Guest post by Alec Rawls
A Fox News story on the leaked draft of AR5 got big attention through the Drudge Report the other week. Fox reporter Maxim Lott begins by quoting a sentence from the Second Order Draft that seems to acknowledge a larger solar influence on climate than previously estimated:
“[Results] do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate,” reads a draft copy of a major, upcoming report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The bracketed “[results]” are the post-AR4 findings of “much greater than expected reduction at UV wavelengths in the recent declining solar cycle phase.” (AR5 SOD page 11-57.) Lott describes the vaguely referenced stratospheric and climate impacts of this larger-than-expected UV-shift as an admission by the IPCC that “[h]eat from the sun may play a larger role than previously thought.” The Fox headline writers go even further, describing the IPCC as “admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warming.”
This reporting is a bit messy. No, the UV-shift is not a shift in heat from the sun. Total solar irradiance (TSI) changes very little as solar activity ramps up and down. The UV shift just alters where in the electromagnetic spectrum the heat comes through. Yes this UV shift could affect the climate system in ways that have a substantial impact on global temperature but no, the IPCC has not admitted it. They actually belittle the possibility. That’s what the reference to “regional impacts on climate” is about. They mean regional as opposed to global. They are denying any significant impact on global temperature.
Still, the gist of the story—that the draft report admits stronger solar effects on global temperature than previously estimated—is correct, only this admission comes not in chapter 11 but in chapter 7, where it is followed by a crude trick of evasion. The UV-shift discussion in chapter 11 repeats this same trick of evasion. To catch this trick in chapter 11 you have to first catch it in chapter 7.
Dodging the evidence
This is the third article Lott has written on the Second Order Draft of AR5 (which I leaked to public in mid-December). All have been pretty good.
One was about Donna Laframboise’s finding that the IPCC, despite being taken to task for relying on non peer-reviewed literature from political advocacy groups in its last assessment report (AR4), is continuing the practice in AR5. Lott also wrote an article on what Anthony calls as “the real IPCC AR5 draft bombshell“: the chapter 1 graph showing current temperatures falling substantially below the entire range of projections from every previous assessment report.
To follow up, Maxim emailed that he wanted to cover my take on the draft IPCC report: that its admission of strong evidence for some mechanism of solar forcing beyond what is included in the IPCC models destroys all confidence in projections based on those models.
Excellent. Thanks Maxim. It was just a little awkward that he wanted to start with the chapter 11 sentence about the new much higher estimate of the shift in solar UV, but we can make it right in the end. There is space here to put that UV-shift discussion on its proper foundation (and from the length of this post, let’s just say I’m not surprised that Maxim declined my advice to provide the necessary context).
I used my leak of the draft report to publicize an important new admission by the IPCC: that solar-climate correlations found in the geologic record seem to imply a substantially stronger solar effect on climate than can be accounted by the very slight variation in TSI (the only solar forcing that is included in current IPCC models). Chapter 7, page 7-43:
The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.
This is huge. The authors admit broad evidence (“many results”) indicating that some substantial mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work. They mention one theory of what that mechanism might be (GCR-cloud), and then comes the crude trick of evasion.
They proceed to judge (very prematurely) that the evidence regarding the GCR-cloud mechanism indicates a weak effect, and they use this as an excuse to ignore the already admitted evidence for some substantial mechanism of solar amplification. The evidence is never mentioned again and it is never taken into account anywhere else in the report. As Maxim Lott quotes me in his Fox News article:
“Even after the IPCC acknowledges extensive evidence for … solar forcing beyond what they included in their models, they still make no attempt to account for this omission in their predictions. … It’s insane,” he told FoxNews.com.
For a response, Lott quotes UCS press flack Aaron Huertas:
“I see climate contrarians try this trick almost every time a big new solar study comes out. They somehow tend to neglect mentioning that solar variation is smaller than the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide,” Aaron Huertas of the Union of Concerned Scientists told FoxNews.com.
No doofus, I am not neglecting to mention what a tiny effect solar variation has in the current climate models. I am pointing specifically to it and noting how even the IPCC now admits that the paleo-evidence points to a substantially larger solar effect than its models factor in.
The IPCC’s continued refusal to take into account the evidence for solar amplification (even after they have admitted it) is anti-scientific. For those who have read my earlier posts on the leaked AR5 this is familiar territory. I have been accusing the IPCC of inverting the scientific method: of using theory (their dismissive assessment of the GCR-cloud theory) as a grounds for ignoring evidence (the paleo-evidence for some substantial mechanism of solar amplification).
To fully support this charge it is necessary to look beyond chapter 7 to the other parts of the report where possible mechanisms of solar amplification might be addressed. Most importantly, this means chapter 11, where the UV shift is discussed.
UV effects on ozone and atmospheric oscillation: are they only “regional”?
UV in the shorter wavelengths (UVB and UVC) gets absorbed in stratosphere where it gets caught up in the creation and destruction of stratospheric ozone (net creation). More UV means more absorption which warms the stratosphere, with possible consequences for atmospheric circulation.
Total solar irradiance also increases when solar activity is high, but only very slightly, so that with the new five-times-higher estimate of the UV shift (Haigh et al. 2010), the amount of visible light reaching the planet’s surface is now thought to decrease slightly. Thus in addition to having temperature effects that impinge on the troposphere from above, the UV shift could also have temperature effects than come up from the floor of the troposphere.
A 2011 modeling study (also co-authored by Joanna Haigh) claims that these UV effects can explain the observed correlation between solar activity and atmospheric oscillations in the North Atlantic (the Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation or AO/NAO):
In years of low UV activity unusually cold air forms over the tropics in the stratosphere, about 50km up. This is balanced by more easterly flow of air over the mid latitudes – a pattern which then ‘burrows’ its way down to the surface, bringing easterly winds and cold winters to northern Europe.
When solar UV output is higher than usual, the opposite occurs and there are strong westerlies which bring warm air and hence milder winters to Europe.
But don’t worry, Haigh and her co-authors assure the public, this research poses no threat to the “consensus” claim that late 20th century warming can only have been caused by the sun CO2. The described effects are only regional, not global:
Sarah Ineson, who performed the experiments, said: “What we’re seeing is UV levels affecting the distribution of air masses around the Atlantic basin. This causes a redistribution of heat – so while Europe and the US may be cooler, Canada and the Mediterranean will be warmer, and there is little direct impact on global temperatures.”
But a redistribution of heat does not preclude secular effects as well, and there is good reason to think that the AO/NAO oscillation (and similar effects in the Pacific), would affect global temperature. Notice how much bigger the Rossby waves in the polar jet stream are when AO/NAO is in its weak phase (from Joseph D’Aleo):
The jet stream forms where temperature differentials are at their maximum, and because surface air from the two sides are converging at this point (the northern end of the mid-latitude Hadley cell in the graphic at the top of the post), this is a main source of cloud formation. Thus as Stephen Wilde has been pointing out for several years, anything that causes the polar jets to move equator-ward, or increases the amplitude of the meanderings of the polar jets, is likely to cause a net increase in cloud formation. Clouds reflect away more heat than they trap so almost any significant change in net cloudiness could easily have an effect on global temperature that is large compared to the effects of CO2 variation or TSI variation.
