Guest post by Dr. Norman Page
1 The IPCC’s Core Problem
The IPCC – Al Gore based Anthropogenic Global Warming scare has driven global Governments’ Climate and Energy Policies since the turn of the century. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted on uneconomic renewable energy and CO2 emission control schemes based on the notions that it is both necessary and possible to control global temperatures by reducing CO2 emissions. All this vast investment is based on the simple idea that as stated in the IPCC AR4 report:
“we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C.”
These values can only be reached by adopting two completely unfounded and indeed illogical assumptions and procedures:
1. CO2 is simply assumed to be the main climate forcing .This is clearly illogical because at all time scales CO2 changes follow temperature changes.
2. Positive feedback from the other GHGs – notably water vapour and methane is then added on to the effects of CO2 and attributed to it. Obviously, in nature, the increase in CO2 and Humidity are both caused by rising temperatures. It is also impossible to have a net positive feedback because systems with total positive feed back are not stable and simply run away to disaster. We wouldn’t be here to tell the tale if it were true.
From its inception the IPCCs remit was to measure Anthropogenic Climate Change and indeed Climate Change was defined as Anthropogenic until the 2011 SREX report when the definition was changed.The climate science community simply designed their models to satisfy the political requirements of their funding agencies. – Publications, academic positions,peer approval , institutional advancement and grants were unlikely to be forthcoming unless appropriate forecasts of catastrophic warming were dutifully produced. The climate models have egregious structural errors and ,what is worse, in their estimates of uncertainty the IPCC reports for Policymakers simply ignored this structural uncertainty and gave policy makers and the general public a totally false impression of the likely accuracy of their temperature forecasts.It is this aspect of the AGW meme which is especially unconscionable.
The inadequacy, not to say inanity, of the climate models can be seen by simple inspection of the following Figure 2-20 from the AR4 WG1 report.
Figure 1 from IPCC AR4
The only natural forcing is TSI and everything else is anthropogenic. For example under natural should come such things as eg Milankovitch Orbital Cycles,Lunar related tidal effects on ocean currents,Earths geomagnetic field strength and all the Solar Activity data time series – eg Solar Magnetic Sield strength, TSI ,SSNs ,GCRs ,( effect on aerosols,clouds and albedo) CHs, MCEs, EUV variations, and associated ozone variations and Forbush events. Unless the range and causes of natural variation are known within reasonably narrow limits it is simply not possible to calculate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate.
The results of this gross error of scientific judgement is seen in the growing discrepancy between global temperature trends and the model projections. The NOAA SSTs show that with CO2 up 8% there has been no net warming since 1997, that ,the warming trend peaked in 2003 and that there has been a cooling trend since that time.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
The gap between projections and observations is seen below
Fig 2 ( From Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) )
2, The Real Climate Drivers.
Earths climate is the result of resonances between various quasicyclic processes of varying wavelengths. The long wave Milankovich eccentricity,obliquity and precessional cycles are modulated by solar “activity” cycles with millennial centennial and decadal time scales .These in turn interact with lunar cycles and endogenous earth changes in Geomagnetic Field strength ,volcanic activity and at really long time scales plate tectonic movements of the land masses.The combination of all these drivers is mediated through the great oceanic current and atmospheric pressure systems to produce the earths climate and weather.
To help forecast decadal and annual changes we can look at eg the ENSO PDO, AMO NAO indices and based on past patterns make reasonable forecasts for varying future periods. Currently the PDO suggests we may expect 20 – 30 years of cooling in the immediate future.Similarly for multidecadal, centennial and millennial predictions we need to know where we are relative to the appropriate solar cycles.The best proxies for solar “activity”are currently ,the Ap index, and the GCR produced neutron count. The solar indices are particularly important for their past history these can be retrieved from the 10 Be data.
In a previous post on http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com on 1/22/13 – Global Cooling – Timing and Amount(NH) I have made suggestions of possible future cooling based on a repetition of the solar millennial cycle. Here I point out for the modellers the value of using the Ap index as a proxy measure of solar activity. Compare the Northern Hemisphere HADSST3 Temperature anomaly since 1910 with the AP index since 1900 . Because of the thermal inertia and slow change in the enthalpy of the oceans there is a 10 – 12 year delay between the driver proxy and the temperature.
