All things Solar

[Sunny and Warm]

To much speculation in the search for any plausible explanation for climate change other than what the science has concluded. On the science side, the forcing given by solar variation is very small, at best 0.25W/Meter squared.

For comparison a doubling of co2 gives 3.7W per. You can hold on to speculations involving unknowns and uncertainties, but that is not science.

I believe you meant to say that the direct solar forcing is 0.25W/meter squared. What you left out is the indrect forcing, which science has been late to the game in quantifying having spent so much time on the CO2 diversion. About that CO2 forcing number you gave, which also is direct forcing. Are you saying that every time CO2 doubles, we add a linear 3.7W/meter squared? Are their no negative feedbacks to CO2 that would return the climate to a normal state? I find it troubling that CO2 doubling at 3.7W per has not yet caused runaway warming as suggested by various peer reviewed papers over the years. What should we say about the science being ironclad when some of the science has been proven wrong already? I suggest we spend more time and money looking for the reasons why sea level is not accelerating and temps are not going up. Sounds like negative feedbacks to me.

[WeatherRusty]

We are seeing things involving the Sun that we have not seen before (and remember modern observations of the Sun are only about 300 years old and personally I'm in my 5th cycle). Cerainly there is speculation and there should be as we try to figure out what this all means. Your statement therefore is provocative and naive.

Steve

Speculation is only the beginning of the scientific process. You know as well as I do that the Sun is behaving as it sometimes does and the affect on climate over the past 10,000 years of climate change has been relatively minor in comparison to what we expect from greenhouse warming.

EDIT: As per Sunny and Warm below..... I was entering this post earlier in the evening on an IPod at a backyard pool party. I did not realize I had added my words to Steve's post until 11:35pm.

Sorry Steve.....

[Sunny and Warm]

Rusty,

Number one, you should remove your comment from Steve's post, as it looks like he's making a faulty comparison.

About your faulty comparison. I find it remarkable that you fail to see that you just compared past solar influence to expected CO2 influence. Isn't it a bit presumptuous on your part to assign AGW an influence on our future when we have seen scant signs of any in 13 years.

[BethesdaWX]

To much speculation in the search for any plausible explanation for climate change other than what the science has concluded. On the science side, the forcing given by solar variation is very small, at best 0.25W/Meter squared.

For comparison a doubling of co2 gives 3.7W per. You can hold on to speculations involving unknowns and uncertainties, but that is not science.

As Steve, myself, and many others are telling you right now...you're out of line. Changes in solar output is not the issue at hand in regards to climate change (in a direct sense).

1) You ignore the 4-4.5W/m^2 increase in OLR in the past decade (2000's vs 1990's). This happens to coincide with the step change in temperatures...meaning, more energy is present in the troposhere that is unrelated to CO2/GHG increases, emitted as longwave (heat) energy. If less visible light is being reflected, that'd allow more transfer to Longwave to release, which points to low clouds.

2) You ignore the fact that the LT is progged to warm faster than the Surface (overall) by 20%, and instead we see the surface warming faster than the LT...which again, points to a higher influx of ISR to the surface, warming the oceans, globe, etc, thus more OLR is created.

3) Per 1% change in low clouds we see the 0.6W/m2 differential in RF. A 2.7% decrease in low clouds matches CO2's RF increase since 1850 A 5%+ change would equate to 3W/m^2 or more. Is that happening now? We can't tell. Has it happened before? Mosst likely yes, and then some.

4) Stratospheric Ozone depletion...UVA/UVB imput...just the slightest change equates to large energy budget change within the climate system, the oceans are where this would show up. There has been significant ozone depletion within the satellite era.

All of this can potentially trace back to solar influence. AGW or changes in the Sun's output is irrelavent in this aspect.

Cheers

[WeatherRusty]

I believe you meant to say that the direct solar forcing is 0.25W/meter squared. What you left out is the indrect forcing, which science has been late to the game in quantifying having spent so much time on the CO2 diversion. About that CO2 forcing number you gave, which also is direct forcing. Are you saying that every time CO2 doubles, we add a linear 3.7W/meter squared? Are their no negative feedbacks to CO2 that would return the climate to a normal state? I find it troubling that CO2 doubling at 3.7W per has not yet caused runaway warming as suggested by various peer reviewed papers over the years. What should we say about the science being ironclad when some of the science has been proven wrong already? I suggest we spend more time and money looking for the reasons why sea level is not accelerating and temps are not going up. Sounds like negative feedbacks to me.

Climate forcing is a measure of energy balance change taken at the top of Earth's atmosphere. What you refer to as "indirect forcing" are feedbacks within the climate system in response to a temperature change caused by the forcing.

