EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 2:55 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 5:02 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

They increased the numbers of nuclei produced by a significant amount but still not enough to account for the observed levels in nature.


So what are you suggesing then is causing the additional CCNs observed in nature?


I really do not know. I do know what the evidence gives us so far and that the experts have some differing hypotheses.


Snowy123 wrote:
So the science isn't settled then on what causes CCNs?

That's a pretty fundamental aspect of climate.


You ask what I was suggesting is the cause of the additional CCNs observed in nature without identification of what an "additional CCN" was to be defined. I know some of what the evidence presented has indicated so far, but that is not a field I have had reason to study in any depth.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 5:13 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
The paper indicates the nucliation occurs. The paper does not cover cloud formation, just nucliation. If it did connect itself to cloud formation the size of the nuclei produced would not be large enough and it would have had a larger negative impact on that theory.

However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.


If no cloud-formation occurs in the atmospheric boundary layer, then this finding would not have much impacct on the role GCRs have on Cloud Cover.



Clouds do form in the boundary layer though, which was why the reference to the difference in measured formation was so important.

http://climatesciences.jpl.nasa.gov/mod ... ons/models

The atmospheric boundary layer is the lowermost layer (1-4 km) of the troposphere that is in contact with Earth's surface. It is host to a plethora of physical processes, such as cloud formation, that strongly affect the radiative balance of the planet, and consequently the climate. The main driving forces of convection and clouds in the boundary layer are sensible and latent heat exchange and radiative cooling. Their combination with the large-scale atmospheric conditions--such as winds--generates vigorous turbulence which augments the vertical transport of water, pollutants, and other important gases.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 5:19 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
This is interesting.

The amount of NOx (an ozone depleting chemical) is highly correlated to solar magnetic activity, suggesting that increased solar activity may play a role in the stratospheric cooling and ozone depletion.

It could also partially explain why stratospheric temperatures have started to increase slightly over the last 16 years, since the sun's activity has decreased over the last decade.

Image

Source



Not as much if you look at the graph from the NH in the paper.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 5:23 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

That is false. The LOCALIZED warming of the land masses is related to ocean heat, which is far different from the global warming to which you have tried to connect it.



Uhhhh?

This is from the abstract:

Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide
warming of the oceans
rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.


Quote:
Where is this "fingerprint" proclaimed? Other than the blog source from which you probably got the connection to this paper being some proof against warming.


I remember reading something like that somewhere. I'll link you up with it once I find it.

Quote:
Yes, and you then tried to claim a stated uncertainty the paper did not make in relation to the split.


Does the paper state whether most of the warming is anthropogenic or natural? Simple yes/no question.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 5:27 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
The paper indicates the nucliation occurs. The paper does not cover cloud formation, just nucliation. If it did connect itself to cloud formation the size of the nuclei produced would not be large enough and it would have had a larger negative impact on that theory.

However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.


If no cloud-formation occurs in the atmospheric boundary layer, then this finding would not have much impacct on the role GCRs have on Cloud Cover.



Clouds do form in the boundary layer though, which was why the reference to the difference in measured formation was so important.



Okay thanks for that piece of information.

The paper did say though that GCR-ionization has a substantial influence in the trophosphere though...

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 5:30 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
This is interesting.

The amount of NOx (an ozone depleting chemical) is highly correlated to solar magnetic activity, suggesting that increased solar activity may play a role in the stratospheric cooling and ozone depletion.

It could also partially explain why stratospheric temperatures have started to increase slightly over the last 16 years, since the sun's activity has decreased over the last decade.

Image

Source



Not as much if you look at the graph from the NH in the paper.


Yes, which is why ozone depletion has been more pronounced in the SH than in the NH.

The AO plays a prominent role in stratospheric temperatures, and hence ozone, in the Arctic. A record low -AO caused significant Arctic ozone depletion in recent years.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 5:34 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

That is false. The LOCALIZED warming of the land masses is related to ocean heat, which is far different from the global warming to which you have tried to connect it.