Fig 3 – From Hadley Center
Fig 4 From http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
There are some good correlations .The 1900 and 1965 Ap lows correspond to the NH temperature minima at 1910 and 1975 respectively . The 1992 Ap peak ( Solar Cycle 22) corresponds to the 2003 temperature high and trend roll over- and as shown in the previous post referred to above might well represent the roll over of the millennial solar cycle which brought the Medieval and Roman warming peaks. The NH is used because it is more sensitive to forcing changes and its greater variability makes correlation more obvious.
As a simple conceptual model the Ap index can be thought of as simple proxy for hours of sunshine especially when mentally integrated over a 10 -12 year period. See Wang et al
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/acp-12-9581-2012.pdf
As far as the future is concerned the Solar Cycle 23/24 Ap minimum in end 2009 is as low as the 1900 minimum and would suggest both a secular change in solar activity in about 2006 and a coming temperature minimum at about 2019/20. This change is also documented for TSI by Adbussamatov 2012 http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754
Fig 5.
As a final example for this post the following figure from Steinhilber et al http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
shows the close correlation of successive Little Ice Age Minima with cosmic Ray intensity.
CONCLUSION :
It is now clear that the Ap/GCR/10Be data are the best proxy measures of the Earth’s temperature driver over millennial centennial and decadal time scales. The best way of forecasting the future is to predict future solar cycles at these wavelengths keeping in mind the Earth’s magnetic field strength and obliquity trends over longer time periods.
3. The Response of the Modellers, IPCC and Political Alarmists.
The modelling community and the IPCC have both recognized that they have a problem. For example both Hansen and Trenberth have been looking for the missing heat and generating epicycle type theories to preserve their models.Hansen thinks it might have something to do with aerosols and Trenberth first wanted to hide it down the deep ocean black hole. Death Train Hansen is a lost cause as far as objective science is concerned but Trenberth has always been a more objective and judicious scientist and has recently made excellent progress in discovering a real negative feedback in the system. see
He says:
This is an encouraging start and its inclusion would improve models significantly. Clearly it would reduce very substantially the currently IPCC calculated temperature sensitivity to CO2 . He now also needs to add into the models the iris effect of the GCR modulation of the global incoming radiation flux via clouds ,possibly related natural aerosols, and resulting albedo changes on global temperatures.When this is done the sensitivity to doubling CO2 will be 1 degree or less similar to separate calculations by Lindzen, Spencer and Bjornbom:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-confirms-findings-of-lindzen.html
The IPCC ‘s response to the lack of warming is seen in the SREX 2011 report. they say
“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.
In other words they realized that they could no longer scaremonger on the basis of the trend and so in that report and in the forthcoming AR5 they have chosen to concentrate on “extreme” events to promote their scaremongering anti CO2 policy agenda while keeping unchanged their climate sensitivity calculations. The core alarmists Hansen, Mann, McKibben and Romm and their MSM ,Celebrity and Political acolytes including Obama are simply following the IPCC script with their ever more hysterical predictions of future extreme disasters as the current earth obstinately refuses to warm up.
The AR5 Summary for Policymakers is currently in draft form.Obviously Trenberth and his associated modellers cannot restructure the models in time to change the science section but perhaps they could at least insist that the final report makes proper allowance for the structural uncertainty in the model outcomes .
CONCLUSION:
Trenberth’s latest work implies that when it is incorporated into the climate models the entire CAGW scare will collapse.
The only effect of increasing CO2 will be to ameliorate slightly the coming cold temperature trend and to help world food production by its fertilizing effect on crops.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif In choosing a metric by which to measure climate change SST data are the best for various reasons which I have enumerated on various posts on my website. ( not the least is the fact that SST data most closely correlates with changes in global enthalpy which is what we should really measure ) The NH is more sensitive to climate change and more clearly shows what’s going on. The new HAD SST3 data is their latest version which accounts for the change in the measuring system before and after the 2nd world war and is probably the best data set to work with.
Dr Norman Page says:
February 21, 2013 at 12:03 pm
In choosing a metric by which to measure climate change…
If the Sun is major driver of climate it shouldn’t matter which dataset one chooses. If the Sun is not a major driver, then I agree that when looking for subtle [or non-existent] effects, the dataset can make a difference. Did you read the links I gave you about cosmic rays? What is the last word of the abstract of Paper#2?
Note to the reader from the NNIC Bremerton: It is insufficient to look to the solar cycles alone (ignoring what the Earth may be doing at the same time) to find correlation to the climate oscillations. However, combine two; solar and Earth magnetic variability and the correlation is a good as you ever hope to get:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
vukcevic says:
February 21, 2013 at 12:25 pm
It is insufficient to look to the solar cycles alone
It is even worse to make up data and pretend to do science when it is in fact plain nonsense.
lsvalgaard says: February 21, 2013 at 12:41 pm
………..