Yes, at atmospheric pressure near that of the Earth each doubling of CO2 will produce a forcing of 3.7W/m^2. This relationship is a near logarithmic one such that going from 100 to 200 then 200 to 400 and 400 to 800 parts per million all produce the same forcing. Notice that much more CO2 is required as the progression grows. Each equal increment of increase produces a reduced forcing. Water vapor also forces climate logarithmically for the same reasons having to due with the optical density of the atmosphere to IR radiation and how that affects the propagation of radiation.

Of course there are negative feedbacks. The lapse rate feedback is a significant negative feedback. Increased low cloudiness would be a negative feedback etc.... However the history of Earth's climate is one where temperature response to small changes in forcing are considerably larger than that given by the original forcing. The tells us the NET forcing is positive. What is referred to as equilibrium climate sensitivity (to short term feedbacks) has been estimated to reside somewhere between 2.0C and 4.5C from multiple approaches to deducing its likely value. The forcing from CO2 alone before consideration of feedback is only 1.2C.

CO2 or anything else for that matter other than the Sun becoming a red giant star can cause a runaway warming. The climate system, like any thermodynamic system converges on a new equilibrium state. Even Venus is not in a runaway situation, it has found equilibrium to the solar forcing, CO2 forcing and the density of it's atmosphere at nearly 900F degrees at the surface.

The science has not been proven wrong at all, the Earth continues to warm. The warming is not monotonic. CO2 is not the only factor governing climate, but it is the one of strongest influence over the long term meaning decades and centuries unless the Sun goes completely out of character like never before.

[DMADKAT]

The sun exerts gravitational influence on the planets...but the planets don't exert gravitational influence on the sun (not with any meaningful measurement.) Also, the planets exert near zero gravitational influence on Earth.

Yes, there is some interplanetary effect but it's awfully small. At its closest approach, Jupiter's gravitational effect on Earth is 1/100th that of the moon; and it's tidal effect is 6/1,000,000ths. The other planets are varying magnitudes of power weaker.

The Sun contains 99.85% of the Solar System's mass; Jupiter contains 00.10%, and the rest of the planets combined contain 00.05%. This explains why astrology is nonsense. (When a person is born, the gravitational effect of the people in the room have more influence than the planets.)

Planetary alignments occur from time to time but this is gravitationally meaningless.

Yes, gravity wise you are right ,but it might not be gravity that does it . It could have something to do with other forces that we don't fully understand. Maybe it could be something electrical or perhaps a static force of some kind. The sun does do a kind of dance around a so called bary center according to landscheidt's research. We don't know alot about this yet so there is alot to learn and study here. Jupiter is really small relative to the sun , but there is still a hell of alot of mass being thrust around the sun with this massive planet. Theres alot of static electrical forces at play here. Indeed this is total speculation but the imagination is what gets things discovered. We are just now getting started with our studys of this. Fun stuff indeed

[WeatherRusty]

Rusty,

Number one, you should remove your comment from Steve's post, as it looks like he's making a faulty comparison.

About your faulty comparison. I find it remarkable that you fail to see that you just compared past solar influence to expected CO2 influence. Isn't it a bit presumptuous on your part to assign AGW an influence on our future when we have seen scant signs of any in 13 years.

Not at all,. AGW is based on physical principles. In isolation, radiative transfer theory indicates that for a doubling of CO2 we should expect the surface of the planet to be warmed 1.2C. That influence will not go away even if other factors act in the other direction over the short term.

We also know the maximum range of impact intrinsic solar variability could have possibly had over the past several thousand years and that turns out to be about 1C with the help of feedbacks. Milankovitch cycles operating on time frames covering thousands and 10's of thousands of years are what has produced the large scale changes (glacial and inter-glacial periods) of the past 3 million years. These cycles are not relevant on time scales of decades and centuries. Medieval Warm Periods and Little Ice Ages are mere blips on the scale of potential change and likely represent the impact of solar variation, volcanism and internal climate variability such as ocean circulation patterns.

[WeatherRusty]

That is certainly a gross oversimplification.

I've been trying to provide up to date data and information about the current solar cycle.

There are a lot of observations and predictions that solar cycle 24 will be weak, as well as some predictions of a weak solar cycle 25, although it still seems early to call that one.

The big question is the true long-term variability of the sun which still seems to have a lot of speculation. The sun also seems to impact our environment in multiple ways that is not captured with just the average total solar irradiance.

The other question is whether past climate variation can be explained by Milankovitch cycles, or if solar variability plays a significant role in the climate variation. Or, perhaps a combination of the two. Certainly some of the climate variation in the last millennium is better explained by solar variation than Milankovitch cycles. Yet, 17^th century direct observation data is crude at best, and going back further requires problematic proxy data and data-splices.