Stephen argues (p. 7) that the polar jet seems to have been further south during the Maunder Minimum and further north during the MWP. These are known to have been global termperature events, not just regional, providing at least anecdotal evidence for a solar effect on global temperature through atmospheric circulation patterns.
Are Haigh and the IPCC taking such possibilities into account? It does not seem so. Their logic is just that there is a redistribution of heat taking place and therefore there is no effect on global temperature, a clear non-sequitur. This interpretation is reinforced by remarks from NCAR’s 2012 workshop: “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate.”
Conference chairman: We don’t even know HOW to model that cloud-formation stuff
NCAR’s conference report (p. 20) claims that “top down” effects of solar activity on stratospheric ozone would not have a significant effect on global temperature:
If borne out by future studies and shown to be of sufficient magnitude, this mechanism could be an important pathway in the Sun-climate connection, particularly in terms of regional impacts. However, it is important to realize that, unlike the bottom-up mechanism, it can in itself contribute very little to global temperature variations.
An interview with conference chair Gerald North, however, offers a quite different view:
For instance, solar energetic particles and cosmic rays could reduce ozone levels in the stratosphere. This in turn alters the behavior of the atmosphere below it, perhaps even pushing storms on the surface off course.
“In the lower stratosphere, the presence of ozone causes a local warming because of the breakup of ozone molecules by ultraviolet light,” climate scientist Jerry North at Texas A&M University told SPACE.com.
When the ozone is removed, “the stratosphere there becomes cooler, increasing the temperature contrast between the tropics and the polar region. The contrast in temperatures in the stratosphere and the upper troposphere leads to instabilities in the atmospheric flow west to east. The instabilities make for eddies or irregular motions.”
These eddies feed the strength of jet streams, ultimately altering flows in the upper troposphere, the layer of atmosphere closest to Earth’s surface. “The geographical positioning of the jets aloft can alter the distribution of storms over the middle latitudes,” North said. “So the sun might have a role to play in this kind of process. I would have to say this would be a very difficult mechanism to prove in climate models. That does not mean it may not exist — just hard to prove.”
North seems here to be describing the Wilde-thing. His reference to the effects of jet stream shifts on “the distribution of storms” sounds like a reference to cloud formation and cloud effects, and North’s insight on this subject? That the models are not good enough yet to evaluate it.
North also throws some more complexity into the mix. In addition to the UV shift, there are a couple of other avenues by which solar activity can affect ozone: “solar energetic particles and cosmic rays.”
There is evidence that the dreaded ozone hole is mainly caused by galactic cosmic radiation (GCR), not by the interaction of human produced CFCs and solar UV. A weak solar wind (low solar activity) allows more GCR to reach our planet, decreasing ozone, especially at the poles.
“Solar energetic particles” work in the opposite direction. Ozone is destroyed by the solar protons that are produced by solar flares (high solar activity), again mostly at the poles.
The whole subject is far from sorted out but it seems that in some way the variety of different solar effects on ozone conspire to have a strongly differential effect on stratospheric temperature between the equator and the poles and it is this differential that causes the jet stream to move.
Steering wheel vs. gas pedal
Is it implausible to think that the climate system could be controlled by top down effects? The bottom-up energy flow is so much stronger. Of the solar radiation that is not reflected away from the planet all-together, only a small amount is absorbed in the stratosphere, a bigger chunk is absorbed in the troposphere, and most is absorbed by the planet’s surface.
How could the relatively tiny stratospheric effects compete? That’s like thinking a single finger on the steering wheel of car could determine the direction in which the car travels. Pshaw. It has to be the drive train that determines the direction of the car. That’s where all the horsepower is.
Yeah I’m joking. Larger forces obviously can be steered by smaller forces. The “consensus” uses a version of this argument when they call CO2 “the gas pedal” (or “the main dial” or “the biggest control knob“). “Gas pedal” is not quite analogous to “steering wheel.” They are talking about modulation of the drive system, but they are still looking at a multiplier effect. It just turns out that the mechanism they see as doing the multiplying (climate sensitivity) doesn’t seem to actually do much multiplying.
The climate modelers themselves provide an interesting anecdote in favor of the UV-shift as steering-wheel possibility (if you accept model results as evidence). Just as with a car, no matter what you do with the gas pedal in the “consensus” climate models, the steering wheel still works the same way.
Start with this quote from the Haigh co-authored paper above (2011):
Adam Scaife, one of the Met Office scientists involved in the research, said that while some studies have observed a link between solar variability and winter climate, our research establishes this as more than just coincidence.
He said: “We’ve been able to reproduce a consistent climate pattern, confirm how it works, and quantify it using a computer model based on the laws of physics.”
In this model the UV shift is so great that visible light reaching the surface goes down when solar activity goes up. Thus the bottom-up effect here is gas-pedal-off.
Compare this to the model results from Shindel, Schmidt et. al 2001, framed when it was thought that the UV shift was smaller. Their UV shift only eats up a fraction of the increase in TSI so surface warming increases when solar activity is high. The bottom-up effect in their model is gas-pedal-on, yet they get the exact same result, with high solar activity causing a strong AO/NAO:
Our previous studies have demonstrated how external forcings can excite the AO/ NAO in the GISS GCM (22, 25). Briefly, the mechanism works as follows, using a shift toward the high-index AO/NAO as an example: (i) tropical and subtropical SSTs warm, leading to (ii) a warmer tropical and subtropical upper troposphere via moist convective processes. This results in … [a LONG train of causality, leading to] … a high AO/NAO index.
Set aside cynicism for the moment and suppose that, instead of demonstrating how easily climate models can be tweaked to achieve a sought-after result, both models really do (in some degree) reveal the emergent properties of “the laws of physics.” Whether the gas pedal is pushed down or the gas is let off, both models turn the same direction when UV is high. Sounds like a steering wheel to me.
Recent developments show a field in flux
Turns out the Met Office completely screwed up the stratospheric temperature data that all the atmospheric circulation modelers have been back-testing to since the 1980s. Thompson et al. 2012:
A new data set of middle- and upper-stratospheric temperatures based on reprocessing of satellite radiances provides a view of stratospheric climate change during the period 1979–2005 that is strikingly different from that provided by earlier data sets. The new data call into question our understanding of observed stratospheric temperature trends and our ability to test simulations of the stratospheric response to emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances.
What was wrong with the original processing of the satellite data? Nobody knows:
The methodology used to generate the original Met Office SSU data remains undocumented and so the climate community are unable to explain the large discrepancies between the original Met Office and NOAA SSU products highlighted here.
Shades of the Climategate “Harry read me” file, and this was only just discovered. All the modelers have been using bogus data to try to calibrate their models. Go back to square one guys.
Another recent paper gives a taste of just how preliminary present theorizing about ozone and climate is. “Ozone depletion trumps greenhouse gas increase in jet-stream shift,” say researchers at Penn State. Okay, so they think ozone (and hence the sun) is a player, but wow, look at their methodology. It’s pure data sifting in search of relationships to examine:
Lee and her colleague, Steven Feldstein, professor of meteorology, developed a new method to distinguish between the effects of the two forcings. The method uses a cluster analysis to investigate the effects of ozone and greenhouse gas on several different observed wind patterns.
