By Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is in the midst of finishing its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) on the topic. Based on a series of content leaks, it seems as if the AR5 has so much internal inconsistency that releasing it in its current form will be a major fiasco.
The central issue of climate change science is the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—that is, how much the earth’s average surface temperature will increase as a result of a doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. New and mutually consistent re-assessments of this important parameter are appearing in the scientific literature faster than the slow and arduous IPCC assessment process can digest them (presuming it even wants to—given that they are making the current AR5 look pretty bad).
Further, even if the IPCC is able to do an adequate job of assimilating this evolving and quite convincing science, the vast majority of the rest of the IPCC’s report will also have to be changed as it is highly dependent on the magnitude of the climate sensitivity.
By now, though, it’s too late in the game (the final report is due out in early 2014)—the cows have all left the IPCC’s barn on these subjects and it’s too late to round them all up and rebrand them.
The First Order Draft (FOD) of the IPCC’s AR5 was leaked/made public back in December 2012. In the FOD, the IPCC recognized the significance of the earth climate sensitivity, calling it:
[T]he single most important measure of climate response because the response of many other climate variables to an increase in CO2 scales with the increase in global-mean surface temperature.
The IPCC went on to assess the current scientific knowledge as to the magnitude of the climate sensitivity this way:
Despite considerable advances in climate models and in understanding and quantifying climate feedbacks, the assessed literature still supports the conclusion from AR4 [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007] that climate sensitivity is likely in the range 2–4.5°C, and very likely above 1.5°C. The most likely value remains near 3°C. An ECS greater than about 6–7°C is very unlikely, based on combination of multiple lines of evidence. [emphasis in original]
The IPCC’s “mostly likely value” in the FOD is 3.0°C. This is interesting in and of itself because according to the same First Order Draft the average climate sensitivity produced by the climate models used by the IPCC is 3.4°C, which is already some 13% higher than the IPCC’s 3.0 degrees.
If the IPCC thinks there was something systematically wrong with the models it was using, then it should just come out and say it. The fact that the IPCC (currently) will not do so does not exactly inspire confidence in its ability to stand up and criticize. In reality, the average climate sensitivity of a collection of results published within the past 2-3 years suggests that the value is closer to 2.0°C, and recent observations of the pace of global temperature rise hint at a value even a bit lower than that.
The IPCC has come under growing pressure from the scientific community—especially members of the commission directly involved in climate sensitivity research—to reflect these new, lower estimates.
There are some indications, though, that the IPCC times may be a–changing.
According to The Economist, which claims to have seen the most recent draft of the IPCC’s AR5, the IPCC’s assessment of climate sensitivity has now been altered. Here is how The Economist describes what is in the new IPCC draft concerning the equilibrium climate sensitivity:
Both the 2007 IPCC report and a previous draft of the new assessment reflected earlier views on the matter by saying that the standard measure of climate sensitivity (the likely rise in equilibrium temperature in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration) was between 2°C and 4.5°C, with 3°C the most probable figure. In the new draft, the lower end of the range has been reduced to 1.5°C and the “most likely” figure has been scrapped. That seems to reflect a growing sense that climate sensitivity may have been overestimated in the past and that the science is too uncertain to justify a single estimate of future rises.
If this is true, the combination of the IPCC lowering the low end of the range of possible climate sensitivity values and the IPCC deciding not to provide its assessment of the “most likely” value strongly suggests that the average climate model sensitivity of 3.4°C is even further removed from the science on the topic and less justifiable. Just how far removed the climate models really are is kept under wraps by the IPCC by its no longer supplying a “most likely” value. If the “most likely” value were to be assessed at 2.5°C, then the climate model average would be 36% too high compared to the science. If the “most likely” value were to be 2.0°C, then the model average climate sensitivity would be some 70% too high.
Because, as the IPCC admits, the change in many other climate variables “scales with the increase in global-mean surface temperature,” the climate impacts derived from the model projections (which essentially is what the IPCC is all about) are also (substantially) too high.
The IPCC has three options:
- Round-file the entire AR5 as it now stands and start again.