Hi Doc
I use the same data as did NASA-JPL and Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris used in their research.
vukcevic says:
February 21, 2013 at 1:12 pm
I use the same data as did NASA-JPL and Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris used in their research.
It is not the data that is the problem, it the invalid use of them.You went all quiet on my suggestion to submit your paper here to WUWT to disclose your nonsense. Put up or shut up, as they say.
lsvalgaard says:
February 21, 2013 at 11:09 am
Gail Combs says:
“This [wrong] meme is still going around [probably will forever as long as it serves someone’s purpose]…..” As I said before take it up with the Physicist who is agreeing with the reconstructions.
As I said before people will agree with the wrong data as long a they serve their purpose. Does that also apply to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think anyone who has read the IPCC mandate, realizes the scientists on the taxpayer teat are not only not looking for any other possible climate influences besides CO2, they are actively and aggressively suppressing other ideas, especially the idea that the sun might actually have an effect. This is because if any other climate influences are identified the CO2 climate sensitivity must be modified DOWN and that would be political/career death.
I on the other hand have retired as a chemist, have no children and no real ax to grind except for a deep sense of outrage at those who are responsible for The Climate Hoax/fuel poverty/biofuel-starvation related deaths.
b>The IPCC mandate states:
Then there are all the other studies that support Shaviv’s position and not yours.
Here is an interesting one from 25 years ago that predicted the current quiet sun.
Cosmic Rays
Solar variability influences on weather and climate: Possible connections through cosmic ray fluxes and storm intensification
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 94, Number D12, pp. 14783-14792, October 1989)
– Brian A. Tinsley, Geoffrey M. Brown, Philip H. Scherrer
Apparent tropospheric response to MeV-GeV particle flux variations: A connection via electrofreezing of supercooled water in high-level clouds?
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 96, Issue D12, pp. 22283-22296, December 1991)
– Brian A. Tinsley, Glen W. Deen
Rainfalls during great Forbush decreases
(Il Nuovo Cimento C, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp. 335-341, May 1995)
– Y. I. Stozhkov et al.
Atmospheric transparency variations associated with geomagnetic disturbances
(Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Volume 54, Issue 9, pp. 1135-1138, September 1992)
– M. I. Pudovkin, S. V. Babushkina
Solar:
I left out all the Henrik Svensmark papers and many many others.
Gail Combs says:
February 21, 2013 at 2:25 pm
I left out all the Henrik Svensmark papers and many many others.
Almost all your references are to old, obsolete papers. I have a list of about 2000 of such, all claiming significance [but often conflicting]. I understand your outrage, but the correct way to deal with this is to use updated science and recent results.
lsvalgaard says: February 21, 2013 at 1:27 pm
It is not the data that is the problem, it the invalid use of them
Invalid use of data, that is a new one.
Altering someone else’s historic data (e.g. sunspot numbers, temperature records and the like) one could consider an ‘invalid’ use of data, but doing exactly what the authors did, what NASA-JPL did, or Institut de Physique did, and drawing attention to what they missed or were not interested in, I consider not only appropriate but an advancement of research.
I emailed you the first article sometime last September, second article with further supporting evidence from http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Science/ is nearly finished, so I will email it to you as well. You can in 5 min flat repeat my calculation. I say, if it’s in them data it must be science, not one you may like or approve of, but the result speaks louder than any ‘distressed’ critic.
You went all quiet on my suggestion to submit your paper here to WUWT to disclose your nonsense.
I may have overstayed my presence here as it is, but if I am invited I may consider it, for time being I’m happy enough to ‘leak’ my own ‘confidential’ findings, it is ‘in thing’, don’t you know?
See you.
A couple of thoughts.
1) The Earth radiates about 390 w/m2 from the surface with only 40 of that not being captured. Doesn’t that put a limit on the GHE? If all 40 w/m2 got captured the surface temp would be 22°C which turns out to be the historic maximum.
2) There’s a simple explanation that describes what has happened over the last 500 years. If the Maunder Minimum reduced the energy captured in our oceans you would see a cooling just like we saw in the 17th century. Since then we’ve seen a pretty constant warming which would be expected as the sun got back to normal. Slow but sure. A few bumps along the way provided by ENSO and the AMO would describe everything that has happened. In addition, without adjustments to the temperature record there was very little warming in the 20th century. The oceans may have reached equilibrium now with little to no more warming expected from the nearly constant solar TSI.
vukcevic says:
February 21, 2013 at 2:38 pm
Invalid use of data, that is a new one.