Uhhhh?

This is from the abstract:

Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide
warming of the oceans
rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.


The land masses are of different temperatures, the localized ocean impacts affect those temperatures more than the direct impact of GHGs. This local impact happens all over the world, thus the effect is worldwide, but the impacts are not. That is why The English Iles are warmer than other regions in the same latitude, for example.

Quote:
Quote:
Where is this "fingerprint" proclaimed? Other than the blog source from which you probably got the connection to this paper being some proof against warming.


I remember reading something like that somewhere. I'll link you up with it once I find it.


I look forward to seeing it.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, and you then tried to claim a stated uncertainty the paper did not make in relation to the split.


Does the paper state whether most of the warming is anthropogenic or natural? Simple yes/no question.


No, it does not state "most", but it does state "some" natural should not be ruled out, which by common definition is an undetermined amount.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 11:47 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

I look forward to seeing it.



Found it, from the IPCC report:

The spatial pattern of the transient surface temperature
response to greenhouse gas forcing also typically exhibits a
land-sea pattern of stronger warming over land
, for the same
reason (e.g., Cubasch et al., 2001).


Page 674.

So it's the oceans, and not the Greenhouse Gas forcing directly is what Compo et. al 2009 suggest is causing the land warming. They then say that a role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out.

Would you agree that at least some of the warming could be naturally induced, Wayne?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 11:51 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Snowy123 wrote:
I have revised my views slightly since I began this thread.

A decrease in Cloud Cover is responsible for most of the warming over the last 30 years and last century, and this decrease in Cloud Cover is directly tied to solar activity variations through solar wind variations inflicting changes on GCRs.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support this viewpoint.

Let's start with nine peer reviewed studies that document that the sun was a likely driver of the 20th Century Warming.

Palle Bago and Butler 2001
Palle Bago and Butler 2001, using many formulas they derived in their earlier, 2000 paper, calculated that the solar effects, directly and indirectly, caused 0.5 Degrees C of the 0.55 Degree C warming. This means that they found that 91% of the warming over the past 100 years can be explained by solar variability, directly and indirectly alone. They mention that there is a "possibility" that solar attribution could be less during the most recent decades, but they are not definite with this statement. They simply state that the solar contribution an unknown over the last and most recent decades. This probably has to do with the ACRIM and PMOD TSI Composites and the controversy surrounding these datasets which Scafetta 2009 documents.

Image

Georgieva et. al 2005
Georgieva et. al 2005 used the Geomagnetic AA Index to quantify the solar impact on Climate Change, rather than the sunspot number, because using the sunspot number to quantify the solar contribution to climate change, as many studies do, leads to an underestimation of the Solar impact on Climate Change.


Image

The above figure from Georgieva et. al shows the Geomagentic AA Index with the broken line, and the Global Temperature Anomalies with the solid line. They find that the correlation coefficient between the AA Index and Global Temperatures is 0.85, meaning that the sun can explain 85% of the variances in temperatures over the last ~150 years.


Cliver et. al 1998
Cliver et. al 1998 also used the Geomagnetic AA Index to estimate the solar contribution to climate change.


Image

Above figure: From Cliver et. al 1998. The AA Index is the dotted line, and the solid line are the temperature anomalies.

They found that 50-100% of the warming could be due to the sun, but it should be noted that this analysis does not include other factors like volcanic activity and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions when estimating the total contribution. Nonetheless, this study also shows that other studies which do include these factors are only at the lower end of the 50-100% range for the solar contribution over the last 100-150 years. It also supports other studies with a larger solar contribution to climate change because of the remarkable correlation with the AA Index and temperatures.