Nothing wrong with data sifting. This is how scientists get leads, but it is the mark of a field that is in its infancy, at least in terms of figuring out the more complex relationships. In such a circumstance it is grossly inappropriate for the IPCC and NCAR to be making extravagant claims about what can’t be happening, especially when they are claiming to exclude something that simple logic says probably will happen (that jet stream shifts will affect net cloud formation), and even more especially when the paleo-evidence indicates that some such thing is happening.
It’s anti-science all the way down
In sum, the IPCC authors do pretty much exactly the same thing with solar UV in chapter 11 as they do with GCR in chapter 7. They look at one snapshot of how the UV shift might affect climate and very prematurely declare that it would only have a negligible effect on global temperature. In the process there is no mention of the IPCC’s earlier admission of strong paleo-evidence for some substantial mechanism of solar amplification and they proceed as if this evidence does not exist, making no attempt to give it any weight in their predictive scheme.
Theory (their truncated theory of UV-shift effects) is used to dismiss evidence. That is not science, it is anti-science, and the IPCC has been very consistent about it.
I vote for more Alec Rawls’ articles like this. Excellent!
The paradox of modeling is evident here- you can only model things you already understand. When confronted with the discovery of new concepts and theories the modeling world falls flat on its face. It really has never occured to many climate scientists that we dont really know exactly what is going on. The arrogance is sometimes overwhelming.
This reads well and surely someone in the UK can find a way to get this information re-packaged and pushed to the MSM – perhaps the Daily Express or The Mail ?
The truth is getting out. More and more people are realizing something verrrrry fishy is going on at the IPPC and with Global Warming generally. Well done, Alec, it’s good to see this disclosure being examined and talked about out there on the world stage. I don’t know how many hints the MSM needs, but there must be more reporters paying attention and getting that whiff of fish too. This scam won’t go on forever.
All I can say is the Sun is what keeps life going on earth. Less energy will result in new ice age, simple physics.
But don’t worry, Haigh and her co-authors assure the public, this research poses no threat to the “consensus” claim that late 20th century warming can only have been caused by the sun
Is this what you meant to write?
Yes, this connection between UV radiation, the jet stream, NAO and AO is what I think is happening.
Results from satellite recording analysis with the help of an Artificial Neural Network indicate that temperature variations in the troposphere are well correlated to LOD, and the solar wind.
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/climate-forcing.htm
I didn’t find any correlation to GCR. So don’t mix GCR with the solar wind. They are different.
Question, is the solar wind and radiations from the UV bands well correlated to each other?
I think both solar wind and UV radiation mostly come from the solar corona.
If they do, then what I see is probably an effect from UV radiation.
re Chris @NJ_Snow_Fan at 5.11 pm – I agree that The Sun (a UK Newspaper) would be an appropriate and potentially punny title to approach. It would lend itself the the corny article titles much beloved of the “red top” press in the UK.
D.B. Stealey says:
February 12, 2013 at 4:18 pm
I vote for more Alec Rawls’ articles like this. Excellent!
I concur! Thanks for pointing out their slight of hand, baseless assertions Alec!
MtK
” JPS says: February 12, 2013 at 5:04 pm
The paradox of modeling is evident here- you can only model things you already understand.”
Actually it is normally part of the hypothesis testing; does my model match the data?
If no it means you have missed something in a complex system. In post-normal climate science you change the data.
The CAGWers have painted themselves into a corner.
The “science is settled” meme,prevents them from EVER learning anything new which differs from their omniscient CO2 theory.
In climatology the known is miniscule,while the unknown appears to be vast.
Too bad they’ve stunted their own growth.
“JPS says:
February 12, 2013 at 5:04 pm
The paradox of modeling is evident here- you can only model things you already understand. When confronted with the discovery of new concepts and theories the modeling world falls flat on its face. It really has never occured to many climate scientists that we dont really know exactly what is going on. The arrogance is sometimes overwhelming.”
I am truly shocked (no, seriously folks) by this statement. Is it deliberate fraud or incompetence?
The methodology used to generate the original Met Office SSU data remains undocumented and so the climate community are unable to explain the large discrepancies between the original Met Office and NOAA SSU products highlighted here.
Negative Cold Phase AO NAO patterns also spread snow further south. Even if there is a little less sea ice (because all the cold air escaping south means it is a tad warmer up at the pole, perhaps thirty below rather than forty below,) there is more land ice; IE Snow. This has got to effect the Albedo-Calculations that the Alarmists are so all-fired gung-ho about.
Whenever I manage to get Alarmists to actually discuss albedo, (and there actually are some who talk, rather than merely pooh-pooh,) I find they have amazingly obscure statistics at their fingertips, which tends to suggest they are nervous and scrounging about for evidence that soothes away the nervousness.
(By obscure statistics, I mean stuff like, “There may be more snow, but it melts away 30% faster than it does when it isn’t there to melt away.”)
The debate makes me a bit dizzy when it comes to comparing the albedo of the north pole to the south pole. Even now, with sea ice in the southern summer near its minimum, there is sea ice so far from the south pole that, if it was happening up north, it would be like sea-ice bumping the north coast of Scotland, during the summer minimum. Yet somehow the albedo of that southern ice matters less than the albedo of the northern ice?
I’m not trying to debate. I just want to discuss this thing called albedo. However the data dished out sure looks like fudge, (which I actually like, but this brown stuff also smells a bit like bull.)
And somewhere an alarm is going off, making a warning noise that sounds like, “Bias, bias, bias, bias, bias.”
BTW Stratospheric warming and its effect on the jet stream is one factor which Piers Corbyn utilizes in his predictions.
But first he predicts the Stratospheric warming by observing Solar activity.
Thanks for pointing out the typo Juan. That sentence should say:
Not “by the sun.”
OK, cue the SkS and Haigh rearguard action in 3-2-1…
If it’s anything like Alec’s post on the GCR link and chapter 7 they will lash out in all directions, with no shame about addressing the points that Alec actually makes here. Watch this space.
Incidentally, Alec, seeing as this article is in essence to do with large effects from small solar forcings and the original contender was GCR, you may be interested in the links below. This paper might go some of the way towards bridging that gap (referred to, witheringly, in AR5 chapter 7) between the tiny GCR fallout particles and the ‘correct’ size for hygroscopicity (which just got 7% smaller due to this new finding). First link is the abstract; second is additional PDF showing methods and graphs.
http://m.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/29/1204838110.abstract?sid=072a2bff-aad0-47aa-aa47-c97a09a3584d
http://m.pnas.org/content/suppl/2013/01/29/1204838110.DCSupplemental/pnas.201204838SI.pdf
Scute
Alec Rawls says above…
The evidence is never mentioned again and it is never taken into account anywhere else in the report.
Science by Omission – just leave out, disguise, cut off, hide, obfuscate & deny any refuting evidence – to protect the beloved hypothesis.
Typos fixed!