Much of the climate arguments center around trying to predict the future climate. The next 10, 20, or 30 years will bring us a much greater understanding of the impact of solar variability, and ocean and climate cycles on the overall planetary climate (added to any anthropogenic contributions which extend beyond just CO₂).

Your input is much appreciated and valued. It's when people imply the latest concocted ideas or mythical unknown factors to be reason to doubt AGW that I find objectionable. All we have is the evidence at hand, one can go on forever waiting for the "we just don't know enough yet" argument to be resolved or the mythical "force" to be discovered.

[Sunny and Warm]

Your input is much appreciated and valued. It's when people imply the latest concocted ideas or mythical unknown factors to be reason to doubt AGW that I find objectionable. All we have is the evidence at hand, one can go on forever waiting for the "we just don't know enough yet" argument to be resolved or the mythical "force" to be discovered.

You write the above knowing full well that the ONLY thing you know for certain is the direct forcing properties of CO2. All of the other forcings, such as albedo, water vapor, ocean circulations, volcanos, solar, cloud cover, (de)forestations, etc have yet to be defined. Yes, you stand on Mt Olympus and declare that all we need to know is CO2. Isn't that right? The fact that the planet has survived with higher CO2 and that we have noted greater climate variation in just the last two thousand years than we are currently seeing should be noted without alarm. I find your argument that we should have no more arguments over AGW to be thin and weak at best. As more and more testing is completed, less and less of AGW remains. Care to hazard a guess as to when the AGW balloon bursts and what the cause will be?

[BethesdaWX]

Bigger issue is the correlation of CO2 to past temperatures...the correlation is weak, certainly not indicative of a driver, more-so based on physics than anything else, but also noting that the climate varied significantly from Ice-ages to hot-houses while CO2 held at more than 4000ppm. The sun was 30% weaker brightness wise, no matter the CO2 concentration, simply put, a sun that is 30% weaker would freeze us unless some other forcing countered. The RF of CO2 simply isnt enough to keep us 10-15 degrees C warmer with fierce ice ages intermittently if feedbacks are positive, and the climate system is sensitive, and continental drift also shows poor timescale correlation.

As of right now the only forcing we know of powerful enough to do this, in line with expectations solar wise, is cloud cover in the low levels. The fast rotation of the young sun would fall in line with this theory.

Even more telling, at the end of the previous interglacial, the temperature fell by 5-7C while CO2 remained at near 280ppm.

[Sunny and Warm]

Bigger issue is the correlation of CO2 to past temperatures...the correlation is weak, certainly not indicative of a driver, more-so based on physics than anything else, but also noting that the climate varied significantly from Ice-ages to hot-houses while CO2 held at more than 4000ppm. The sun was 30% weaker brightness wise, no matter the CO2 concentration, simply put, a sun that is 30% weaker would freeze us unless some other forcing countered. The RF of CO2 simply isnt enough to keep us 10-15 degrees C warmer with fierce ice ages intermittently if feedbacks are positive, and the climate system is sensitive, and continental drift also shows poor timescale correlation.

As of right now the only forcing we know of powerful enough to do this, in line with expectations solar wise, is cloud cover in the low levels. The fast rotation of the young sun would fall in line with this theory.

Even more telling, at the end of the previous interglacial, the temperature fell by 5-7C while CO2 remained at near 280ppm.

Even Rusty knows that CO2 increases lag temperature increases by an average of 800 years, yet it remains the man behind the curtain. Heck, CO2 decelerates during Ninas for heaven sakes. If it was such an important driver, it it would be doing the driving, and not be commandeered by every anomoly that comes along. I seriously wonder how many more years will go by before this house of cards folds. Is it when ice recovers? When Svensmark is proved right? When temps fail to go up for another ten years? When seaside resorts fail to go under water? When it is found that AGW is a business scheme where Greens and the like suck money from govt coffers?

[BethesdaWX]

Even Rusty knows that CO2 increases lag temperature increases by an average of 800 years, yet it remains the man behind the curtain. Heck, CO2 decelerates during Ninas for heaven sakes. If it was such an important driver, it it would be doing the driving, and not be commandeered by every anomoly that comes along. I seriously wonder how many more years will go by before this house of cards folds. Is it when ice recovers? When Svensmark is proved right? When temps fail to go up for another ten years? When seaside resorts fail to go under water? When it is found that AGW is a business scheme where Greens and the like suck money from govt coffers?

The theory is that the cycles raised the ocean temperature, thus releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, which led to additional warming. But looking at the previous interglacial, it seems clear any forcing CO2 had was inferior based on the 7C drop in 1000yrs while CO2 remained flat.