- Release the current AR5 with a statement that indicates that all the climate change and impacts described within are likely overestimated by around 50%, or
- Do nothing and mislead policymakers and the rest of the world.
We’re betting on door number 3.
On a final note, the problem of large government climate change assessments being scientifically outdated even before they are released is not atypical of “group science,” which is hugely expensive, grossly inefficient, and often is designed to justify policy. We noted the same thing in our comments on the recent draft report of the U.S. effort at assessing climate change impacts, the “National Climate Assessment” (NCA), stating:
To the extent that the recent literature ultimately produces a more accurate estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity than does the climate model average, it means that, in general, all of the projections of future climate change given in the NCA are, by default, some 40% too large (too rapid) and the associated (and described) impacts are gross overestimates.
Our recommendation is that an alternative set of projections be developed for all topics discussed in the NCA, incorporating the latest scientific findings on the lowered value of equilibrium climate sensitivity. Without the addition of the new projections, the NCA will be obsolete on the day of its official release.
And to think, these national and international assessments are undertaken to justify policy actions.
Scary thought.
In George Orwell’s 1984, the government of Oceana had a number of creative ways of dealing with a recalcitrant reality which didn’t cooperate with the government’s statements:
1) The ministry of truth would change history so that it would agree with whatever government said. They could make poverty worse in the past so that it would appear better today. Isn’t that kind of like “adjusting” the temperatures of the past downward to make the present appear warmer?
2) The government of Oceana could also just say that something was true regardless of reality. For example they could just say 2+2 =5 and anyone who disagreed would be tortured until they agreed. Today under the NDAA act the government can transfer a “covered person” to a foreign country (where torture is not prohibited) and question that person until he says whatever the government wants him to say.
So how far are we from 1984?
In reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 27, 2013 at 6:17 am
http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf
William:
Planetary temperature observations and solar cycle observations will of course prove one of us incorrect. Do you get that?
The solar magnetic cycle 24 change will have an astonishing impact on the climate wars and science in general.
What do think the media and public’s reaction will be to significant global cooling, a reversal of the warming of the last 70 years?
I hear no response for you as to why sunspots are turning into pores. Why do think that is? What is going to happen next? Is 1108 a sunspot?
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20130726_hres.jpg
Is solar magnetic cycle 24 going to lead to a deep, deep Maunder like minimum?
What do you think caused the cyclic warming and cooling in the below graph that just happens to correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes?
Did you miss this paper? Curious that you are ignoring the solar observations. Sunspots are turning into pores. What could that mean?
“Are Sunspots Different During This Solar Minimum? (William: Duh. Is that a rhetorical question? A pore is different than a sunspot. Look at the most recent solar picture. Pores, no sunspots and the pores are disappearing. Where will it end?)
But something is unusual about the current sunspot cycle. The current solar minimum has been unusually long, and with more than 670 days without sunspots through June 2009, the number of spotless days has not been equaled since 1933 (see http:// users . telenet .be/ j . janssens/ Spotless/Spotless .html). The solar wind is reported to be in a uniquely low energy state since space measurements began nearly 40 years ago [Fisk and Zhao, 2009].
Recent Sunspots: Tiny Pores Without Penumbrae…. ….A simple linear extrapolation of those data suggested that sunspots might completely vanish by 2015.”
Are you aware that the most amount of warming in the last 70 years was on the Greenland Ice sheet? Curious that the CO2 mechanism and the general circulation models cannot explain why the warming in the last 70 years is regional not global and the regions that warmed are the same regions that warmed in the past when there was a solar magnetic cycle grand maximum.
Modulation of planetary clouds by solar magnetic cycle changes caused warming in the past and did again in the last 70 years.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
The planet has started to cool and the sun will be anomalously spotless by the end of this year. Curious that you have not read any of the theoretical work related to what causes a Maunder minimum.
Solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover:
There is high correlation of the reduction in planetary cloud cover in the regions that experienced warming in the last 70 years and there is correlation of solar magnetic cycle changes with the reduction in planetary cloud cover. The paper you link to provides an explanation of the mechanisms and acknowledges that both Svensmark’s SKY laboratory experiment and Kirkby’s CERN experiment support the fact cosmic ray flux causes an 10 fold increase in cloud nucleation formation.