Solheim et. al 2012
Solheim et. al 2012 found that the solar signal is reinforced by the Atlantic Ocean, and this reinforcing signal in the Atlantic Ocean is calculated to be from 63-72% of the variances in temperatures over the entire timeframe. They get a lower solar contribution to land based stations, but the reinforced signal is probably what would lead to a more accurate solar contribution, since most of the world is covered by oceans, and likely, reinforcing the solar signals.


Link et. al 2011
The box that represents the % solar contribution from Link et. al 2011 actually represents the probability whether the entire trend over the last 100-150 years is natural. The authors calculate that the probability of the warming being caused by solar activity over this entire timeframe is 40-90%. It should be noted that these probabilities go up significantly over shorter timeframes like 1900-1950 and 1960-2005.


Scafetta and West 2008
Scafetta and West 2008 adresses the uncertainty raised in the first paper. If a TSI curve that shows an upward trend from Solar Cycle 21 to 22 is used from the ACRIM TSI composite rather than the flat PMOD TSI composite, then a higher contribution from the sun would be needed. The authors find that up to 69% of the variances in temperatures can be explained by solar activity.

Image


The image above from Scafetta and West 2008 shows the divergence between the PMOD and ACRIM TSI datasets, which makes attribution to past climate change even harder. The red curve is the ACRIM TSI composite, the blue curve is the PMOD TSI Composite, and the black curve and green line are the Global Temperature anomalies.


Scafetta and West 2007
The ACRIM verses PMOD controversy continues in this paper. 50% or more of temperatures can be attributed to the solar forcing, depending if the ACRIM TSI composite is used or not. This further adds on to resolving the uncertainty between the PMOD and ACRIM datasets during the ACRIM Gap.


Image


The graph above from Scafetta and West 2007 shows the excellent correlation between solar activity and temperatures. It also shows that a large portion of the warming can be attributed to solar activity. Over the last 30 years, a significant portion of the warming can be attributed to solar activity if the ACRIM TSI composite is used.




Ogurtsov 2007
Ogurstov 2007 estimated that the solar contribution directly and indirectly caused about 0.25-0.35 degrees C of the warming that took place during the 20th Century. Using the Skeptical Science trend calculator gives an approxiate warming of 0.6 Degrees C during the 20th Century. This means that 41-59% of the trend upward can be attributed to solar activity over the past 100 years.

Blanter et. al 2008

Blanter et. al 2008 found that temperatures correlated remarkably well for all periods between the solar activity indicies and the observed temperatures for stations in Europe and the United States during the 20th Century. They used a finding from a previous study that the temperatures at weather stations correlated remarkably well if they were up to a 1000 km distance from each other. They also state in the abstract that these changes can "possibly" be extended onto a Global scale. Being that they found that solar activity can account for all temperature changes over the 20th Century, I reduced the range slightly from 100% to somwhere in the 90-100% range to account for the anthropogenic forcings.

I will be posting more papers later on this thread that support a natural solar and oceanic cause for recent warming, and not anthropogenic.


Bump..

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: More papers
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:13 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Snowy123 wrote:
Humans have had more of an impact on climate change over the last 40 years than they have had over the last 150 years. This is primarily due to the sharp increase in Greenhouse Gas concentrations over the last 40 or so years. This means that not all of the warming over the last 40 years can be ascribed to natural causes.

With this in mind, we can start with Borie and Thoyaib 2006.

The abstract reads:

Data for geomagnetic activity index aa and solar sunspot number Rz for 1868-2004 were subjected to
correlation analysis with the global surface temperature (GST). The annual-means GT show that it had
two warming phases and one cooling period. Observations of the Earth's near-surface temperature
showed a global-mean temperature increase of approximately 1.1° C since 1877, occurred from 1887 to
1940 and from 1970 to the 1998. The temperature change over the past 35 years (1970-2004) is unlikely
to be entirely due to internal climate variability.
Attribution of the warming early in the century has
proved more elusive. The correlation analysis between the variation of global temperature and both aa
geomagnetics and solar activity are +0.5 ± 0.05, for any lag or lead, indicating a significant role in such
variation.
All graphs have illustrated strong correlations between the solar activity and geomagnetics
and surface global temperature. Our results do not, by any means, rule out the existence of important
links between solar activity and terrestrial climate. Our results displayed that the present changes in aa
geomagnetics may reflect partially some future changes in the global surface temperatures
.


