UPDATED: This opinion piece from Professor Henrik Svensmark was published September 9th in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Originally the translation was from Google translation with some post translation cleanup of jumbled words or phrases by myself. Now as of Sept 12, the translation is by Nigel Calder. Hat tip to Carsten Arnholm of Norway for bringing this to my attention and especially for translation facilitation by Ágúst H Bjarnason – Anthony
Translation approved by Henrik Svensmark
While the Sun sleeps
Henrik Svensmark, Professor, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen
“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable,” writes Henrik Svensmark.
The star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Sun’s magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, “It is likely that the current year’s number of blank days will be the longest in about 100 years.” Everything indicates that the Sun is going into some kind of hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for us on Earth.
If you ask the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which represents the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring “nothing”. But history and recent research suggest that is probably completely wrong. Why? Let’s take a closer look.
Solar activity has always varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the Medieval Warm Period. It was a time when frosts in May were almost unknown – a matter of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. On the whole it was a good time. For example, China’s population doubled in this period.
But after about 1300 solar activity declined and the world began to get colder. It was the beginning of the episode we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold time, all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Sweden surprised Denmark by marching across the ice, and in London the Thames froze repeatedly. But more serious were the long periods of crop failures, which resulted in poorly nourished populations, reduced in Europe by about 30 per cent because of disease and hunger.
It’s important to realise that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th Century and was followed by increasing solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago. But now it appears that the Sun has changed again, and is returning towards what solar scientists call a “grand minimum” such as we saw in the Little Ice Age.
The match between solar activity and climate through the ages is sometimes explained away as coincidence. Yet it turns out that, almost no matter when you look and not just in the last 1000 years, there is a link. Solar activity has repeatedly fluctuated between high and low during the past 10,000 years. In fact the Sun spent about 17 per cent of those 10,000 years in a sleeping mode, with a cooling Earth the result.
You may wonder why the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the Sun’s changing activity affects the climate. The reason is that it considers only changes in solar radiation. That would be the simplest way for the Sun to change the climate – a bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.
Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds.
When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.
That also explains why most climate scientists try to ignore this possibility. It does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller.
Ever since we put forward our theory in 1996, it has been subjected to very sharp criticism, which is normal in science.
First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be correct, because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006, after many years of work, we completed experiments at DTU Space that demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic rays help to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation.
Then came the criticism that the mechanism we found in the laboratory could not work in the real atmosphere, and therefore had no practical significance. We have just rejected that criticism emphatically.
It turns out that the Sun itself performs what might be called natural experiments. Giant solar eruptions can cause the cosmic ray intensity on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days following an eruption, cloud cover can fall by about 4 per cent. And the amount of liquid water in cloud droplets is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Here is a very large effect – indeed so great that in popular terms the Earth’s clouds originate in space.
So we have watched the Sun’s magnetic activity with increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s.
That the Sun might now fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by solar scientists at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. So when Nigel Calder and I updated our book The Chilling Stars, we wrote a little provocatively that “we are advising our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts.”
In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel argued at the recent UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that the cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years. His explanation was a natural change in the North Atlantic circulation, not in solar activity. But no matter how you interpret them, natural variations in climate are making a comeback.
The outcome may be that the Sun itself will demonstrate its importance for climate and so challenge the theories of global warming. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable. A forecast saying it may be either warmer or colder for 50 years is not very useful, and science is not yet able to predict solar activity.
So in many ways we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting. I think it is important to accept that Nature pays no heed to what we humans think about it. Will the greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different from the greenhouse theory’s predictions. Perhaps it will become fashionable again to investigate the Sun’s impact on our climate.
–
Professor Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space. His book The Chilling Stars has also been published in Danish as Klima og Kosmos Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)
Sponsored IT training links:
Interested in CISA certification? We offer complete collection of dumps questions to successfully pass NS0-163 and 642-566 exam.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Joel
Let us forget your version of science for the moment. Are you not concerned at the manner in which the data has been collected and used, in order that the science will then reach the conclusion that it does?
* Global Sea levels since 1700, based on just three tide gauge records (from the Northern Hemisphere only) whose figures were extended by 150 years using computer modelling.