From the paper you provided a link to:
The findings of a low level restriction to the CR-cloud correlation by Palle´ & Butler (2000) were later confirmed by Marsh & Svensmark (2000), hereafter referred to as MS00. A monthly time-series of globally averaged ISCCP low (>680 mb/<3.2 km) cloud and CR flux anomalies over the period of June 1983 to December 1994 similar to that presented in MS00 is shown in Figure 1a. MS00 also performed an analysis of local scale (individual ISCCP data pixel) correlations: a reproduction of these results is shown in Figure 1b. MS00 claimed that 15.8% of the globe showed a statistically significant positive correlation between low cloud changes and the CR flux, with a probability (p) value of achieving these results by chance of p < .001%.
It appears there was a grand solar magnetic cycle maximum in the last 70 years. As this paper notes the estimate of the relative magnitude of the current recent grand solar maximum from cosmogenic isotope deposits is dependent on past estimates of the geomagnetic field intensity and orientation.
As we are in the middle of the climate wars there is a push to reduce the estimated magnitude of the recent grand solar maximum. Sun-gate?
http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.0385
Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: New observational constraints I.G. Usoskin, S.K. Solanki, and G.A. Kovaltsov
…We present an updated reconstruction of sunspot number over multiple millennia, from 14C data by means of a physics-based model, using an updated model of the evolution of the solar open magnetic flux. A list of grand minima and maxima of solar activity is presented for the Holocene (since 9500 BC) and the statistics of both the length of individual events as well as the waiting time between them are analyzed…. …Solar activity on multi-millenial time scales has been recently reconstructed using a physics-based model from measurements of 14C in tree rings (see full details in Solanki et al. 2004, Usoskin et al. 2006a). The validity of the model results for the last centennia has been proven by independent data on measurements of 44Ti in stony meteorites (Usoskin et al. 2006b). The reconstruction depends on the knowledge of temporal changes of the geomagnetic dipole field, which must be estimated independently by paleomagnetic methods. Here we compare two solar activity reconstructions, which are based on alternative paleomagnetic models: one which yields an estimate of the virtual aligned dipole moment (VADM) since 9500 BC (Yang et al. 2000), and the other a recent paleomagnetic reconstruction of the true dipole moment since 5000 BC (Korte & Constable 2005). We note that the geomagnetic dipole moment obtained by Korte & Constable (2005) lies systematically lower than that of Yang et al. (2000), leading to a systematically higher solar activity reconstruction in the past (Usoskin et al. 2006a). While the geomagnetic reconstruction of the VADM by Yang et al. (2000) provides an upper bound for the true dipole moment, the more recent work of Korte & Constable (2005) may underestimate it. Thus we consider both models as they bound a realistic case. We note that the Yang et al. (2000) data run more than 4000 years longer and give a more conservative estimate of the grand maxima.
See figure 3 in this paper. It shows that solar activity in 20th century particularly in the last half of the 20th century was the highest in 12,000 years and more importantly the duration of the high period was the longest in 12,000 years.
William Astley says:
July 27, 2013 at 9:35 am
Planetary temperature observations and solar cycle observations will of course prove one of us incorrect. Do you get that?
No, I don’t get that, because if you are proven incorrect, you will not concede that but come up with some excuse why things didn’t work out. You have already offered some.
The solar magnetic cycle 24 change will have an astonishing impact on the climate wars and science in general.
So you claim, but perhaps not the way you think. It is much more likely that it will show that the sun has nothing to do with the climate.
What do think the media and public’s reaction will be to significant global cooling, a reversal of the warming of the last 70 years?
what has that to do with solar activity?
I hear no response for you as to why sunspots are turning into pores. Why do think that is? What is going to happen next?
I have explained several times that sunspots are not turning into pores. What is happening is that the pores do not assemble into spots as much as they used to. The reason for that is at present not clear.
Is 1108 a sunspot?
There is no 1108 on the Figure you showed
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20130726_hres.jpg
Is solar magnetic cycle 24 going to lead to a deep, deep Maunder like minimum?
As I have been advocating this is a real possibility.