From the conclusions:

The excess of aa geomagnetics led to excess
solar energy which stored and accumulated for few future
years in the near-Earth system, leading to the global
temperature variability. The running coefficients for the
late years (1873-1930) displayed only negative
remarkable role of solar activity or/and aa geomagnetic in
global temperature change (Figure 5b). On contrast, the
aa index and the sunspot number played, direct or
indirect, a great role in global cooling temperature
throughout four decades from 1931 to 1970. During the
period 1971-1998, the correlation between Rz and
temperature persisted positively. So, the sensitivity of
global temperature to aa geomagnetics is significant and
may be real
.


Mufti and Shah 2011

The abstract and key points read:


A long uninterrupted homogeneous data set on the annual mean Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomaly records as a representative of the Earth's climatic parameter has been analyzed in conjunction with 158 year long time series on the annual sunspot indices, Rz and geomagnetic activity indices, aa for the period 1850–2007. The 11-year and 23-year overlapping means of global (δtg) as well as northern (δtn) and southern (δts) hemispheric SST anomalies reveal significant positive correlation with both Rz and aa indices. Rz, aa and δtg depict a similar trend in their long-term variation and both seem to be on increase after attaining a minimum in the early 20th century (∼1905). Whereas the results on the power spectrum analysis by the Multi-Taper Method (MTM) on δtg, Rz and aa reveal periodicities of ∼79–80 years (Gleissberg's cycle) and ∼9–11 years (Schwabe solar cycle) consistent with earlier findings, MTM spectrum analysis also reveals fast cycles of 3–5 years. A period of ∼4.2 years in aa at 99% confidence level appears recorded in δtg at ∼4.3 years at 90% confidence level. A period of ∼3.6–3.7 years at 99% confidence level found in δtg is correlating with a similar periodic variation in sector structure of Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF). This fast cycle parallelism is new and is supportive of a possible link between the solar-modulated geomagnetic activity and Earth's climatic parameter i.e. SST.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Research highlights


► Instrumental records of temperature anomalies analyzed in conjunction with sunspot, Rz and geomagnetic, aa indices. ► Significant positive correlation exists between Rz and aa when they are referred to long-term trends. ► Besides the 79 year and 11 year cycle the present investigation has also revealed fast cycle periods of 3–5 years in SST and aa. ► Geomagnetic activity could be a possible link through which solar activity may influence the Earth's climate. ► The Sun has a significant role to play in the long-term and short-term climate change.


Raspopov et. al 2007 Found that long term trends in solar activity can create SIGNIFICANT temperature changes. A substantial lag can also occur with the sun and the temperature on the Earth, which would refute your earlier logic that just because the sun's irradiance according to PMOD has flatlined, does not bmean that it has not contributed to the recent warming. They also find that recent warming from 1945-2003 matches with expected predictions from a long term increase in solar activity.

From the abstract:

The influence of ∼200-year solar activity variations (de Vries cyclicity) on climatic parameters has been analyzed. Analysis of palaeoclimatic data from different regions of the Earth for the last millennium has shown that ∼200-year variations in solar activity give rise to a pronounced climatic response. Owing to a nonlinear character of the processes in the atmosphere–ocean system and the inertia of this system, the climatic response to the global influence of solar activity variations has been found to have a regional character. The regions where the climatic response to long-term solar activity variations is stable and the regions where the climatic response is unstable, both in time and space, have been revealed. It has also been found that a considerable lag of the climatic response and reversal of its sign with respect to the solar signal can occur. Comparison of the obtained results with the simulation predictions of the atmosphere–ocean system response to long-term solar irradiance variations (T > 40 years) has shown that there is a good agreement between experimental and simulation results.