No, you have been doing it for some time.
doing exactly what the authors did, what NASA-JPL did, or Institut de Physique did
‘Exactly’? show that that is true.
the result speaks louder than any ‘distressed’ critic.
First, I’m not ‘distressed’. Second, you don’t have any valid results.
I may have overstayed my presence here as it is
Indeed!
but if I am invited I may consider it
You don’t need invitation. People send Anthony stuff. Just do it.
for time being I’m happy enough to ‘leak’ my own ‘confidential’ findings
put up or shut up.
lsvalgaard says:
February 21, 2013 at 9:40 am
Jim G says:
February 21, 2013 at 9:19 am
send me an ounce of dark matter, I’ll pay the shipping.
“I’ll send it for free. How would you see it? Hint: weigh the seemingly empty envelope.”
I’ll take it. I will use your methodology then empty the seemingly empty envelope then weigh it again. If it shows a difference of one ounce, I will become a believer. Hey, Leif, you were the one who was demanding “proof” of a hypothetical so be nice, after all, it was you who once told me “you need not stoop to my level”. That goes for you too!
Regards,
Jim G
Leif This article was written in the context of the climate wars.
Can you agree with the following propositions
1. On millenial and shorter time scales the Sun is the main climate driver.
2. CO2 is of minor significance – there is no need to waste billions on controlling CO2 emissions
3 There is a built in negative feed back in the system probably along the lines suggeted in the Trenberth link which prevents the earth from warming too much.
4 Variations in TSI alone do not account for the amplitude of temperature change on earth.
5.There is some other solar caused mechanism which acts in conjuction with or amplfies the TSI changes to affect the Temperature.
If you agree with the above and you don’t think the cloud hypothesis is useful could you give us conceptually some notion of what you think is happening.
Finally where you think earth’s temperature is headed in the next 30 years – ballpark guess.
lsvalgaard says:
February 21, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Gail Combs says:
February 21, 2013 at 2:25 pm
I left out all the Henrik Svensmark papers and many many others.
Almost all your references are to old, obsolete papers…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Fine how about some newer papers? Conflicting papers are not surprising in a young very active field especially when some scientists have an agenda that is political and not scientific.
Micheal Mann and his much abused Hockey Stick come to mind as well as Hansen’s ever changing temperature records.
These agree with the older study from 1995 so you can not make the sweeping statement that you did that the studies are ” old, obsolete” Those papers are not playstation models they are based on empirical data.
Gail Combs says:
February 21, 2013 at 4:11 pm
Fine how about some newer papers? Conflicting papers are not surprising in a young very active field especially when some scientists have an agenda that is political and not scientific.
This is not a ‘very new field’. It goes back to Riccioli in the 17th century. You demonstrate an aptitude to select papers to support your view. Did you really try to find some that didn’t and failed miserably? For example, that show that the Arctic and the Antarctic vary in anti-correlation on millennial timescales. Or that a large part of the 10Be record variability is due to climate and not to the Sun. The list goes on…Is ‘outrage’ also not an agenda?
Gail Thanks for the links on your very useful posts/
Dr Norman Page says:
February 21, 2013 at 4:07 pm
Can you agree with the following propositions
1. On millenial and shorter time scales the Sun is the main climate driver.
No, there is no evidence for that. On the contrary the temperatures of the Arctic and the Antarctic are anti-correlated on millennial timescales, pointing to oceanic causes.
2. CO2 is of minor significance – there is no need to waste billions on controlling CO2 emissions
There is no such need, but you miss the point: politicians do not want to control CO2, just to extract money from you.
3 There is a built in negative feed back in the system probably along the lines suggested in the Trenberth link which prevents the earth from warming too much.
I am not sure about this one. Smacks too much of Gaia for my taste. The Earth has been much warmer in the past, did that feedback not work back then?
4 Variations in TSI alone do not account for the amplitude of temperature change on earth.
I agree, although some solar physicists are trying to revive the TSI-idea [e.g. Shapiro et al.]
5.There is some other solar caused mechanism which acts in conjuction with or amplflies the TSI changes to affect the Temperature.
No, what would that be? The various proposals have always fallen flat. TSI is where the energy is.
If you agree with the above and you don’t think the cloud hypothesis is useful could you give us conceptually some notion of what you think is happening.
I mostly disagree, so it is hard to form a concept out of that? But how about stochastic variations of a complex system.