What do you think caused the cyclic warming and cooling in the below graph that just happens to correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes?
No graph.
Solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover:
There is high correlation of the reduction in planetary cloud cover in the regions that experienced warming in the last 70 years
Actually not, here is a plot of cloudiness in Norway the past 1000 years http://www.leif.org/research/Norway-Cloud-cover-Reconstr.png Note that the cloud cover was smallest during the Little Ice Age.
It appears there was a grand solar magnetic cycle maximum in the last 70 years.
No it does not appear so.
See figure 3 in this paper. It shows that solar activity in 20th century particularly in the last half of the 20th century was the highest in 12,000 years and more importantly the duration of the high period was the longest in 12,000 years.
Their Figure 3 is at the top of Slide 6 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf as you can see, their reconstruction is at variance with the latest 10Be activity by Steinhilber et al. and I have direted you already to several newer papers that conclude that recent activity was not unsually high, e.e. Berggren et al, Muschler et al., etc.
In reply to:
Village Idiot says:
July 27, 2013 at 8:29 am
William Astley says:
July 26, 2013 at 11:35 pm
“Western countries have wasted trillions of dollars”
I don’t know where you get your figures, but they’ve spent/wasted peanuts in the great scheme of things. And as you point out, nothing has worked; a) Governments don’t prioritize the problem b)Governments don’t know how to tackle the problem while keeping in power.
William: Western Governments will be forced to prioritize their problems. Western governments have run out of money. Do you understand what happens to countries and cities that continually spend more than they take in, in taxes? See Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Detroit, and so on. There are 100 US cities that face bankruptcy. Do you think that might affect the US?
A trillion dollars has spent on green scams 2004 to 2011. Result of spending a trillion dollars on green scams: Almost no difference in world carbon emissions.
The green scams cost estimates do not include the cost for power grid upgrades (doubles the cost of the green scam) and energy storage (doubles or quadruples the cost of the green scam if there were a viable storage solution which there is not. As there is no economic storage solution, wind and solar are not viable.)
See Germany: Tilting at Windmills
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-07/-1-trillion-speaks-louder-than-un-talks.html
Sometime in the two weeks before the UN climate conference in Durban, the world passed $1 trillion mark in clean energy investment since 2004. That’s a trillion dollars in solar and wind power plants, in bioenergy production facilities, in smart meters and smart grids, in assets, public markets, research and development.
Even for the energy world, it’s a big number, and one that grew quickly. The world invested $52 billion in clean energy in 2004, and $243 billion last year. That’s a 29 percent compound growth rate, sufficient for total yearly investment to double in less than three years. It’s capital deployment that has increased every year even with tremendous macroeconomic headwinds and uncertain policies in Europe and the US. Last year’s $243 billion is right about halfway to the yearly investment which Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates is necessary to slow climate change. (William: The trillion dollars spent 2004 to 2011 has made almost difference in carbon dioxide emission in the EU if the carbon content if imported goods is included.)
William:
Green scams: Germany the post child of the problem.
Economist June 19, 2013
Energy – Tilting at Windmills
…This kind of nimbyism is only one of many problems facing Germany’s Energiewende. The literal transalation is energy change or turn, but this is more of a revolution, designed to convert Europe’s biggest industry economy so it runs larger on renewable energy. (William: Sounds good eh? The Germans have come up with a nifty word for getting from A to B, unfortunately they do not have a magic wand to create money to pay to get from A to B. Now the articles discusses the problems.)
By 2022 all nuclear power plants will, which now produce 16% of the country’s electricity, are to be shut-off… …Businessmen say the Energiewende will kill German industry. …(William: You think?) … The problem is that most wind and solar power is generated a long way from the parts of the country where the nuclear power plants are to shut-off… so new electrical grids have to be built… …Germany needs 4000 km of new transmission lines by 2022 of which less than 300 km have been constructed… …A second problem is that many source of renewable energy (William: Wind and Solar for example) are intermediate. … Bulk electricity storage is still in its infancy (William: No technical solution, the proto solutions more than double the cost of ‘green’ scam energy. The cost solar in Germany is four times as expensive as the most expensive modern newly constructed nuclear power plant and twelve times the cost of a modern nuclear power plant that is being constructed in China. Solar and wind of course requires storage which there is not solution.)