As I see the use of modeling: 1. Describe some physical processes mathematically in accordance with theory alone. 2. Put the equations and initial conditions into the computer. 3. See what the implications of the theory are with respect to measurable outcomes. 4. Compare those measurable values to things measured in the real world. 5. Evaluate how well the theory predicts the real universe. 6. If it does not agree with the universe the theory is wrong, go back to step one. or 6b. Publish paper on the agreement of theoretical formulation with the universe. 7. Wait for theory to get shown to be complete hokum or at least a subset special case of a better more inclusive theory, go back to step1 or 7b. collect accolades for ground breaking discovery.
Marcel Leroux demonstrated that the general circulation described in the top figure is not reflecting the reality. It is too bad that the 1856 Ferrell based model still endure despite advances of observation thanks to satellites, that every day prove this model wrong.
More UV in the longer wavelengths means increased diurnal vertical mixing of the upper parts of the oceanic well-mixed layer, and marginally cooler sea surface temperatures.
I am not sure what lies beyond scurrilous but this is it. This should have never gotten beyond “The methodology used to generate the original Met Office SSU data remains undocumented…”
Anything, and I mean ANYTHING beyond “undocumented” is categorically inculpatory.
End of story.
Your your results can only be as accurate as your least accurate data, and if accuracy of that data is unknown then anything beyond that point is essentially unknowable.
The stench of fraud lies upon any data the source of which is questionable in any way.
But the most fascinating problem here is that you don’t even have to go there!
It doesn’t even matter what the climate sensitivity actually is, or if the primary driver turns out to be the sun. And it doesn’t even matter if CO2 is the driver that takes us from a glacial maximum into an interglacial, even though the evidence substantially supports temps first, CO2 second.
Why?
Because there is precious little we can do about the sun. And if some eruption of GHGs actually can catapult us into an interglacial, we don’t have any clue what causes it at some 20C less than the Holocene climate optimum.
So, we are all left to wonder that if, in a systematic, comprehensive review of the latest climate research every 7 years (IPCC ass. reports), it really does not matter, scientifically, why such gaping holes in the theory exist and precisely why?
We find ourselves, for the second time in a single interglacial, grappling with belief vs. knowledge, or the irritating lack thereof……. If we were to actually define denial, might it be related to the renaissance, or the first time we found ourselves precisely here?
Great stuff Alec.
Oh Dear.
“[h]eat from the sun”.
No no not heat, radiation in the form of irradiance !
Worse than I thought ! The AR5 Geniuses, beside not being able to comprehend language are unable to comprehend physics, unable to comprehend mathematics, unable to comprehend even arithmetic. [!!!! warning bells]
Seems that the best word to describe the IPCC, its head and staff, reviewers and its AR5 is … pornography.
So for the IPCC to win, they must produce a real ‘ponography’ video series and market it in Asia.
That way, Obama and his ‘electric car’ will ‘drive’ to the G spot of Asia’s females and shemales with a most hansom return on the investment, of course accounting for current and future projections of currency exchange and monetary instruments like bonds, ETFs, Metals and of course Oil&Gas. Gotta have Oil&Gas. Lick lick.
In sum, the IPCC authors do pretty much exactly the same thing with solar UV in chapter 11 as they do with GCR in chapter 7. They look at one snapshot of how the UV shift might affect climate and very prematurely declare that it would only have a negligible effect on global temperature.
So, there is no admission of solar activity having any effect. To read anything else into the IPCC’s statements is just wishful thinking [which there seems to be a lot of, sadly].
No, there one very big admission, the chapter 7 admission that the paleo-evidence points to SOME mechanism of solar amplification being in play:
They should be admitting a lot more, like that in the current state of the science they can’t BEGIN to rule out the GCR-cloud and UV-shift mechanisms, but the admission that some amplifying mechanism is indicated is the most important.
In the post, we read:
Where does the word “substantial” come from? The authors of the report do indicate that some amplification would be needed to explain certain results, but the report itself doesn’t seem to say that it’s a “substantial” mechanism, and the references given don’t seem to support a large effect. (For some, they don’t really seem to know how big the effect would be.) I guess that if “substantial” means “large enough to notice, and to be worthwhile modeling,” that’s an easier mark to hit. But it seems to imply that the effect is large enough to have a really important effect, i.e., to be a game-changer, and I can’t see that the IPCC admits this, either in the text or in the references. If it’s in a reference that I missed, or in a previous post, a link would be helpful.
This seems to go well beyond what Haigh was trying to study, although it would be a good follow-on project for someone. As for the IPCC, of course they’re not going to take Stephen Wilde’s blog post as a source. (They’ve been embarassed enough without sourcing blog posts.) If there’s anything in the peer-reviewed literature about this, then they would do well to discuss it.
Alec Rawls says:
February 12, 2013 at 9:55 pm
No, there one very big admission, the chapter 7 admission that the paleo-evidence points to SOME mechanism of solar amplification being in play
What paleo-evidence?
And since when has ‘some’ become ‘substantial’?
JazzyT says:
February 12, 2013 at 9:59 pm
“I guess that if “substantial” means “large enough to notice, and to be worthwhile modeling,” that’s an easier mark to hit. ”
And I guess that you know nothing about simulating chaotic systems over longer time intervals; there is no such thing as an effect that is not worthwhile modeling if you want your model to have any chance of doing what the real system does.
Admittedly, the goals of the IPCC are completely different from that.
JazzyT says:
February 12, 2013 at 9:59 pm
Where does the word “substantial” come from? The authors of the report do indicate that some amplification would be needed to explain certain results, but the report itself doesn’t seem to say that it’s a “substantial” mechanism, and the references given don’t seem to support a large effect.
_____________________________________________
What are you talking about ?
Bond et al 2001
blue: solar activity
black temperature
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/bond1-1024×469.gif
Is there similar support for a climatic effect of any other variable in climate science ?
Manfred says:
February 12, 2013 at 10:30 pm
Bond et al 2001
blue: solar activity
black temperature
A large part of the 14C and 10Be variation is caused by climate, not only by the Sun, so no wonder there is some [weak: r = 0.45] correlation.
“As I see the use of modeling: 1. Describe some physical processes mathematically in accordance with theory alone. 2. Put the equations and initial conditions into the computer. 3. See what the implications of the theory are with respect to measurable outcomes. 4. Compare those measurable values to things measured in the real world. 5. Evaluate how well the theory predicts the real universe. 6. If it does not agree with the universe the theory is wrong, go back to step one.”
##########
Actually, it does not work that way. Theories are not proven wrong. let’s do a simple example and build a model.
I want to model ( create equations ) that predict an outcome given inputs.
This problem will be simple. I want to predict the “Distance to Empty” for my car.
I start with a simple model
I measure two things: Distance and Fuel used.
The distance to empty = MPG * GasInTank
And MPG is estimated over time as I drive.
You can all see how it works.. I drive and measure distance and fuel used and then I predict DTE.
How does that work? well I test my model and it says I have a DTE of 100miles.
I drive and I end up going 110 miles.
Is my theory wrong?
hardly. My theory is useful. I fill up my tank and I never run out of gas.. using a bad model. what the hell.
My theory might be incomplete. hey, what about adjusting for terrain ahead of me? hills and such.