Finally where you think earth’s temperature is headed in the next 30 years – ballpark guess.
Have no idea. Guessing would suggest an upward trend [as that is what has happened in the past on climate time scales – 30 years or longer]. Also, some wishful thinking: warm is better than cold.
Gail Combs says:
February 21, 2013 at 4:11 pm
Fine how about some newer papers?
You should look in more detail on what they say. Am often quoted paper is one by Jasper Kirby [I’m sure you know it or can find it] where he presents the following Figure [top panel] http://www.leif.org/research/INTCAL-Jasper.png in support of the cosmic ray mechanism influence on temperature [proxied by d18O]. It looks pretty good on the surface. However, it is not correct and does not support the GCR-cause [on the contrary]. You see, what matters is the actual intensity of the GCR flux and that is determined mostly by the Earth’s magnetic field. The lower panel shows the real GCR record [proxies by red INTCAL 14C flux] for the past 2000 years. There clearly is a long-term variation that is not very nice when comparing with the d18O record, but if we filter that long-term [real] variation to suppress variations on a time scale longer than 200 years we get the blue curve which as you will agree is precisely Kirby’s blue curve. This is, however sleight of hand as the causative agent is supposed to be the actual flux with lon-term drift and all. Things like this make me outraged.
Dr Norman Page says:
February 21, 2013 at 12:03 pm
In choosing a metric by which to measure climate change…
If the Sun is major driver of climate it shouldn’t matter which dataset one chooses.
Did you read the links I gave you about cosmic rays? What is the last word of the abstract of Paper#2? You just blatantly ignore this my question. How can one have a reasonable discussion when faced with such an attitude?
[Dupe entry? Or should the first be removed? Mod]
I keep encountering the assertion that CO2 is a plant food and that we cant have too much of it. I also see that some are convinced that rising average and peak temperatures means a longer growing season – higher crop yields. There are two points to be made against such assertions. One is that no sufficiency of sustained warmth and sunshine, fertile soil, oxigen-nitrogen-co2 will compensate for insufficient rain and failing aquafers. No doubt, [snip — don’t use that word on this site. — mod.] want the public to decouple co2 from drought, if not from heat, but if they cant, they must convince the world that one region’s (or generation’s) catastrophe (droughts, floods, etc.) is another’s convenience (electricity, automobiles) – (“So sue me!”). The other point is an obvious one about how much of a “good thing” is too much – ‘how hot is too hot?’ – ‘how many ice free months can the Great Lakes have, winter after winter as prevailing winds carry off water vapor?’ what will the south west do when Lake Powell finally isnt a Lake any more- what will the Plains do when the Oglalla aquafer is depleted? just what ARE the plants that thrive emmersed in co2?’ (poison ivy according one study).
Another thing I keep encountering are implications that GW is a hoax designed to put an end to American Democracy. It would seem consistent with that kind of mindset that laisee faire applyed to climate is preferable to duly elected government trying to stave off environmental disaster. Cant you just hear the embattled redneck tea partyer shouting “get your government hands off my burning forests, dessicated croplands, trickling river channels, shrinking lakes and water tables, wildlife on the brink of extinction, sea beds paved with oil spills, crashing fish stocks, superstorms, rising ocean levels!”? Would someone like to expand on that viewpoint, get a little more specific about who is “behind” this?
One thing that I dont think was mentioned in ‘Wattsup..’ articles or comments was the issue of ocean acidity and dying coral species? How trivial is that?
lFebruary 21, 2013 at 4:59 pm
Dr Norman Page says:
February 21, 2013 at 12:03 pm
In choosing a metric by which to measure climate change…
If the Sun is major driver of climate it shouldn’t matter which dataset one chooses. But:
Did you read the links I gave you about cosmic rays? What is the last word of the abstract of Paper#2? You just blatantly ignore this my question. How can one have a reasonable discussion when faced with such an attitude?
Lsvalgaard,
“3 There is a built in negative feed back in the system probably along the lines suggested in the Trenberth link which prevents the earth from warming too much.
I am not sure about this one. Smacks too much of Gaia for my taste. The Earth has been much warmer in the past, did that feedback not work back then?”
If you believe the Vostok ice core data that CO2 lags temperature by 100-800 years, and you believe in radiative physics (which I know you do), there has to be a built in negative feedback – else what would prevent run away warming?