…The result is a web of grotesque distortions. On sunny days Germany pushes its excess power into the European grid at a loss. …. On cloudy days Germany relies ever more on brown coal. Last year its CO2 emissions rose.
…. The cost of this mess is passed on to electricity users. Household fuel bills have gone up by a quarter (25%) over the past three years, to 40%-50% above the EU average (William: And twice the US average). And because the contracts guaranteeing renewable are set for 20 years, the problem gets worse as more supplies (William: Green scams) come on stream. …the cost of Energiewende will double over the next decade….. … the number of officially “energy-intensive” firms (William: energy-intensive” firms do not have to pay for the green scams) has risen from 59 in 2003 to 2,000 today. Between them they use around a fifth of German’s electricity.
Leif said:
“http://www.leif.org/research/Norway-Cloud-cover-Reconstr.png
Note that the cloud cover was smallest during the Little Ice Age.”
Well of course it was, in Norway.
The jets shifted well to the south leaving Norway more often under polar high pressure cells.
But the global cloud cover would have been greater due to the more meridional, equatorward jets generating longer lines of air mass mixing.
Once Leif considers events below Top of Atmosphere his command of solar science ceases to be helpful. Hence his inability to accept solar variations in wavelengths and / or particles altering atmospheric chemistry to change the vertical temperature profile above the tropopause differently above equator and poles.
The fact is that jet stream and climate zone changes do occur and are generally correlated with solar activity subject to modulation from the oceans.
The only way latitudinal movements can occur is if the gradient of tropopause height between equator and pole changes. There is no other way it could happen.
That gradient can change either from the bottom up at the equator when Sea surface temperatures change or from the top down at the poles when the level of solar activity changes.
The logic is incontrovertible and accounts for all the climate observations that I am aware of.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 27, 2013 at 12:04 pm
Well of course it was, in Norway.
Well, the Norwegians think that the olar influence is strong in Norway
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/11/30/how-sunspot-cycles-impact-temperatures-norway-and-earths-north-atlantic
The logic is incontrovertible [sic] and accounts for all the climate observations that I am aware of.
If ‘incontrovertible’ then not falsifiable and thus not science.
Perhaps you should expand your awareness to include some more reality.
One quick nitpick:
The response of the average surface temperature to CO2 is not even really a central issue to the most popular theory of climate change. It’s an indicator. If we look at the doomsayers’ predictions, they’re really about regional effects happening on a global scale, not the average. If we look at other theories, it’s not even relevant.
I think a better measure could be constructed by looking at the regional weather-systems, running Fourier transforms on their precipitation over the course of climate-cycles, and watching how those Fourier series change. If precipitation tends to drop, or be concentrated seasonally rather than spread out (with the Fourier series dominated at the low end), then we are looking at desertification or harsher seasons, generally bad news for the ecosystem. It would address the main issues directly, I think, and be less model-dependent.
Will all this really matter once Obama and the democrooks finish turning America into Detroit?
In reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 27, 2013 at 11:11 am
William Astley says:
July 27, 2013 at 9:35 am
Planetary temperature observations and solar cycle observations will of course prove one of us incorrect. Do you get that?
No, I don’t get that, because if you are proven incorrect, you will not concede that but come up with some excuse why things didn’t work out. You have already offered some.
William:
Let’s clarify how we differ in terms of mechanisms, predictions, and methodologies to used to arrive at the conclusions. Whether you personally agree or disagree with what I assert is irrelevant. You’re quoting of incorrect climategate type papers which are irrelevant and a distraction. Use whatever paper and observation you believe is correct and make a prediction. You have made no predictions that are falsifiable. You have provided no physical explanation of the anomalies.
We all get that there is a climate war going on.
Provide an alternative explanation for the observations, the observational anomalies, and make a falsifiable prediction. That is the process of science. If you cannot provide an alternative explanation, if you cannot provide a falsifiable prediction admit that you cannot.