*Global temperatures ( a meaningless concept in itself) based on only twenty or so inaccurate stations worldwide from 1850- which have changed in location and number ever since. GISS temperatures to 1880 based on slightly more stations with a very uneven spread, whose use of data has been thoroughly debunked by others here. (Please read EM Smith at chiefio)
*Smoothing out of past temperature fluctuations from the Holocenes to MWP and LIA which -despite your belief- has hitherto been very well documented, in order to support the hypothesis that a limited temperature variation is matched by a barely fluctuating co2 content.
*Ocean temperatures based on records that cover a fraction of a percent of the earths oceans and are again manipulated by the wonders of computer modelling back decades further than they reliably exist.
*Arctic ice measurements from 1979 which takes no account at all of natural longer term oscillations causing freeze and melt, of which the last great melt -1920-1940- would have been seen by older readers parents, as the results-glaciers crashing into the seas and ships sailing in ice free arctic waters- were shown in cinemas worldwide on Pathe news!
As temperatures remain well within the range of natural variability experienced over the last five thousand years perhaps Groucho Marx ought to have the last word. As he nearly memorably said, ‘Who do you want to believe, the IPCC or your own lying eyes?’
best regards
Tonyb
anna v (20:43:39) :
CO2 is a trace greenhouse element . period. the tail does not wag the dog.
BUT consider ozone. Even less than a trace gas. But if it were reduced by a few percent globally UVb would be playing hell with our genes, plant growth, plankton survivability. 1% change in O3==2% increase in UV.
From Wiki O3 gives 3-7% of the GHG effect from only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere (0.6ppm)
Is this not a case of the hair on the flea in the tail wagging the dog? CO2 could be similar?
Stephen Wilde (23:50:41) :
The composition of the air is merely an enabler. Once it has served it’s function in permitting the creation of liquid oceans and a hydrological cycle it’s significance becomes marginal.
You are making some really wild leaps here.
As you said energy balance is everything. The earth is a “grey” body radiator and if the atmosphere were suddenly lost radiation away would be determined by the various emissivities of the different terrain. And temperature will stabilise when grey body radiation out = radiation in. This would bottom out at about -18C.
Adding atmosphere makes it more complex so lets assume all GHGs are removed but the same atmospheric pressure were present (O2, N2, H2 are non GHGs). Without GHGs thermal radiation from the grey body will not be absorbed so only conduction and thence convection will heat the air. With no absorption by GHGs the grey body + atmosphere will still loose the same amount of radiation as if the atmosphere were not present (possibly more as the conducted heat to air will also radiate from the air).
So without any GHGs but with an amosphere the earth will radiate as before – as a grey body.
Major GHG effect (wiki)
water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
methane, which contributes 4–9%
ozone, which contributes 3–7%
Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds.[8] …
The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that air can hold more water vapor per unit volume when it warms.
If we now add only normal concentration of water vapour to an earth without other GHGs assuming it starts at the average of 13-15degC However this is with a full compliment of GHGs. Water vapour only provides 72-85% of the GHG effect so the temperature will fall. Falling temperature will reduce the water vapour content of air which will lower the GHG effect and the temperature will fall. Falling temperature will reduce the water vapour content of air which will lower the GHG effect an the temperature will fall etc. – a positive feedback that will eventually lead to very low levels of water vapour and hence we will be back at near grey body temperature.
If we now add the other GHGs into the atmosphere then the grey body radiation is reduced and temperature rises. Rising temperature leads to more water vapour which leads to higher temperature etc. We then end up with a warming grey body. At some point the grey body radiation out will equal the incoming radiation and we have temperature “stasis”.
bill (03:28:39)
A grey body with a surface comprised of 71% water which then goes on to emit energy to the air above at varying rates and which is overlain by an active and variable hydrological cycle which invariably provides a negative response does not seem to be adequately dealt with in your description. Therefore I conclude that you do not understand my point.
philincalifornia (22:07:16)
As far as I know there is no such data which is why I have approached the issue from basic principles. Let someone get the data and show me (and you) to be wrong if they can.
bill (03:28:39) :
anna v (20:43:39) :
“CO2 is a trace greenhouse element . period. the tail does not wag the dog.”