My theory gets better.. it predicts 102 miles and I drive 106Miles. My theory has been marginally improved. is it wrong? or more useful. So I put in more variable.. it gets better. never perfect.
like all science something is always missing.
One day A guy comes along and suggests that the position of jupiter impacts my DTE.
I ask for physics so I can write equations. He has none. he claims my model is wrong, and that Jupiter will ‘fix’ it but he has no equations to test his claim. Maybe he argues that sunspots change my gas milage. he has some corelations. I ask for equations. he has none.
A model represents the best we know. the best we can quantify. It is always incomplete.
math can be wrong. Models, more or less useful. WRT climate, you dont need a climate model to show that there is a problem.
Jazzy T: “where does the word “substantial” come from?”
It doesn’t just come from the substantial evidence in the Bond paper. It comes from substantial evidence in the Usokin paper too and one more. This is the nub of how and why Alec Rawls was misrepresented by pretty well everyone on his criticism of AR5 chapter 7: the authors cited three peer reviewed papers with what can only be described as substantial evidence for a GCR cloud link. If those three papers are good enough to be cited in AR5 chapter 7 along with the admission a few paragraphs later that there must be some solar amplification mechanism then there is your substantial admission. SkS, Haigh, AR5 chapter 7 author, Stephen Sherwood, and just about every newspaper and TV station across the globe chose to ignore this simple fact that Alec made clear. By willfully ignoring it and focussing on his emphasis on the solar mechanism admission, they made it appear that he was reading too much into it.
The three peer reviewed papers on the well-defined GCR paleo link and cited by the AR5 authors is the key to this entire debate. They were the only papers cited and they were all related to GCR so the authors’ admission a few paragraphs later could not be related to anything else. It’s all there, including links in Alec’s original WUWT post. If you have any doubts, go and read it along with the links before accusing him of misrepresentation. We need a bit more clear thinking here.
lsvalgaard says:
February 12, 2013 at 10:04 pm
“What paleo-evidence?
And since when has ‘some’ become ‘substantial’?”
Although Alec did not refer to Mis-5e and MIS-11c specifically, I took it to mean something like the lower-bound estimate of +6m MSL sea level rise during the second end-extreme interglacial thermal pulse just before we LEAPed into the Wisconsin glacial (Wurm: correlated with the Weichsel glacial stage of northern Europe), or the +21.3m MSL highstand which might have been achieved at the end-Holsteinian before we dropped off into the MIS-10 glacial…….
SOMEthing(s?) must necessarily have the temerity to be rather more substantial than a +0.59m 2007 AR4 worst case prognostication by 2100 backing it. That would have to be at least an order of magnitude oomph more than anthropogenic CO2 to even approach the low-end estimate of the end-Ermian highstand, the second of two thermal pulses right at its very end.
“Some” has to become even more substantial to challenge +45m to +52m highstands which populate that end extreme interglacial….. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/ http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf
Doing away with the non-orbital commensurate MIS-5e, whatever its highstand, we are still left to deal with the last end-extreme-interglacial-which-also-occurred-at-an-eccentricity-minimum-interglacial (MIS-11c) highstand or possibly +21.3m MSL…… http://si-pddr.si.edu/jspui/bitstream/10088/7516/1/vz_Olson_and_hearty_a_sustained_21m_sea-level_highstand_during_mis_1.pdf
To answer your question, imprecisely, “some”, becomes “substantial” somewhere between +6m (1 order of magnitude), +21.3m, and +52m MSL (almost 2 orders of magnitude).
Just sayin
Why do I describe the IPCC as admitting evidence for a “substantial” mechanism of solar amplification? Because of the strong language they use, asserting that there HAS to be some mechanism of solar amplification at work. The evidence doesn’t “suggest it.” The evidence IMPLIES it. That is the language they use.
You can also look at the paleo-evidence for yourself. I list 2-dozen references in the second section here, most finding something like a .5 degree of correlation between solar activity and climate. That is, solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change. TSI can’t begin to explain that much temperature variation. That’s why there HAS to be some other solar effect on temperature.
I’ve got another 2-dozen citations I’ll have to post sometime as well. AR5 is not nearly so thorough, and the SOD is less thorough than the FOD, which on the paleo-evidence for a solar driver of climate at least cited Kirkby’s 2008 survey paper. That has a lot in it.
Kirkby’s survey paper is still cited in chapter 7 but it is no longer cited as a general reference for findings of sun-climate connections. Very strange. That’s one of the things I criticized in my SOD comments. They switched out a solid survey reference for a reference to a single study? Schizophrenic.
Alec Rawls says:
February 12, 2013 at 11:32 pm
Why do I describe the IPCC as admitting evidence for a “substantial” mechanism of solar amplification? Because of the strong language they use, asserting that there HAS to be some mechanism of solar amplification at work. The evidence doesn’t “suggest it.” The evidence IMPLIES it. That is the language they use.
No, they say that IF there is any influence then it cannot be from TSI. Then they gp on to show [in their way] that there is no evidence for any effect. This is not strong language. It is lip-service to the skeptical view, so that they can say that they, at least, considered the possibility [but ending up rejecting it]. Any other interpretation is wishful thinking. When the IPCC authors were asked if they meant something substantial, they denied it. Therefore we should not put words in their mouth that they didn’t mean. As simple as that.
Left this reference out…..
http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf
Scute says:
February 12, 2013 at 11:03 pm
The three peer reviewed papers on the well-defined GCR paleo link and cited by the AR5 authors is the key to this entire debate.
and yet, they title of this article talks about UV. Go figure…
We know there are other influences because the temperature wasn’t constant before man starting screwing with the place.
Climate change doesn’t move from the equatorial belt pole-ward.
Climate change moves from the poles towards the temperate areas.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AGT.htm
When professional climate scientists and some keen commentators (e.g. Dr. S, Mosher etc) realise that, perhaps they may be prompted to look for the causal factors.
Till then no progress will be made.
As I understand it, there are two clear effects of the solar frequency shift that happen, and are rarely figured into the “models” of what happens.
First, from what I read in the NASA release, the solar change isn’t just a loss of UV, it is a shift of the output toward longer frequencies over the whole spectrum. ( If I’ve got that wrong, I’m sure Lsvalgaard will
scoldcorrect me. 😉The demonstrated effect is a significant reduction in atmospheric height. The air column gets shorter. This ought to have all sorts of effects from change in the rate of temperature drop with altitude to forcing more air mass through a smaller space while moving air from equator to pole and much more. But what interests me (mostly as you don’t see much talk about it) is “high cold places”.
Mountain tops will find themselves sticking up into thinner, colder air. Snow levels ought to be lower on the mountains as well. Those glaciers that were retreating, ought to start growing. IFF the GHCN had not pruned the thermometers from altitude preferentially, we would see more high cold places getting colder, faster. In essence, just shortening the air column makes all the high cold places that much colder and snowier even if nothing else happened.
Second, as TSI stays nearly constant, more light energy is shifted from the UV and blue ends that penetrate deeply into the oceans toward the redder and infrared ends that are immediately stopped in the mists, spume, and surface layer, cause evaporation,and do not warm the oceans.