It asserted that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was due to solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover rather due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Observations to support that assertion is past cyclic warming and cooling of the Greenland Ice sheet which correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The warming in the last 70 years was primarily in the Northern hemisphere ex-tropics. The Northern hemisphere warmed twice as much as the earth as a whole and four times more than the tropics. This pattern of warming that is observed in the last 70 years, is the same as previous warming periods which correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes when there was a grand solar cycle maximum. The previous warming periods were all followed by a cooling period at which time the sun entered a Maunder minimum.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
As atmospheric CO2 is almost equally distributed in the atmosphere by latitude the potential for CO2 forcing is the same for all latitudes. The actual warming due to the CO2 increase is proportional to the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted at the latitude in question prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Due to the two CO2 mechanism issues the general circulation models predicted the most amount of warming on the planet should be in tropics.
The most amount of warming in the last 70 years was on the Greenland ice sheet which is the same region that cyclically warmed the most when there was a grand solar magnetic cycle minimum.
A logical consequence of the above assertion is the warming in the last 70 years is reversible, due the solar magnetic cycle 24 change.
I provided a theoretical explanation of what has happened in the past and will happen in the future. I can, if anyone is interested provide more details concerning either the mechanism, the explanation as to what has happened in the past, or what will happen in the future. Furthermore I assert that there are eminent and significant changes both to the solar magnetic cycle and planetary temperature. These are of course falsifiable assertions.
The point I am trying to make is the assertions and predictions made are significant (the reversal of global warming, significant cooling, and an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle), paradigm changing, front page news, and so on. The predictions will only be front page news if they come true, I get that. It does not however matter whether you personally agree or disagree with predictions, only if they come true. Do you get that? I am not trying to beat you at a debate. I believe I have solved a scientific puzzle. You do not understand there is a puzzle. I believe I understand your paradigm and I sincerely emphasize with your feelings. That does not however change what will happen in the future.
You have not explained the latitudinal temperature anomaly or the fact that sunspots have been replaced by pores. You have not made any predictions that can be falsified. You have not explained the cyclic warming and cooling on the Greenland ice sheet that has happened in the past which correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes.
You have not explained what is currently happening to the sun. You have not explain or even acknowledge there is a latitudinal temperature anomaly. You have not explained or even acknowledged that there is cyclic climate change which correlates with solar magnetic cycles changes.
I have provided a mechanism explanation for all past and current anomalies (including all anomalies listed above) and have made a prediction as to how the sun will change and how planetary temperature will change which is falsifiable. You have stated you do not know what is happening to the sun, you have made no solar predictions, and you have made no predictions concerning how planetary temperature will change.
I have asserted that the current solar magnetic cycle model is incorrect. The error is fundamental and explains a very long list of astronomical anomalies. The error is related to what happens when very large objects collapse. The anomalous observations concerning quasars and quasars’ affect on spiral galaxy evolution is an extreme example of the mechanisms which occurs when a massive object collapses. A quasar is just a very, very, massive example of the mechanism. There are sets of mature astrophysical papers that layout the unexplained anomalies concerning both spiral galaxies, the evolution and structure of spiral galaxy, the evolution of quasars, and the relationship of quasars to spiral galaxy structure and evolution. The assertion that there is a fundamental error in the solar and stellar model related to the production and cyclic change of magnetic fields is directly related to quasar observations and quasar theoretical work concerning the MECO hypothesis which is explained in detail in peer reviewed papers. The point of this summary is the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle model is incorrect is not a guess, that change in mechanism is required to explain astronomical anomalies, in addition to unexplained magnetic field anomalies of the earth and other planets. I found and solved the puzzle by looking for anomalies and leveraging off of the MECO work and observations. The anomalies all disappear when the correct mechanism and theory change is made.
That appears to be a different methodology to approach the problem rather than to accept the mechanism that is provided to the student and to attempt to make an incorrect mechanism explain what has happened or to ignore the existence of the anomalies.
Observations indicated the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots has been decaying linearly. It is asserted the reason for this observation is the mechanism that creates the magnetic ropes at the solar tachocline has been interrupted.