BUT consider ozone. Even less than a trace gas. But if it were reduced by a few percent globally UVb would be playing hell with our genes, plant growth, plankton survivability. 1% change in O3==2% increase in UV.
From Wiki O3 gives 3-7% of the GHG effect from only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere (0.6ppm)
Is this not a case of the hair on the flea in the tail wagging the dog? CO2 could be similar?
No.
The analogy is false. There does not exist another gas, (as there is H2O in the case of CO2), that is ten times more effective than ozone in shielding from UV.
Stephen Wilde:
This is simply incorrect. We can measure from satellites the degree to which terrestrial radiation from the earth (by which I mean both land and oceans) is absorbed by the various IR-active molecules in the atmosphere and it is considerable. And, we can calculate to a good degree of precision how that absorption changes when one changes the concentration of one of the molecules, such as CO2.
Yes. These calculations can be done of the extra forcing can be done (although I am not sure what your residence time talk is about). For the TSI during the solar cycle for example, here is a graph that shows that the rough variation in TSI is about 1 W/m^2. However, to get the top-of-atmosphere forcing that has to be divided by 4 and then multiplied by the earth’s albedo (~0.7), which means it translates to a forcing change of ~0.2 W/m^2. [The factor of 4 can be understood as the ratio of the pi*r^2 area of sunlight that the earth intercepts vs the surface area of the earth, which is 4*pi*r^2. Or, to look at it another way, at any given time only half of the earth is seeing the sun at all and even for that half it is generally at an oblique angle.]
By comparison, the top-of-the-atmosphere forcing due to a doubling of CO2 levels is ~4 W/m^2. This number is accurate to about 10% and is not controversial in the scientific community…Even skeptical scientists like Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen accept it.
From these two numbers (the 4W/m^2 from doubling CO2 and the 0.2 W/m^2 from solar cycle variations), we can determine that it takes about a 3.5% increase in CO2 (which is about 7 years at current ~0.5%/yr growth rates) to match the forcing due to a change in TSI from the minimum to maximum of the solar cycle.
As for cloud cover, a change in the albedo of the earth from, say, 0.30 to 0.31 would give ~3.4 W/m^2 of change in forcing. Now, I believe the albedo of the earth without clouds is something like 0.08, so ~0.22 of it is provided by clouds, which means that a change in 0.01 in the albedo represents a change in amount of reflectivity from clouds by about 5%.
However, the reality of the situation with clouds is that changes in them have too partially canceling effects: an increase in clouds increases the albedo, reflecting more sunlight and causing cooling but it also increases the absorption of infrared radiation emitted from the earth which causes warming. For low clouds, the cooling effect tends to dominate whereas for high clouds, the warming effect tends to dominate. However, in general, since the effects act in opposite directions they partially cancel each other.
anna v says:
On the other hand, changing CO2 levels causes changes in H2O levels through the water vapor feedback. At any rate, no analogy is perfect but the basic scientific facts are these:
(1) The atmosphere is approximately 99% diatomic molecules, which are transparent to IR radiation, so the other 1% play a disproportionately large role in the climate.
(2) The main constituent of the other 1% is water vapor. However, CO2 is the next most important…and because it has at least one absorption band where water only absorbs weakly, it too plays an important role. Furthermore, since the dependence of the forcing on the concentration is approximately logarithmic in the range of concentrations of interest, small amounts play a disproportionately large role.
(3) An increase in CO2 causes an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere (because of the increase in temperature) via the water vapor feedback, which magnifies the temperature increase.
All of the above is quite well-understood physics and the first two points in particular were settled decades ago. Even Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen don’t debate the radiative forcing due to CO2.
The fact that a system is chaotic dynamic and has many variables does not mean that we don’t know anything about it. And, in particular, satellite measurements have confirmed the water vapor feedback.
Of course, that should be “TWO partially canceling effects”.
Stephen Wilde (10:35:07) :
A grey body with a surface comprised of 71% water which then goes on to emit energy to the air above at varying rates and which is overlain by an active and variable hydrological cycle which invariably provides a negative response does not seem to be adequately dealt with in your description. Therefore I conclude that you do not understand my point
I think you will agree that current levels of water vapour do not currently provide ALL the GHG warming (80% max)?