So during high UV / blue times, there ought to be more heat slowly added at depth to the oceans, slowly raising surface temperatures. During low UV / blue (or high red / IR) times, more “prompt evaporation” from the surface as that is where the energy deposits in a thin layer, leading to more snow and colder oceans. (And faster convective / condensation heat dump at the top of the troposphere into those Cat 2 hurricane force winds going ‘sidways toward the cold pole’ at the tropo’pause’ – that isn’t much of a pause…) This ought to intensify the heat dump to space too as a colder stratosphere lets more heat out and a lower height has stronger ‘night jets’ nearer the surface.
So, in short, less UV / blue ought to mean colder oceans, more snow, and faster heat dump to space; along with colder mountains and snowier peaks….
On top of all the other changes ….
Leif claims:
Absolutely not. Here is the sentence again, for the reading impaired:
E.M. Smith: Interesting thought about the lapse rate increasing and the effect on ice and snow at elevation. But does the whole column decrease in height, or is it just that the stratosphere itself expands when it warms up from absorbing more UV? I don’t know about those details.
Effect of blue shift on oceans seems ambiguous, because anything shifted high enough gets absorbed by ozone. With a more active sun, would the higher penetration at longer wavelengths be enough to offset the penetration lost to ozone absorption?
Silly question, isn’t most of the radiation from the sun in IR wavelengths?
Since the sun is, well, hotter than the surface, wouldn’t that mean the Planck curve from the sun would be everywhere higher than that from the surface, prior to taking absorption from the atmosphere into effect?
Where does the solar IR go, exactly, I figure since the atmosphere is so good at keeping IR from getting out, (or so I’ve heard), it wouldn’t let too much make it down the surface, would it?
Alec Rawls says:
February 13, 2013 at 12:52 am
Absolutely not. Here is the sentence again, for the reading impaired:
The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of …
Provided that the observations hold up. The IPCC then goes on to show that the claims do not hold up [at least to IPCC’s satisfaction], hence no admission, no game chance, just wishful thinking on your part. If you doubt me, just ask the IPCC authors.
Alec.
Many thanks for your support.
lsvalgaard says:
February 12, 2013 at 10:37 pm
Manfred says:
February 12, 2013 at 10:30 pm
Bond et al 2001
blue: solar activity
black temperature
A large part of the 14C and 10Be variation is caused by climate, not only by the Sun, so no wonder there is some [weak: r = 0.45] correlation.
——————————————————————
1. Though r is a standard measure of correlation it does not report any information beyond the linear relationship. Two straight lines have an r of 1, but it is rather easy to find two related or unrelated variables with such behaviour. Information is low.
In the Bond et al 2001 example and other studies, the two variables show minima and maxima occuring everywhere around the same time. This is remarkable information beyond the r value.
2. Regarding climatic effects on the C14 record
“…for the Holocene (Damon et al., 1978; Stuiver et al., 1991) as there is no evidence of considerable oceanic change or other natural variability of the carbon cycle (Gerber et al., 2002), and accordingly all variations of Δ14C predominantly reflect the production rate.”
A History of Solar Activity over Millennia (Usoskin 2008, revised 2010)
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2008-3/download/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf
thank all of you for this fascinating and informative conversation, riviting to the lay person like me
Alec Rawls said:
“E.M. Smith: Interesting thought about the lapse rate increasing and the effect on ice and snow at elevation. But does the whole column decrease in height, or is it just that the stratosphere itself expands when it warms up from absorbing more UV? I don’t know about those details.”
The stratosphere seems to cool when the sun is more active with more UV and warm when the sun is less active with less UV which is the opposite of the conventional wisdom but fits the observation of poleward jets when the sun is active and equatorward jets when the sun is less active.
That implies that when the sun is more active the cooling stratosphere lifts the tropopause for more poleward jets and the opposite when the sun is less active.
What we have here is the vertical expansion and contraction of the stratosphere affecting global cloudiness and the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans to drive the climate system.
If wonder why someone hasn’t mentioned this to Lewandowsky?
It would make a really interesting psychological study – and important, too. Lewandowsky could get his name up there with the greats – Kuhn and Popper.
We are watching a paradigm shift, as everyone scrambles to re-align their positions. What will happen is that they will go through stages:
1 – The Sun has no influence. You would be mad to think so.
2 – The Sun might have a bit of influence, but it’s insignificant.
3 – Of course, some of the unknowns here might be associated with the Sun.
4 – This new model shows how the Sun causes climate change, as we said all along. Refer to 2) and 3) …
A psychologist documenting this process would have a paper which would become required reading for all History and Philosophy of Science studies. Too bad for Lewandowsky. He’s part of the problem. Expect him to be claiming that he was REALLY studying this change of mind in about 5 years time….
Caleb (February 12, 2013 at 6:02 pm):
Very similar to a discussion from about a year ago; when told to read a paper which “proved” a point, I responded by saying I could find nothing relevant in the paper. The response: “So, quote me where you cannot find it!” An equivalent of being told that there is water in a desert, and, in denying that, I had to show that the water is not where it is, and not finding it proved I was wrong.
With logic like this on display, it will never be possible to “win” any argument against the Warmistas.
The way you’ve phrased things implies that TSI (at the surface) stays the same, but the energy at different wavelengths changes. (At least that’s the way it reads to me. If I misread, my apologies.)
In fact, TSI, specifically incident energy at the surface, does decrease. The specific decrease occurs at both the IR and UV ends of the “light” spectrum, while energy in the visible part of the spectrum remains pretty much the same.
This is important because the UV is far more energetic than visible or IR light. Calculating the variation in energy from UV for just the Central Pacific results in energy changes on the order of 10 to the 23 joules. (As a reminder, “joules” are a per second measure of energy, watts are a per second measure of power. The two ARE NOT the same.)
Comparing that to the total energy produced in power plants is … interesting. Which is why I agree that solar variation is the likely cause of most climate variation.
The IPCC web site states in part: “The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
Their work is limited to the “risk of human-induced climate change” and nothing else. So why is anyone surprised when they do not consider (or quickly dismiss) the scientific basis for solar effects, natural fluctuations in oceanic heat distribution, or any other natural influence on the climate? Many climate scientists likely understand that a good knowledge of the natural influences is essential to allow human effects to be sorted out. But there is no manna there under their charter. Its better for them to stick with poorly understood human-induced risks, however slight. And the poorer the better because then more study will always be required.
Might be as well to link here to Alec’s earlier post on similar matters:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/15/another-day-another-central-asian-precipitation-study-finds-a-link-to-solar-activity/
Reblogged this on TrueNorthist and commented:
Long, but well worth the time to read it all.
The problem is the IPCC say in Chapter 8 of AR4
“Due to the computational cost associated with the requirement of a well-resolved stratosphere, the models employed for the current assessment do not generally include the QBO.”
How “well-resolved” does the stratosphere have to be for the model to have any credibility at all? The Quasi Biennial Oscillation (QBO) is a measure of the reversal of equatorial upper level winds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-biennial_oscillation
QBO is a measure of the link between the stratosphere and the troposphere that is apparently the driving force for ENSO.
http://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/guidance/qbo-quasi-biennial-oscillation
The impact of ENSO on regional climates is well documented.