I have quoted peer reviewed papers that assert the sun was at its highest and longest period of high activity in the last 8000 years during the last 70 years. I have provided a detail explanation of the mechanisms by which solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary cloud cover. If the above assertion is correct the planet will significantly cool. The cooling will occur in the regions that warmed in the last 70 years.
William Astley says:
July 27, 2013 at 4:50 pm
You have made no predictions that are falsifiable.
Since the Sun is not responsible for climate change, the prediction is simple: the lack of correlation between solar activity and temperatures will continue. Easy to falsify, so perfectly good science.
past cyclic warming and cooling of the Greenland Ice sheet which correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.
I wish it were so, however it is not.
Greenland ice sheet which is the same region that cyclically warmed the most when there was a grand solar magnetic cycle minimum.
Warmed the most at grand minimum?
the warming in the last 70 years is reversible
Of course it is reversible, all climate cycles are, but that has nothing to do with cycle 24.
These are of course falsifiable assertions
There have already been falsified.
I believe I have solved a scientific puzzle.
You have not given any indication that you have, only assertions.
You have not made any predictions that can be falsified.
Sure: the lack of correlation will continue.
You have not explained or even acknowledged that there is cyclic climate change which correlates with solar magnetic cycles changes.
Because there isn’t any. It is that simple.
I have provided a mechanism explanation for all past and current anomalies
Nowhere in your numerous and verbose and nauseating postings have you provided any such mechanism or explanation.
I have asserted that the current solar magnetic cycle model is incorrect.
Assertion is just opinion. and the details you present border on nonsense.
It is asserted the reason for this observation is the mechanism that creates the magnetic ropes at the solar tachocline has been interrupted.
Assertion is just opinion and there are no indications that that has happened. What is happening is that all ropes are shredded [now and in the past and at all times] by traversing the convection zone, then reassembled at the surface to form sunspots. The re-assembly appears [ti use your favorite word] to be less efficient of late, as it also was during the Maunder Minimum.
I have quoted peer reviewed papers that assert the sun was at its highest and longest period of high activity in the last 8000 years during the last 70 years.
We all have quoted peer reviewed papers, some assert this, some assert that. Here is one of mine http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf that touches upon the matter. How many peer-reviewed papers do you think have proven beyond any doubt that CO2 is driving the climate?
If the above assertion is correct the planet will significantly cool.
The planet may cool for other reasons as well, if it even cools.
William Astley, not long ago Anthony asked you to stop posting essays in comment threads. Could I please reiterate that? Your personal climate wars and pompous pronouncements (reminiscent of a 19th century English preacher with a captive audience) are wearing out my “scroll down” button.
The IPCC should change its name to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Catastrophe.
William Astley says:
July 27, 2013 at 4:50 pm
Observations to support that assertion is past cyclic warming and cooling of the Greenland Ice sheet which correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.
To dispose of this wrong claim once and for all, plotting Greenland Ice Temperatures and The latest cosmic ray proxies [for solar activity – and according to you for cloud cover, plotted upside down from figure 2C of the paper cited below] show no consistent correlation on the time scale of the Grand Minima and Grand Maxima: some times the peaks and valleys agree, sometimes they don’t, as is typical for uncorrelated sequences: http://www.leif.org/research/Greenland-Temp-Cosmic-Rays.png The cosmic ray data is the newest available: “9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings, Friedhelm Steinhilber, Jose A. Abreua, Jürg Beer, Irene Brunner, Marcus Christl, Hubertus Fischer, Ulla Heikkilä, Peter W. Kubik, Mathias Manna, Ken G. McCracken, Heinrich Miller, Hiroko Miyahara, Hans Oerter, and Frank Wilhelms” peer-reviewed and published by the prestigious Publications of the National Academy of Science. The authors are the world’s foremost experts on cosmic rays and their proxies: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1118965109
So, I’m sure that you, if honest, will not repeat that false claim henceforth.
Leif said:
“Well, the Norwegians think that the olar influence is strong in Norway”.
It is, mostly because the Gulf Stream warms up after a period of high solar activity which is associated with stronger El Ninos.
But the issue was about cloudiness, not temperature so what is your point?
“not falsifiable and thus not science.”
