to meet transportation needs in 2000, and what are we going to do with all the horse#$%”
I wish Michael had lived much longer. He was a clear, logical and non-emotional thinker which drove the warmists nuts! Eventually I believe his prescience will be recognized.
If you ever feel the debate is spinning out of control, go to his website and look at his speeches on the deterioration of science over the last generation:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/

Paul Vaughan (15:05:30) :
Re: Pamela Gray (08:45:34) & (12:29:17)
It seems you are trying to suggest everything is well-understood.
If so, Pamela errs, as it seems there are people out there that clearly do not understand this.
I think Einstein said the universe was simple. He never mentioned the atmosphere.

I came across this paper, Gerlich & Tscheuschner, a couple of months ago and was agreeably surprised since it embodies and restates arguments which I have been making for years.
It is clear, well argued and in my view sound, however I suspect non physicists might have a rather hard time of it.
Moreover it suffers from setting its scope a little wide and whilst being thorough is rather ponderous. This is not unusual for German physics papers. Moreover I assume it is a translation and some of the wording, although understandable, might strike the native English/American speaker as a bit whimsical.
What i will try to do, rather boldly, in the next couple of weeks is prepare a short summary of it for the more general reader and I hope post it on here.
Kindest Regards

a jones says:

I came across this paper, Gerlich & Tscheuschner, a couple of months ago and was agreeably surprised since it embodies and restates arguments which I have been making for years.
It is clear, well argued and in my view sound, however I suspect non physicists might have a rather hard time of it.

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

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

Leif Svalgaard (19:01:45)
“Nothing said anything about consensus. If you question everything, you’ll learn and understand nothing.”
http://www.leif.org/research/Seminar-LMSAL.pdf
“[…] a remarkable consensus is now emerging […]”
It’s not everyday I see a paper announced as a “Consensus” – beginning with the very first word in it’s title.
Now I’m curious to know if journals that run papers related to climate science have any policies (including informal ones) on the inclusion of the word “consensus” in titles.

Smokey (19:30:33)
“a jones, I look forward to your post.”
I look forward to the post too.
Even if the paper is garbage as some claim, it is a signal that conveys information about pockets of society.
Rooted amongst the very deepest of human instincts is a fundamental value that transcends whatever message “climate science” is trying to hammer:
People will choose freedom over slavery any day.
(maybe even if it is “reason” that is trying to enslave them)

Leif Svalgaard (18:59:07) :
Joel Shore (18:44:24) :
“I would strongly recommend running as far and fast as possible away from G&T
Hear, hear.”
ROTFLMAO
Well, Ok. If doing so removes one still further from either of you two, then perhaps it is good advice. LOL

Leif Svalgaard (19:54:17) :
Robert Bateman (19:47:30) :
So, Leif, are you are saying that TSI and CO2 have an effect, they are both measurable, but neither one is significant enough to explain changes to global temperatures?
Pretty much. Except that ‘measurable’ is too fuzzy. I would say they are in principle measurable [and there are claims that they have been measured, e.g. a 0.1K influence of TSI], but difficult to ‘discern’ over the naturally occurring noise and stochastic’cycles’ as any complex phenomenon exhibits.
Saved in “My documents”. Thanks Robert for outing Leif :~D.

Leif Svalgaard (09:48:16) :
Ron de Haan (09:37:14) :
Some of you may have read in the Wikipedia that Henrik Svensmark’s finding of an inverse correlation between solar activity, global temperature, and galactic cosmic radiation has been “discredited.”
It is human nature to believe what they want to believe no matter what the data shows. To wit: flat-earthers, astrology, AGW, GCRs, etc.
Leif,
Without any objective to insult you, you are sounding a bit like Al Gore.
Only the fact that CERN is undertaking an attempt to do further research on Svensmark’s theory makes me extremely humble.
Why don’t we wait for the outcome of this research. Who knows what they find out.

Re: Leif Svalgaard (07:32:49)
FYI: I found the use of the word “Consensus” in the title a little arrogant & over-bearing. I literally nearly spit involuntarily on the screen the second I saw it as the very first (not at all suggestive(?)) word of the title of the paper.
There may very well be a consensus emerging, but the paper is posted for public viewing by people who are very far removed from it (so the word “sheeple” comes to mind).
To be clear: I respect your scientific contributions.

