EnviroLink Forum

I might point out that if the same criteria were applied to the other potential forcings for the observed warming trend there would be no observational evidence that any forcing is responsible for most of the warming either individually or combined.

_________________
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

Unfortunately for the CO2 hypothesis , there is observational evidence for a solar driver. There is no evidence for a CO2 driver on any scale.

There is evidence that the sun was the driver of the past climate changes in the late Holocene:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2 ... 2184.shtml

http://fossil.earthsci.carleton.ca/~tpa ... 23-140.pdf

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL050720.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 821200096X

There is also large amounts of evidence that the sun's activity is highly correlated to temperatures and is highly correlated to the temperature trend changes.

If one adopts the sun hypothesis, a second mechanism (aerosol cooling) will not be needed to explain the cooling in the mid 20th Century. Aerosoles (which were again brought up by AGW Advocates) would also not be needed to explain the early 21st century lull/slight cooling.

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405 ... ..969G.pdf



Solar activity can explain almost all of the warming, and explain the change to cooling in the mid 20th Century.

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley ... Cliver.pdf



Up to all of the warming observed up to the early to mid 1990s (according to Cliver et. al) can be attributed to the sun. Keep in mind that this study is an older study, which is why the data ends earlier than the 2000s.

In recent years, (post 1975) solar activity is significantly correlated to the temperature in the mid latitudes, suggesting a sun-climate relationship.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2610003056

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7600000026

Long term solar activity changes can be responsible for an increase in temperatures as a whole over the 20th Century,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2610004050

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7707001925

http://www.academicjournals.org/IJPS/PD ... hoyaib.pdf

Geomagnetic Activity changes from the sun influence ENSO and the NAO:

http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.n ... 3-2002.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2 ... 5822.shtml

The sun also signficantly influences Ozone, which is seen in this graph:

http://www.sotere.uni-osnabrueck.de/spa ... versal.pdf

Note that the ozone depletion observed during the great geomagnetic storm of 1989 (strongest geomagnetic storm ever recorded) correlates strongly to the amount of NOx produced by the solar storms.





The reason why the ozone depletion has mainly been occuring at the poles is a result of the Earth's Magnetic Field:



The high energy protons can enter the north and south poles because of the "cusps" in the Earth's Magnetic Field.

The Earth's Magnetic Field has been gradually getting weaker, which, combined with an active sun has led to ozone depletion at both of the poles, but most noticeably in the south pole.



Earth's Magnetic Field over the last 150 years. Note the general decline in the intensity of the magnetic field over the last 150 years.

Source: http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/reversals.html

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2 ... 8574.shtml

“With decreasing magnetic field strength the impacts on the ozone are found to significantly increase especially in the Southern Hemisphere”.

http://www.sotere.uni-osnabrueck.de/spa ... versal.pdf

The following figure presents a correlation between Ozone and NOx. Note the high correspondance between the NOx produced during solar proton storms, and the amount of ozone depleted.



There is even more evidence than this, and this can be considered to be a handful for all of the papers out there and all of the evidence out there that supports a solar driver of climate change.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

No, you have confused evidence of correlation with evidence of causation, which is incorrect. There is measured correlation of temperature and CO2 increases which I assume you have written off as not being evidence for whatever reason, but forgo the same criteria when it comes to the hypothesis you like.

_________________
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

The correlation coefficient is MUCH smaller with CO2 and Temperature because CO2 and temperature are disconnected during the mid century cooling, the early 21st Century Warming, and the fact that temperatures increased at roughly the same rate in the early 20th Century as the late-20th Century, when the increase in CO2 concentration was different for both timeframes.

What caused the mid century cooling/flatlining? Why does solar activity changes match with all three periods of temperature change in the 20th Century?

The fact that little to no warming has been observed at 250-300 hPa, when the IPCC models with the GHG forcing said that this area should be warming the fastest is an automatic red flag. It is consistent with the increased solar activity creating cooling in this area with the depletion of ozone due to solar storms.

That is why a solar explaination makes more sense.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

The majority of peer reviewed publications are probably on your side, but it is probably split more like 60:40 AGW. A lot of it has to do with what Professor Edward J. Wegman exposed in his report that many AGW scientists are in this social network to peer review each other's work so that they can get published instantly.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

Only if one assumes climate is a simple system rather than a complex one. Only a simple system will have a direct response to a single forcing. The problem is we know there are other impacts which then have to be ignored.

_________________
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

I don't know that using someone found guilty of ethical violations in publication would be such a good idea in this case, but it is not my call.

_________________
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

Yes, of course there are other factors, and the climate system is VERY complex, but...

Are you claiming that aerosoles somehow caused cooling in the mid Century, then the GHG forcing overtook the aerosoles, and then the aerosol forcing took over again in the early 21st century?

I don't buy that argument.

I will repeat the rest of my prior post that you chose to not reply to:

What caused the mid century cooling/flatlining? Why does solar activity changes match with all three periods of temperature change in the 20th Century?

The fact that little to no warming has been observed at 250-300 hPa, when the IPCC models with the GHG forcing said that this area should be warming the fastest is an automatic red flag. It is consistent with the increased solar activity creating cooling in this area with the depletion of ozone due to solar storms.

That is why a solar explaination makes more sense.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

You do not have to buy anything, but I suggest following all of the evidence and not just that fringe to which you seem to be so attracted.

_________________
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

There is no evidence for CO2 being a "driver" on any timescale, at all.

So you don't have a reply to the italicized portion of my post that you quoted?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

Sure there is. Your interpretation of the data is simply incorrect.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Beat me to it.

_________________
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

It could be the case, especially since there was a move to reduce particulate and other emissions that would offset the GHG forcing.





The mid-century problem with emissions could be a significant factor.



If memory serves on one of your new favorite authors papers the correlation was tweaked to make the match up fit. Since there are no specific references I cannot get more specific than that.



Which "the" models would those be?

_________________
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

So where is it?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.

And it could also be the sun that was causing this lull, since it's activity was relatively constant during this timeframe.

We can keep on going in circles if you would like.



And so could the sun, and you would not need to invoke another mechanism to explain this period.



Which paper?



The models the IPCC used in their report. This graphic shows the simulated forcings of TSI, Volcanism, Well mixed GHGs, ozone, aerosol and the sum of all of the forcings combined. Note that the Greenhouse Signature as PREDICTED by the models looks TOTALLY different than if it were forced by the sun.





So the Greenhouse signature is UNIQUE according to this IPCC graphic, and we SHOULD see more warming occur in the mid to upper troposphere than at the surface.

Other models have the SAME exact signature for GHG warming, with an area in the mid to upper troposphere in the Tropics warming faster than everywhere else.



Unfortunately for the GHG theory, temperatures in this area in the mid to upper troposphere in the Tropics have remained relatively constant as surface temepratures increased.



This means GHGs are not the cause of the recent warming, since the Greenhouse signature portrayed in the IPCC models is not present in reality.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.