The AR5 statement is a self-inflicted problem.
“[Results] do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate,”
It is much larger than thought because they may have thought about it, but they left it out. It would appear the omission of such a major mechanism makes the models and any of the IPCC statements about causes of climate change, such as the one discussed here, meaningless.
****
E.M.Smith says:
February 13, 2013 at 12:50 am
Second, as TSI stays nearly constant, more light energy is shifted from the UV and blue ends that penetrate deeply into the oceans toward the redder and infrared ends that are immediately stopped in the mists, spume, and surface layer, cause evaporation,and do not warm the oceans.
****
OK, but what are the relevant wattage numbers? UV isn’t much of TSI, and most of that absorbed in the stratosphere. What makes it down to the surface can’t be much, wattage-wise. Without researching, I can’t imagine it’s more than a couple watts variance, or less….
Stephen Mosher said:
“math can be wrong. Models, more or less useful. WRT climate, you dont need a climate model to show that there is a problem.”
in my view this is patently false- the warnings of what the future holds are based ENTIRELY on models. put it this way- write the next IPCC report without the use of any climate models and then try to convince anyone it is a problem.
@ DocMartyn
perhaps I should have been more clear- you can only *accurately* model thing s you already understand. as you point out the AGW game is to tweak the models and say hey look weve been right all along
@ Stephen Mosher
your hypothetical scenario is valid for the car, however, it is easy enough to drive your car to test the model and revise- with the climate it exceedingly difficult to set up experiments that can verify or refute your model. you essentially have to wait until we have more data, and that takes years if not tens of years.
Alec Rawls says:
February 12, 2013 at 11:32 pm
which on the paleo-evidence for a solar driver of climate at least cited Kirkby’s 2008 survey paper. That has a lot in it. Kirkby’s survey paper is still cited in chapter 7 but it is no longer cited as a general reference for findings of sun-climate connections. Very strange. That’s one of the things I criticized in my SOD comments. They switched out a solid survey reference for a reference to a single study? Schizophrenic.
Perhaps thy recognized that Kirby’s paper has many flaws and sleight of hands. Figure 3 in the paper is a good example: http://www.leif.org/research/INTCAL-Jasper.png
The Figure compares d18O with cosmic ray intensity [14C proxy]. Obviously, one should compare with the actual intensity as observed at the Earth. That is shown in the lower panel as the red curve. Now, most of that variation is caused by the decrease of the Earth’s magnetic field. One can correct for that and get the blue curve which is what Kirby compares with. But one should NOT do that, but use the uncorrected, true, flux [red curve] representing the actual flux of cosmic rays.
An interesting possibility is that the sun’s fluctuations might have an notable effect on climate – as in f.i. rain patterns – but a minimal effect on temperature.
This fits in neatly with Willis Eschenbach’s hypothesis that clouds are the thermostat of the earth.
Robin Kool says: February 13, 2013 at 8:13 am
An interesting possibility is that the sun’s fluctuations might have an notable effect on climate – as in f.i. rain patterns – but a minimal effect on temperature.
I found that the rainfall as inferred from stalagmites has good correlation to the combination of the solar cycles and the Earth’s magnetic field variability.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-Rr.htm
It is rather strange that further records go into the past, the correlation is stronger (excluding Dalton minimum), as if the more recent data is adjusted to fit a particular purpose, (no normal and expected 1900-1940 inter-annual oscillations) not that I am suggesting that it was done so.
Probably refers to this
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/met-office-in-the-media-11-october-2011/
“There has been continued interest in the research from the Met Office with Imperial College London and the University of Oxford, that shows that low UV output from the sun can contribute to an increased risk of cold winters over parts of the northern hemisphere,”
I found this one very confusing. I must say that, in general, the “this person or organization said this, and then that said that, and then some other…” seems irrelevant. What’s the sequence of reasoning? I don’t care who said what. The first paragraphs are filled with such schtuff: Fox, Drudge, Lott, draft number 3,895, UN IPCC, AR4, AR5 SOD… all dust thrown up in my face. (Maybe it’s my allergies or lack of sleep, too.)
Why is it called “UV shift” when it appears from the text that what they’re referring to is a shift in the mix of solar radiation influx to earth (cyclical and non-cyclical)? And, if so, why not just refer to frequencies or ranges of frequencies?
And, please, remember to include those acronym definitions early and often (well, a couple times per article, anyway), I kept mentally sliding from GCR to PCR and thinking of Mullis.
lsvalgaard on February 12, 2013 at 11:51 pm said:
“Scute says:
February 12, 2013 at 11:03 pm
The three peer reviewed papers on the well-defined GCR paleo link and cited by the AR5 authors is the key to this entire debate.
and yet, they title of this article talks about UV. Go figure…”
///////////////////
Leif, you seem to think I’m off topic. Whatever is key to the debate brought about by Alec’s original leak i.e. the debate over GCR and the “broad evidence (many results)”, is also key to the debate he raises over chapter 11 and therefore the debate over UV- because they use “the same trick” concerning UV in chapter 11 as they did in chapter 7. In fact, the debate over chapter 7 is one of Alec’s main planks in this article, spanning ten paragraphs. I’m surprised you missed it. Let me remind you of the key points he makes in this regard:
Paragraph 5: “The UV-shift discussion in chapter 11 repeats this same trick of evasion. To catch this trick in chapter 11 you have to first catch it in chapter 7.”
Alec then (from paragraph 10) recapitulates his entire argument concerning chapter 7 in order to throw the shortcomings in chapter 11 into relief. This is because, as he says, the authors use the “same trick” in chapter 11. He even drives home this link between the two chapters saying, “For those who have read my earlier posts on the leaked AR5 this is familiar territory.”
In this recapitulation he says:
“This is huge. The authors admit broad evidence (“many results”) indicating that some substantial mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work.”
That “broad evidence (many results)” refers wholly and exclusively to the 3 papers which the AR5 chapter 7 authors had only just referred to a few paragraphs earlier in that chapter before dismissing them. These are the 3 papers (Bond, Usokin and one other) to which I referred as being “the key to this entire debate” because they contain the substantial evidence Alec is citing, evidence which was then immediately dismissed in the absence of a mechanism (as one might deny the existence of gravity until 2012 and the discovery of the Higgs). If they are key to the debate over chapter 7 they are therefore, by Alec’s painstaking and clear linking of the tactics behind the trick, key to the debate in chapter 11 too and therefore key to the subject of UV in the title of this article.
It is the continuing willful ignoring of the inclusion of these three papers in chapter 7 along with their “many results” that allows Alec’s detractors to appear to have the high ground. That is why they are “key to this entire debate”: if you don’t understand the sleight of hand used in the trick in chapter 7, you won’t catch it in chapter 11.
Don’t take it from me, take it from Alec. He concludes his recapitulation with the following:
“To fully support this charge it is necessary to look beyond chapter 7 to the other parts of the report where possible mechanisms of solar amplification might be addressed. Most importantly, this means chapter 11, where the UV shift is discussed”. That discussion is carried out with specific attention to their using “the same trick of evasion”.
So, yes Leif, I did ‘Go’ and I did ‘figure’.