Leif Svalgaard (07:32:49) responding to gary gulrud (05:07:23)
“wish you would remove yourself completely, as you bring nothing to the table.”
I’m going to be forthright:
No matter what Leif Svalgaard’s status – & value to the community – comments like this should not get through.
Leif, WUWT Policy states:
“Everyone who visits here is welcome to post”
Who has a monopoly on multi-faceted concerns about the multi-dimensional climate controversy?
One of the features I advertise most about this site in promoting it to others is the mix of participants (something which engenders broad appeal). I only wish the conduct was more decent & respectful.

Leif Svalgaard (10:44:46) :
Ron de Haan (10:25:10) :
“Why don’t we wait for the outcome of this research. Who knows what they find out.
Fair enough.”
Except that proponents don’t seem to wait. And even if the SKY experiment turns out to work, does not mean that it works in the real atmosphere; so far the albedo measurements show that albedo does not track the solar cycle, so perhaps yet another mediator must be postulated. In the lab, I can get CO2 to absorb infrared light, does that prove AGW? .
The chaotic nature of climate has been discussed often enough here, so the concept of “albedo tracking the solar cycle” cannot be defended as such. “The solar cycle contributing to albedo ” might, and we would still need a chaotic model to see this.
It would be naive to expect any single input driver to be in one to one correspondence with long range climate changes as it is for for CO2. It is a synergy that is being played out.
In any case the albedo measured by Palle et al covers a very small time frame for anybody to be able to conclude much, except that currently it is rising. Do you have other data? Have you seen any current measurements?

“Have you seen any current measurements?”
Big Bear updated their site in the last year. A little graphic compares curves of Earthchine and the ISCCP project.
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
ISCCP results are running higher than Palle’s but are considered ‘broadly in agreement’.
I don’t know about the deep thinkers but 2% increase in cloud cover seems like it might just be a significant player. I wonder what the noctilucent cloud contribution might be.

gary gulrud (09:11:24) :
Thanks
ISCCP results are running higher than Palle’s but are considered ‘broadly in agreement’.
I don’t know about the deep thinkers but 2% increase in cloud cover seems like it might just be a significant player. I wonder what the noctilucent cloud contribution might be.
go to http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Earth_temp.html
and change the albedo by 2% to see the effect in the toy model. It is a 0.64C change in global temperature.

I have only caught up with this discussion now.
A good way into the vast literature on the phenomena being researched by the Australia’s Antartic Divison is the university web page of Brian Tinsley, Professor of Physics at the University of Texas Dallas
here http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/faculty/tinsley.html
Here’s a quote from it:
“About half of the global warming over the past century can be accounted for by changes in the sun and the solar wind, and there are well documented correlations of climate during past millennia with cosmic ray flux changes. These can be understood in terms of electrical interactions between cloud droplets and aerosol particles responding to solar wind-induced changes in atmospheric ionization and in the latitude distribution of Jz, as discussed above.
In a recent collaboration with Dr. Gary Burns of the Australian Antarctic Division we have confirmed with high statistical significance small changes in Antarctic surface pressure with small solar wind-induced changes in Jz, which are consistent with our hypothesized effects on Jz on cloud cover. In the Arctic the Jz changes are of opposite sign, as are the correlated pressure changes. Further, there are pressure changes that correlate with Jz changes due to changes in the current output of low-latitude thunderstorm generators, that have the same sign in the Arctic as in the Antarctic, as expected from theory. The implication is that global changes in Jz produce global changes in suitable types of clouds, and in some cases changes in precipitation.”
Have in mind when considering the question “Does the Sun affect Climate?” that it is necessary to consider all of the ways in which solar activity impacts climate: the Sun’s gravitational and electromagnetic fields, the Sun’s plasma output and the Sun’s radiation output.
The interaction effects between these classes of variables can be highly significant, sometimes amplyfying , sometimes damping each other. It is no good just considering any one class of these variables eg radiation , plasma, in isolation from the others and in without regard to interaction effects amongst them all. In addition, there is, of course, the climate periodicities that arise from phase synchronisation between the several large atmospheric/oceanic oscillations which are, afterall, the proximal cause of the Earth’s climate dynamics.

Richard Mackey (01:11:26) “Have in mind when considering the question “Does the Sun affect Climate?” that it is necessary to consider all of the ways in which solar activity impacts climate […] interaction effects […] phase […]”
A refreshing deviation from the pervasively-malicious, strictly-narrow linear-view that is undermining the sustainable defense of civilization – thank you Richard for sharing your grip on paradox.