I think therefore that you will agree that without the other GHGs the temperature MUST fall to maintain radiation balance of in=out
It is therefore logical to assume that the level of water vapour in the air will drop to lower levels.
I must therefore be obvious that the GHG warming will lower (in less than out)and therefore the temperature will drop
It should therefore be obvious that this is positive feedback with a limit set by water vapour in atmosphere = 0
Your supposition that there is energy stored in the oceans which will be releasesd as needed to maintain water vapour can only last for as long as stored energy is available. temperatures must then fall.
If your postulated hydro cycle controls temp then you would have to assume overheat leads to greater evapouration and transfer of heat to the atmosphere but also this would simultaneously increase water vapour lowering radiation transmission. (how does the emissivity of cloud tops compare to liquid water? )
Water vapour is a positive feedback more vapour gives more temp gives more vapour etc. You need a negative feed back to counteract this an provide stability. Clouds would be your best bet for this, But there is research showning that overall clouds give neutral warming.
Can you justify you claim that the “hydro cycle” is negative feedback?
bill and Joel,
There is no point in my attempting point by point discussions with either of you because you both refuse to see the system as a coherent ever changing whole which is what we are faced with.
Anyway I’m off on a vacation shortly and won’t have the time for a while.
Suffice it to say that real world climate behaviour seems to me to fit my scenario rather better than that of the climate models and the passage of time can resolve the issue in due course.
bill and Joel,
Both of you ignore the constantly changing energy transference ability (from surface to space) involved in the phase changes in water from evaporation at the surface to condensation at higher levels.
That is a a highly variable and rapid process intimately bound up with the positions of the air circulation systems globally and if you two cannot see the significance then there is nothing more I can add.
Stephen,
To the extent that I can make anything sensible out of the explanations you have given, it is this: As the Earth warms and the hydrological cycle strengthens, more water vapor will evaporate and be transported up into the atmosphere where it will condense…and thus there will be an increase in the evaporation & convective transport of heat into the upper troposphere, where I suppose you are imagining it will then escape into space.
If this is what you are talking about, then I think you are essentially correct and what you are basically describing is what is called the “lapse rate feedback”, which is a negative feedback that takes back some of the effect of the positive water vapor feedback. However, it is already included in the climate models. In fact, because the lapse rate feedback and water vapor feedback share so much of the same mechanism causing them, the models do a better job constraining the effect of these two feedbacks together than independently. (I.e., those models that have a bigger positive water vapor feedback have a bigger negative lapse rate feedback…and vice versa, so that the disagreement on the total feedback between models tends to be rather small.)
It is worth noting, by the way, that the most direct consequence of the often-heard claim that the “tropospheric hotspot in the tropics that is predicted by the models is not there” would be that the negative lapse rate feedback is not really occurring and hence that the models may be underestimating the climate sensitivity! I personally don’t think that this is the case since it seems more likely that the missing “hotspot” is a data quality issue. (The expected amplification is seen for fluctuations on the shorter timescales, where the data is reliable … and whether or not it is seen for the multidecadal trends depends strongly on which analysis of the satellite record and radiosonde data you believe because of the real problems both datasets have with spurious secular trends.) But, at any rate, it has always been amusing to me that people who bring up the missing “hotspot” issue are sort of shooting themselves in the foot, metaphorically speaking!
Have a nice vacation!
By the way, the relevant section of the IPCC AR4 report to read in regard to the water vapor and lapse rate feedbacks (and the other feedbacks too) is Section 8.6, esp. 8.6.3.1 in Chapter 8 here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
bill (16:34:44) :
I think you will agree that current levels of water vapour do not currently provide ALL the GHG warming (80% max)?
———————–
What is the exact number in the tropics for water vapour plus the first 285 ppm of CO2 ?? Please, go ahead and pick a typical temperature and humidity.
Also, wouldn’t stasis be a better word than warming for the oceanic tropics ??
Joel, given Lindzen’s paper(s) on negative feedback, I don’t think you two are in total agreement on the math, as you imply.