Jon Schneider;
There are two points to be made against such assertions. One is that no sufficiency of sustained warmth and sunshine, fertile soil, oxigen-nitrogen-co2 will compensate for insufficient rain and failing aquafers.No doubt, deniers want the public to decouple co2 from drought, if not from heat
The most recent research, which is being cited in the draft review of United Nations IPCC report due out next year suggests that there is no connection:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/16/global-warming-to-drought-links-shot-down/
what we “want” sir is for a discussion of the actual science rather than what the uninformed think is the science.
Jon Schneider;
The other point is an obvious one about how much of a “good thing” is too much – ‘how hot is too hot?
Well and excellent point! I don’t speak for all skeptics (the term I use rather than the ugly and insulting term you used) but within the range of sensitivities claimed by the IPCC, even the upper bound represents a level of warming that would be a fraction of the cost to adapt to than prevent. But the fact of the matter is that the upper bound is not only unlikely, even the most ardent of warmist scientists are beginning to admit that even the lower bound may be an over estimate. In fact, temperatures over the last 16 years are below the lowest model estimates, something that the best researchers at NOAA insisted was impossible unless the models were wrong altogether. Here was are 16 years and on all 4 global major temperature indices, temperatures have been flat despite a 20% increase in CO2. No, it hasn’t gone into “extreme weather” either, that has also been debunked, extreme weather on a global basis is in decline and expected to continue to decline according to the next draft of the IPCC report.
Jon Schneider;
Another thing I keep encountering are implications that GW is a hoax designed to put an end to American Democracy
I suggest you not paint all skeptics with the same brush. At day’s end though, the specific motivation is far less important than what the actual facts of the science are. If the warmist meme is wrong, it is wrong. Why it is wrong doesn’t much matter at that point.
Jon Schneider;
One thing that I dont think was mentioned in ‘Wattsup..’ articles or comments was the issue of ocean acidity and dying coral species? How trivial is that?
How hard did you look?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scripps-paper-ocean-acidification-fears-overhyped/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-ocean-is-not-getting-acidified/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/ocean-acidification-chicken-of-the-sea-little-strikes-again/
Leif of course I read your link the last word was” them” ,I am well aware of the uncertainties in the Be data you have to consider all the often contradictory data – see Gails links and make some judgement on the overall picture – reasonable people can draw different conclusions.
If you don’t now think its the sun but the Ocean systems – what drives them?
I gather you think God plays dice on a macroscpic scale – in which case theres not much we can learn about nature – I,m surprised you bother thinking about climate at all.
– – – – – – – –
Steven Mosher,
I appreciate the effort of your considerable comment. Thanks.
My question was prompted by Dr Norman Page saying,
So, I got to thinking we now are finally (sigh) successfully getting away from the irrational myopia on and alarming exaggeration of climate sensitivity from a doubling of CO2 by the IPCC assessments. We are progressing to a more balanced and open dialog about all aspects of the earth-atmospheric system; finding the more realistic aspect of not just CO2 but previously neglected more important other aspects. In the improved dialog there is growing confidence in much lower and/or insignificant magnitudes of effects from CO2. So I asked my question.
First, a view to CO2. It is certain that CO2 in its gaseous state adsorbs electromagnetic radiation of certain wavelengths (IR) and it gives up either all or some of that energy through emitting radiation and/or kinetic energy transfer to other atmospheric molecules. It is one of the many elemental building block type phenomena of our total earth-atmospheric system.
The earth-atmospheric system is a grand infinitely varying continuous experiment; we do not need to make one. But it is a fatally under-instrumented experiment temporally and spatially but going forward we can correct that. Looking backward on the experiment, we can improve the historical experiment by refining the proxies with inventive ideas of new proxies and better sampling of existing proxies. Get to work, science.
The experiment, as it stands, says the observational results show climate behavior is business as usual from the geological timeframe to the present; an earth-atmospheric system not significantly influenced by CO2 if at all.
The GC models are what show that there should be a significant CO2 influence on climate. I consider them wrong in a Feynman context.
What physical principle or essential scientific understanding is compromised by a (my) thesis that our earth-atmospheric system, which appears to act like a highly complex chaotic non-linear one, has a capability to produce a zero energy change response to increased CO2? Ditto for a negative energy change response to increased CO2?
That still remains my open question. Current scientific estimates and calculations may find certain earth-atmospheric system responses to changes in its system parameters (such as CO2). People like Lindzen have given attention to such estimates and calculation and I very much respect his. I understand. But what I am looking for in my question is clear barriers to zero or negative response; sort of the climate equivalent to the speed of light barrier.
Mosh, I considered your response, thanks, and now I am requesting more views to consider.
John