Image

Fig. 2. (a) Results of simulation of the spatial distribution of surface temperatures when the atmosphere–ocean system is affected by long-term solar irradiance variations (T > 40 years) (Waple et al., 2002). The asterisk (the North Atlantic region) and crosses show the sites the climatic data for which were used in our paper; (b) variations in annual average temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere for 1954–2003.

The sun's activity began to rise in 1900, according to this paper also by OM Raspopov et. al.

Which Raspopov and Dergachev found was a 'controlling factor' in 20th Century warming.

Yu 2002 found that great uncertainties still remain with GCRs and climate, and more research needs to be done to quantify these uncertainties.

Kilcik 2005

It is a clear fact that the Earth's climate has been changing since the pre-industrial era, especially during the last three decades. This change is generally attributed to three main factors: greenhouse gases (GHGs), aerosols, and solar activity changes. However, these factors are not all-independent. Furthermore, contributions of the above-mentioned factors are still disputed.We sought whether a parallelism between the solar activity variations and the changes in the Earth's climate can be established. For this, we compared the solar irradiance model data reconstructed by J. Lean to surface air temperature variations of two countries: USA and Japan. Comparison was carried out in two categories: correlations and periodicities. We utilized data from a total of 60 stations, 18 in USA and 42 in Japan. USA data range from 1900 to 1995, while Japan data range from 1900 to 1990.

Our analyses yielded a 42 per cent correlation for USA and a 79 per cent for Japan between the temperature and solar irradiance. Moreover, both data sets showed similar periodicities. Hence, our results indicate marked influence of solar activity variations on the Earth's climate.


Kilcik et. al 2010

By applying multitaper methods and Pearson test on the surface air temperature and flare index used as a proxy data for possible solar sources of climate-forcing, we investigated the signature of these variables on middle and high latitudes of the Atlantic–Eurasian region (Turkey, Finland, Romania, Ukraine, Cyprus, Israel, Lithuania, and European part of Russia). We considered the temperature and flare index data for the period ranging from January 1975 to the end of December 2005, which covers almost three solar cycles, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd.

We found significant correlations between solar activity and surface air temperature over the 50–60° and 60–70° zones for cycle 22, and for cycle 23, over the 30–40°, 40–50°, and 50–60° zones.

The most pronounced power peaks for surface air temperature found by multitaper method are around 1.2, 1.7, and 2.5 years which were reported earlier for some solar activity indicators. These results support the suggestion that there is signature of solar activity effect on surface air temperature of mid-latitudes.


Image

Fig. 1. Eleven year running mean sunspot numbers and departures of sea surface temperatures from the long term mean (units hundredths of a degree Celsius). The coherency between the solar activity and climate records can be seen in this figure comparing polynomial fits to the sunspot record and the global mean sea-surface temperature SST (Reid, 1999).

In Figure 4 of Dorman 2012, it can be seen that GCRs can explain pretty much all temperature variability from 1937-1994.

Carslaw et. al 2002

This paper shows that there is a long term decrease in GCRs over the 20th Century, which would correspond to a more active sun, as this would mean that there would be more solar wind to prevent GCRs from reaching Earth. It is also shown that in 1992, a record low in GCRs was recorded, indicating record high amounts of solar activity occured during the late-20th Century.

Image

Soon et. al 2011:

(From the abstract:)

The 20th century surface air temperature (SAT) records of China from various sources are analyzed using data which include the recently released Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project dataset. Two key features of the Chinese records are confirmed: (1) significant 1920s and 1940s warming in the temperature records, and (2) evidence for a persistent multidecadal modulation of the Chinese surface temperature records in co-variations with both incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere as well as the modulated solar radiation reaching ground surface. New evidence is presented for this Sun–climate link for the instrumental record from 1880 to 2002. Additionally, two non-local physical aspects of solar radiation-induced modulation of the Chinese SAT record are documented and discussed.