And yes, I do wish I had more time …..
This thread is too long ago.
Joel, my opinion is that you are so immersed in models that you cannot see the data, and have reached the point where you implicitly think that the models create reality.
Pity.
… and these models, that were used to discredit skeptics, have now been discredited themselves simply by the passage of time.
Time for a change …. in personnel.
If the data is bad then how can you claim that the hotspot is there?
If the data is bad, then it can neither be said that it is there nor can it be said that it isn’t there. Perhaps you expect it to be there because other research suggests it is there. But that other research must in the end rely on being able to detect the hotspot in real life. Remember, this is supposed to be settled science.
But if you want to boldly speculate about why it hasn’t been detected, if you want to offer bold speculation that it is there but we simply have had problems measuring it, and you consider this the simplest explanation, then let me offer an even simpler bold explanation: it isn’t detectable because nobody understands the climate. I offer a second, bold and even simpler–and by your reasoning, more likely–explanation:
When clever people are faced with highly complex patterns, they can see/imagine all sorts of images, and believe the images they see are real. The planetary phenomena are like a giant ever changing sets of inkblots, and people keep imagining they see pictures in them. Note the simplicity of that explanation. Note the likelihood.
Stephen Wilde (19:00:11) :
Both of you ignore the constantly changing energy transference ability (from surface to space) involved in the phase changes in water from evaporation at the surface to condensation at higher levels
The current condition of the global energy balance is stable (ignoring the last 60 odd years). this means that on average energy gained by the earth system = energy lost by the earth system
That means if you take into account all variable climate multipliers:
hydrological cycle
All GHGs
TSI
Albedo (inc clouds)
Convection
Wind
Earths Rotation
Moon and tides
Chandler wobble
Milkovitch cycles
Temperature of Earths Core
Conversion of fuel to energy
Dust
Aerosols
etc, etc
You get an average temperature of 13 to 18C
None of the modifiers has 100% feedback so chanhe one of them by a few % will cause some perturbation on temperature to maintain energy balance.
I hope you will agree that GHGs are adding to the blanket surrounding the earth (water vapour and GHGs absoption lines are not 100% overlap). They stop some longwave radiation escaping but do not affect the incoming short wave radiation .
You suggested that once the temperature was in equilibrium the hydrological cycle will maintain balance. However if you remove the GHGs as you suggested then more long wave radiation escapes but incoming SWR is not affected.
The only way this can be balance is by reducing the grey body radiation by the temperature falling. This will be slowed by the mass of water but it will fall slowly at the rate allowed by transfer of energy from ocean to air. The ocean is still receiving the same energy input, but is trying to output more yhan it receives. It is inevitable that the temperature falls.
Falling temperature = less water vapour = falling temperature etc. I do not see how water vapour can maintain equilibrium when it is a positive feedback (i.e. it pushes towards instability not stability)
philincalifornia says:
I never claimed that I was in total agreement with Lindzen on everything. I explained what we do agree on. Part of the problem with the discussion here is that people don’t seem to distinguish between points where there is at least some significant scientific uncertainty and points where there really isn’t.
Stefan, I didn’t claim that I could say on the basis of the data that the amplification (what some people call the “hotspot”) can be said to be there. Yes, the data is ambiguous. Your alternative speculation ignores several crucial facts:
(1) The amplification is clearly seen when one looks at fluctuations that occur over timescales of several months to a few years. Since the convective processes that are believed to produce this amplification operate over shorter timescales, it is hard to understand how they could be occurring differently in the real world than the model world in such a way that the models still get the right answer over the months to a few years timescale but fail on the timescale of the multidecadal trends.
(2) There really are legitimate problems with the data sets in terms of their multidecadal trends. Hence, there is good reason to believe that the errorbars on the trends that have been computed are very large…and this is evidenced by the fact that different analyzes get very different results.
Finally, as I said, if you want to suppose that the “hotspot” isn’t there then the most direct conclusion one can draw from that in regards to the models is that they currently have a negative feedback that isn’t really there in the real world. This is not some round-about conclusion. It is a direct consequence…since the lapse rate feedback occurs precisely because the temperature at the surface does not need to climb as high as the temperature at altitude in order to lower that temperature at altitude enough to restore the radiative balance of the earth.