Easily falsifiable. I’ve previously given you multiple examples of events that would falsify my propositions. I’m still waiting.
“Perhaps you should expand your awareness to include some more reality.”
Mere projection on your part.
Leif referred to a paper which says:
“The new cosmic radiation record enables us to derive total solar irradiance,”
But it isn’t TSI that matters. It is the change in the mixture of particles and wavelengths (the content of solar output) that matters because that change affects upper atmospheric chemistry.
Magnetic, solar flux and cosmic ray issues are merely proxies for the change in the content of solar output rather than having any direct effect on climate themselves. I do not know how reliable they are as proxies.
I have built a model that will tell you the temperature anywhere on Earth at any time.
All you do is input todays temperature, your location, the location and date you require the answer for.
It can use raw or adjusted data.
Example
I put in the temperature today for London UK and It told me the maximum temperature for New York on January 1st 2014 will be between -150F and 150F.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 27, 2013 at 11:40 pm
It is the change in the mixture of particles and wavelengths (the content of solar output) that matters
We have no measurements of the ‘mixture’. We do have measurements of the flux of particles and of ‘wavelengths’, if need be by reliable proxies going back centuries. Since there are no measurements of the ‘mixture’ you have nothing to hang your ‘theory’ on.
At some point increasing atmospheric CO2 levels is going to have a negative effect on global warming because it will be replacing other more effect greenhouse gasses.
Leif apparently cannot spell ‘incontrovertible’ hence his use of the term [sic] as here in his previous comment when he quoted my use of the word:
“incontrovertible [sic]”
See here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incontrovertible
Leif said:
“Since there are no measurements of the ‘mixture’ you have nothing to hang your ‘theory’ on.”
Observation, dear fellow, observation. Plenty to hang a hat on but the data to provide proof is currently lacking.
Some feature of solar activity causes changes in the global air circulation.
We know that tropopause height depends on stratosphere temperatures.
We know that stratosphere temperature depends on ozone chemistry.
We know that the net balance of ozone creation / destruction ozone changes with variations in solar activity.
I suggest that someone gets measuring.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 28, 2013 at 10:56 pm
Leif apparently cannot spell ‘incontrovertible’
Nonsense, what I said was a copy-n-paste job. The [sic] part was to point out that you really said that word [which is astonishing], which according to the dictionary means ‘not open to question’, hence not falsifiable, hence not science.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 28, 2013 at 11:02 pm
I suggest that someone gets measuring
You have that backwards. You must already have those measurements in order to assess if the effects you claim are even physically possible or plausible. It is like saying ‘I think Jupiter shine causes global warming, so someone better get measuring’.
Leif said:
“The [sic] part was to point out that you really said that word [which is astonishing], which according to the dictionary means ‘not open to question’, hence not falsifiable, hence not science”
So you think that basic physics allows latitudinal climate zone shifting without a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles? How would that work?
“You must already have those measurements in order to assess if the effects you claim are even physically possible or plausible”
We have measured a cooling stratosphere and mesosphere when the sun is active and a slight warming when the sun has been less active for a short while. There are measurements showing an increase in ozone above 45km when the sun is quiet,
Something related to solar variability clearly affects the ozone creation / destruction balance. It isn’t TSI so it could be any combination of a wide range of processes capable of affecting that balance. All of those processes involve particles or wavelengths of specific types.
The existing science indicates that the effects I claim are possible and plausible. Unless of course you wish to deny the existence of solar related processes that affect the ozone balance.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 29, 2013 at 5:49 am
The existing science indicates that the effects I claim are possible and plausible.
Only when you run the numbers can your statement be considered valid. And you haven’t, so…
Stephen Wilde says:
July 29, 2013 at 5:49 am
The existing science indicates that the effects I claim are possible and plausible.
Only when you run the numbers can your statement be considered valid. And you haven’t, so…
“Only when you run the numbers can your statement be considered valid. ”
Well you admitted that the relevant numbers do not currently exist.
Running the numbers hopefully produces proof.
In the meantime any statement that is plausible or possible is valid.
In place of the numbers we can evaluate the proposition by observing changes in trends over time. On that basis my proposition is looking increasingly likely to have substance.