Teleconnections that provide a persistent and systematic modulation of the temperature response of the Tibetan Plateau and/or the tropospheric air column above the Eurasian continent (e.g., 30°N–70°N; 0°–120°E) are described. These teleconnections may originate from the solar irradiance-Arctic–North Atlantic overturning circulation mechanism proposed by Soon (2009). Also considered is the modulation of large-scale land–sea thermal contrasts both in terms of meridional and zonal gradients between the subtropical western Pacific and mid-latitude North Pacific and the continental landmass of China. The Circum-global teleconnection (CGT) pattern of summer circulation of Ding and Wang (2005) provides a physical framework for study of the Sun–climate connection over East Asia. Our results highlight the importance of solar radiation reaching the ground and the concomitant importance of changes in atmospheric transparency or cloudiness or both in motivating a true physical explanation of any Sun–climate connection. We conclude that ground surface solar radiation is an important modulating factor for Chinese SAT changes on multidecadal to centennial timescales. Therefore, a comprehensive view of local and remote factors of climate change in China must take account of this as well as other natural and anthropogenic forcings.


Tinsley et. al 2009 find that the CRF (Cosmic Ray Forcing) is a likely climate driver, and find that it needs to be represented in the models, since it has a very important role in climate change.

Belov et. al 2005

A method of prediction of expected part of global climate change caused by cosmic ray (CR) by forecasting of galactic cosmic ray intensity time variation in near future based on solar activity data prediction and determined parameters of convection-diffusion and drift mechanisms is presented. This gave possibility to make prediction of expected part of global climate change, caused by long-term cosmic ray intensity variation. In this paper, we use the model of cosmic ray modulation in the Heliosphere, which considers a relation between long-term cosmic ray variations with parameters of the solar magnetic field. The later now can be predicted with good accuracy. By using this prediction, the expected cosmic ray variations in the near Earth space also can be estimated with a good accuracy. It is shown that there are two possibilities: (1) to predict cosmic ray intensity for 1–6 months by using a delay of long-term cosmic ray variations relatively to effects of the solar activity and (2) to predict cosmic ray intensity for the next solar cycle. For the second case, the prediction of the global solar magnetic field characteristics is crucial. For both cases, reliable long-term cosmic ray and solar activity data as well as solar magnetic field are necessary. For solar magnetic field, we used results of two magnetographs (from Stanford and Kitt Peak Observatories). The obtained forecasting of long-term cosmic ray intensity variation we use for estimation of the part of global climate change caused by cosmic ray intensity changing (influenced on global cloudiness covering).

Climate Change can be forecasted based off of the predictions for the GCR Flux. Given how closely the model represents reality as shown in Figure 3, it is hard to discount their predictions of cooling in the near future due to an increasing GCR Flux.

In my next post I will have a compliation of peer reviewed papers that predict a cooling in the next couple to few decades.


Bump otra vez....

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:40 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ... ensing.pdf

Updated tropical lower tropospheric temperature datasets covering the period 1979–2009 are presented and assessed for accuracy based upon recent publications and several analyses conducted here. We conclude that the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) trend over these 31 years is +0.09 ± 0.03 °C decade−1. Given that the surface temperature (Tsfc) trends from three different groups agree extremely closely among themselves (~ +0.12 °C decade−1) this indicates that the ―scaling ratio‖ (SR, or ratio of atmospheric trend to surface trend: TLT/Tsfc) of the observations is ~0.8 ± 0.3. This is significantly different from the average SR calculated from the IPCC AR4 model simulations which is ~1.4. This result indicates the majority of AR4 simulations tend to portray significantly greater warming in the troposphere relative to the surface than is found in observations.

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ... OC1651.pdf

We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model
simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era).
Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by
more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than
observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs.
These conclusions contrast strongly with
those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.


http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 010.513518

We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor.