I imagine that this is hardly a conclusion that would sit well with most “skeptics” who seem much more comfortable with the conclusion that any lack of understanding of the climate system means AGW won’t be as bad as predicted rather than the conclusion that it will be worse than predicted!
Joel Shore (05:34:55) :
Part of the problem with the discussion here is that people don’t seem to distinguish between points where there is at least some significant scientific uncertainty and points where there really isn’t.
———
…. and of course, that is not a problem at all in HansenGoreLand.
Bill,
The system is NOT stable.
The oceans constantly change the rate at which they release energy to the air.
The air circulation always provides a negative response.
When oceans release more energy the air circulations push it faster to space by increasing the size of the equatorial air masses thus compressing the other air circulation systems poleward and speeding up their longitudinal progression.
When oceans release less energy the air circulations try to pull more energy from the oceans by decreasing the size of the equatorial air masses allowing more cold dry air masses to move equatorward over warm waters.
Negative responses in both instances.
The acknowledged shift in the ITCZ to the equator during the Little Ice Age supports my contention that the change in oceanic rate of energy release comes first and the change in all the air circulation systems follows with regional effects dictated by changes in the position of each region relative to the air circulation systems.
One would obviously get far larger climate effects in the northern hemisphere because of the greater proportion as land masses. If the oceanic rate of energy release changes then the effects are amplified over land because the land relies on the oceanic influence to mitigate the rate of energy loss to space.
A greater oceanic influence reduces continental cooling and a weaker oceanic influence allows faster continental cooling. However the background energy flow is always sun to sea to air to space. The air temperature always depends on a balance between the rate of energy flow from the oceans and the energy flow from air to space.A faster longitudinal air flow in mid latitudes during a warming spell increases the oceanic influence over the northern continents.
The equilibrium that matters most as far as the air is concerned is that between the sea to air flow of energy and the air to space flow of energy.
The equilibrium that matters most as far as the oceans are concerned is that between the sun to sea flow of energy and the sea to air flow of energy.
It has never been observed for air circulation changes to occur first and the SSTs to then follow.
The oceans introduce irregularities in the background flow and the air circulation always changes to offset it. Always a negative response and always a sufficient response and it works as well for CO2 as it does for water vapour.
Joel Shore (05:34:55) :
Finally, as I said, if you want to suppose that the “hotspot” isn’t there then the most direct conclusion one can draw from that in regards to the models is that they currently have a negative feedback that isn’t really there in the real world. This is not some round-about conclusion. It is a direct consequence…since the lapse rate feedback occurs precisely because the temperature at the surface does not need to climb as high as the temperature at altitude in order to lower that temperature at altitude enough to restore the radiative balance of the earth.
There we go again, AGWmism seems to attract scientists who cannot distinguish the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition.
In my logic it is sufficient that the hot spot does not appear when the models say it should, to scrap the models. It is not necessary for the multidimensional dynamical chaotic reality to follow the linear approximations of the GCModels.
Also there is no surprise that the GCM cannot describe long term conditions. Similar models with linear approximations can barely predict the weather for ten days ahead after all.
anna v says:
So, perhaps we should instead of the models just consider the paleoclimate data, which implies “the climate system is very sensitive to small perturbations and that the climate sensitivity may be even higher than suggested by models.” ( http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;306/5697/821 )
By the way, could you fill me in on what “linear approximations” you are referring to?
So, do you believe that the models also could not correctly predict the seasonal cycle? After all, if they are garbage after 10 days, I guess predicting out to 6 months is out-of-the-question?
Stephen Wilde: So, with this dominating negative feedback, how do you explain the glacial – interglacial cycles?
Joel,
I dealt with that on another site :
As far as changes between glacial and interglacial periods are concerned then I’m sure the orbital changes are enough because they substantiially alter the energy input to the oceans for long periods of time and so will change the ocean sea surface temperatures more than can be adequately compensated for by changes in the air circulation systems. The air circulation can push energy to space as fast as necessary to maintain sea surface/surface air equilibrium but cannot pull from the oceans energy that is not there.
That’s enough for now, vacation time.