Scute
Scute says:
February 13, 2013 at 12:40 pm
Leif, you seem to think I’m off topic.
No, Alec is off topic. IPCC was not dealing with UV, but with GCRs.
In the atmosphere above the green earth surface, you show warm air moving poleward below cold air moving equatorward, but then near the poles there is a band of circulating cold air. What drives these two circulations? It would seem that the cold polar air would stay closer to the ground moving away from the poles, and then rise and cause a circulation above the green area in the opposite direction after warming.
Your flow diagram is somewhat at variance with the descriptions by Marcel Leroux in “Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate.”
I once saw a quote by Joanna Haigh :-
“So even if the predictions are correct, the effect of climate change will outstrip the sun’s ability to cool even in the coldest scenario; and in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the sun’s activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won’t have gone away.”
Isn’t it interesting that a prominent solar scientist thinks the sun has an ability to cool – who’d a thunk it ?
Also – don’t climate scientists claim that a change in forcing is required to cause increases in temperature ?
They ignore the fact that when I put the kettle on the gas the relatively constant influx of energy can cause an increase in temperature until thermal equilibrium is reached.
To explain how their view works they talk about radiative balance then throw that concept out the window by claim radiative imbalance.
They have yet to convince me they have demonstrated any such thermal equilibrium exists between the Earth and the Sun – it is all assumption in climate science.
Doesn’t mass matter ? Vast amounts of energy are converted to mass daily – my 300 sq metre lawn can produce almost a kilogram per week or so, bamboo can grow feet per week.
Mass contains a large amount of energy and I never see it accounted for in energy budgets.
I must admit I haven’t looked too closely as they lost me when they claim the insolation is one quarter of the solar constant and that the near Earth orbit space, awash in 1367 W/sq m solar radiation, is “cold”.
Rosco says:
February 13, 2013 at 2:43 pm
I must admit I haven’t looked too closely as they lost me when they claim the insolation is one quarter of the solar constant and that the near Earth orbit space
Then learn that the 1/4 comes from the difference in area between a disk [pi*radius squared] and a sphere [4pi*radius squared].
The increase in the Rossby waves of the jet stream would also increase the thunderstorm formation along the core of the jet. This would leed to regional cooling, that could march from region to region, creating a larger effect on the temps of the mid-latitudes.
The zonal flow of west – east jet stream, would produce more stratus type clouds, that would offset the daytime cooling effect, with nighttime warming.
So we could easily have a situation where one phase cooled and the other warmed, and the difference between the two was larger, than the input forcing would indicate.
Leif says:
ONE co-lead author from chapter 7 (out of 15 lead authors and 27 contributing authors) came out to deny that the highlighted sentence says what it clearly says. Obviously if it were up to Steven Sherewood that sentence would never have appeared in the first place. To take his word that it doesn’t mean what it clearly says is to abet a fraud. Good for whoever got that sentence in there. Getting a bit of honesty past the likes of Sherewood is obviously no easy task.
Alec Rawls says:
February 13, 2013 at 8:52 pm
ONE co-lead author from chapter 7 (out of 15 lead authors and 27 contributing authors) came out to deny that the highlighted sentence says what it clearly says.
It only takes ONE. I didn’t see any or all of the 41 other authors come out in defense of that sentence. Why? Because ONE is enough. So all 42 authors commit fraud in your view as silence here amounts to tacit approval. To call a fraud a game changer is a stretch too far in my book. Obviously not in yours.
lsvalgaard says:
February 13, 2013 at 9:08 pm
To call a fraud a game changer is a stretch too far in my book. Obviously not in yours.
To be a bit clearer: that one out of 42 may disagree with all the rest does not constitute a game change. None of the 41 others did not come out to decry your one ‘good’ guy, who then is but a loser in the IPCC scheme of things.
lsvalgaard says:
February 13, 2013 at 9:34 pm
Time to go to bed.
“None of the 41 others came out to decry your one ‘good’ guy”
Leif: The sentence says what it says. Sherewood is one guy coming out and flat lying to the public about what it says. He can’t change what it says.
Well, at least not until the final draft comes out. Then I’m guessing that the political powers at the IPCC will ensure that he DOES get to change what it says, making for just another Sherewood lie.
Alec Rawls says: February 13, 2013 at 8:52 pm
ONE co-lead author from chapter 7 (out of 15 lead authors and 27 contributing authors) came out to deny that the highlighted sentence says what it clearly says.
lsvalgaard says: February 13, 2013 at 9:08 pm
“It only takes ONE. I didn’t see any or all of the 41 other authors come out in defense of that sentence. Why? Because ONE is enough.”
@ Leif Svalgaard
None of the other 41 have come out in support of either Alec Rawls or Steven Sherewood.
I can imagine several reasons for scientists who agree with Alec to be silent – and the other way around.
In any case, we are talking here about 41 individuals. How is it that you know that they all agree with Steven Sherewood?
Have you contacted them? Are you familiar with their opinions through their research papers? Or do you just KNOW, from some mystical process of acquiring knowledge c.q. conviction?
I listen attentively to you when you talk about the sun – when you KNOW things about the intentions and opinions of people …. not so much.
Robin Kool says:
February 14, 2013 at 5:21 am
How is it that you know that they all agree with Steven Sherewood?
Hard to know, but Sherewood [and Haigh] probably know more about this than anybody here [including Alec, you, and me] so one would tend to go with what they say.
‘your hypothetical scenario is valid for the car, however, it is easy enough to drive your car to test the model and revise- with the climate it exceedingly difficult to set up experiments that can verify or refute your model. you essentially have to wait until we have more data, and that takes years if not tens of years.”
yes. That is one difference between observational science and lab science. In lab science you can control ( never completely ) the experimental conditions. in observational science, like climate science, astronomy, etc, you cannot control the conditions of experiments.
Several things follow from this:
1. Climate models dont make predictions, the make projections. Comparing the results
to observations is not as simple as some people pretend.
2. You cant do experiments over. So, you have only two choices when data and model
disagree: improve the model, question the data. There is no logical scientific way
to prefer one path over the other.
3. People need to stop the fraudulant comparison of experimental science with observational science.
And What I said remains true. Experiments in an of themselves never falsify models. They can’t. A human choice is involved: you can choose to build a whole new model, improve the standard model, or question the data.
i am confused- you say “3. People need to stop the fraudulant comparison of experimental science with observational science. ” but that is eactly what you did in your post. further, you seem to use that point of comparison to validate the modeling efforts of climate scientists.
you also say “Experiments in an of themselves never falsify models.” but then seem to contradtict yourself with the staement “you can choose to build a whole new model” – that would indicate to me that you model is not valid i.e. false
Is among the 41 anyone representing the triple digit number of peer reviewed papers supporting a significant solar/climate link ? If not, why not ?
Steve Mosher: People need to stop the fraudulant comparison of experimental science with observational science.
Why? Experimental science clarified the relationships among wet lowlands, mosquitoes, and malaria and yellow fever.
Experiments in an of themselves never falsify models. They can’t. A human choice is involved: you can choose to build a whole new model, improve the standard model, or question the data.
I think that you are trying to win a debate by inventing your own language.