So the models that the IPCC uses to attribute past climate change may not be all that accurate... hmmm....

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:41 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ... ensing.pdf

Updated tropical lower tropospheric temperature datasets covering the period 1979–2009 are presented and assessed for accuracy based upon recent publications and several analyses conducted here. We conclude that the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) trend over these 31 years is +0.09 ± 0.03 °C decade−1. Given that the surface temperature (Tsfc) trends from three different groups agree extremely closely among themselves (~ +0.12 °C decade−1) this indicates that the ―scaling ratio‖ (SR, or ratio of atmospheric trend to surface trend: TLT/Tsfc) of the observations is ~0.8 ± 0.3. This is significantly different from the average SR calculated from the IPCC AR4 model simulations which is ~1.4. This result indicates the majority of AR4 simulations tend to portray significantly greater warming in the troposphere relative to the surface than is found in observations.

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ... OC1651.pdf

We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model
simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era).
Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by
more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than
observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs.
These conclusions contrast strongly with
those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.


http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 010.513518

We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor.

So the models that the IPCC uses to attribute past climate change and predictions for the future may not be all that accurate... hmmm....

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:41 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

I look forward to seeing it.



Found it, from the IPCC report:

The spatial pattern of the transient surface temperature
response to greenhouse gas forcing also typically exhibits a
land-sea pattern of stronger warming over land
, for the same
reason (e.g., Cubasch et al., 2001).


Page 674.

So it's the oceans, and not the Greenhouse Gas forcing directly is what Compo et. al 2009 suggest is causing the land warming. They then say that a role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out.

Would you agree that at least some of the warming could be naturally induced, Wayne?


I assumed you would accept the data from Junkscience that disproves your position on the oceans warming the land not being associated with global warming. The new quote does not specify a direct impact, but that the measured impact will be what it is.

http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps ... _Look.html

Time series: Temperature January-December, 1880 - 2005
GHCN Land Surface Data Set -- Global Trend: 0.07°C/decade


Left] Time series: Temperature January-December, 1880 - 2005
GHCN-ERSST Data Set -- Global Trend: 0.04°C/decade

As you can see the temperature increase over land is greater than that over the oceans, just as the quote indicates. Just because the land warmed to a greater extent does not mean the oceans were not involved, just that your belief was incorrect.

As for natural components, yes, there very well could be natural influences, but that does not equal a huge uncertainty by any means.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:45 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
As you can see the temperature increase over land is greater than that over the oceans, just as the quote indicates. Just because the land warmed to a greater extent does not mean the oceans were not involved, just that your belief was incorrect.

As for natural components, yes, there very well could be natural influences, but that does not equal a huge uncertainty by any means.


You previously asked me if there was a scientific paper that stated that the GHG forcing should cause land to warm faster than oceans, which I had provided the link for.

Instead of GHGs, Compo et. al 2008 found it was the oceans that were primarily responsible.

So you agree that the natural components can be higher than 'some' of the warming? That is what 'at least' states.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 4:09 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
As you can see the temperature increase over land is greater than that over the oceans, just as the quote indicates. Just because the land warmed to a greater extent does not mean the oceans were not involved, just that your belief was incorrect.

As for natural components, yes, there very well could be natural influences, but that does not equal a huge uncertainty by any means.


You previously asked me if there was a scientific paper that stated that the GHG forcing should cause land to warm faster than oceans, which I had provided the link for.


I asked for the reference in the context of the ocean warming debunking the GHG forcing, which we see was not the case.

Quote:
Instead of GHGs, Compo et. al 2008 found it was the oceans that were primarily responsible.


No, the statement was of oceans being DIRECTLY responsible not that GHG induced warming was not responsible.

Quote:
So you agree that the natural components can be higher than 'some' of the warming? That is what 'at least' states.


No, the "at least" does not make such a statement. It says at a minimum an undetermined portion of the warming should not be excluded from consideration as being natural.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group