[Sunny and Warm]

That's what I don't understand Bethesda. The record doesn't support CO2 as the boogie monster. Just the opposite. It is an effect, not a cause.

[BethesdaWX]

Well it has an effect, it has to, but the climate system's sensitivity is the issue imo, being potentially overestimated absurdly, or so it seems.

too much attention paid to forcings/blackbody equations rather than those of feedbacks & relative response.

[WeatherRusty]

Even Rusty knows that CO2 increases lag temperature increases by an average of 800 years, yet it remains the man behind the curtain. Heck, CO2 decelerates during Ninas for heaven sakes. If it was such an important driver, it it would be doing the driving, and not be commandeered by every anomoly that comes along. I seriously wonder how many more years will go by before this house of cards folds. Is it when ice recovers? When Svensmark is proved right? When temps fail to go up for another ten years? When seaside resorts fail to go under water? When it is found that AGW is a business scheme where Greens and the like suck money from govt coffers?

CO2 increase lags temperature rise when something else has caused the initial rise in temperature, such as when the northern hemisphere receives more direct solar radiation during the summer months or the angle of Earth's spin axis to the orbital plain is more acute. Sometimes the obliquity of Earth's elliptical orbit is more elliptical and less circular. These factors affect how solar radiation impacts Earth's surface. Warmer water holds less CO2 in solution so the ocean outgas CO2. As the oceans overturn the deep waters reach the surface, warm and give up some of their CO2.

When CO2 has led the warming, such as during the PETM, CO2 has acted as the driver.

Greenhouse gases warm the planet whether they lead or not. Most of the time as a feedback for CO2, but sometimes in Earth's long history as a driver.

Remember, the past ten years represent 10 of the 12 warmest years on record and the warmest average decadal temperature was the first decade of the 2000's as were the 1990's, 1980's and 1970's in sequence before.

Greenhouse warming is not built like a house of cards, where one weak point can destroy the theory. It is a very robust feature of Earth's environment and supported by multiple, cohesive lines of evidence. Add greenhouse gases and the surface must warm since the surface looses heat more slowly.

[WeatherRusty]

Well it has an effect, it has to, but the climate system's sensitivity is the issue imo, being potentially overestimated absurdly, or so it seems.

too much attention paid to forcings/blackbody equations rather than those of feedbacks & relative response.

Study of past climates indicate an equilibriium climate sensitivity between 2.0C - 4.5C to a forcing the equal of 3.7W/m^2. That's a real world assessment based on many studies of climate response to perturbations. No one has forgotten about feedbacks by only looking at principle external forcing, you know that as we have been over this countless times. So I don't get your final sentence, we all know the issue is in feedbacks and the scientific uncertainty allows for our lack of understanding. If your last sentence were correct we would only expect 1.2C from a doubling of CO2. So stop trying to imply we are oblivious to feedbacks. 2.0C - 4.5C

[BethesdaWX]

Study of past climates indicate an equilibriium climate sensitivity between 2.0C - 4.5C to a forcing the equal of 3.7W/m^2. That's a real world assessment based on many studies of climate response to perturbations. No one has forgotten about feedbacks by only looking at principle external forcing, you know that as we have been over this countless times. So I don't get your final sentence, we

all know the issue is in feedbacks and the scientific uncertainty allows for our lack of understanding. If your last sentence were correct we would only expect 1.2C from a doubling of CO2. So stop trying to imply we are oblivious to feedbacks. 2.0C - 4.5C

Are you out of your mind?

First, OLR has been 4-4.5W/m^2 greater in the past decade than the previous correlating to the step change...what does this tell you about the cause of the warming, and the coinciding climate sensitivity?

Hypothesized studies that do not take into account solar driven cloud change, solar driven stratospheric ozone depletion, and already proven errors I'm ocean mixing ability, are not worth mentioning.

I, and many thousands of scientists, stick to the scientific method and rationality..,, knowing CO2's forcing is weak relative to the formemtioned

[WeatherRusty]

Are you out of your mind?

First, OLR has been 4-4.5W/m^2 greater in the past decade than the previous correlating to the step change...what does this tell you about the cause of the warming, and the coinciding climate sensitivity?

Hypothesized studies that do not take into account solar driven cloud change, solar driven stratospheric ozone depletion, and already proven errors I'm ocean mixing ability, are not worth mentioning.

I, and many thousands of scientists, stick to the scientific method and rationality..,, knowing CO2's forcing is weak relative to the formemtioned

Well lets see, per watt we get about 0.3C of warming so if the OLR is purely thermal in origin we should suspect a 1.3C warmer environment radiating to space. If the radiation originates at the level of emissivity to space then that layer (about 16,000 feet on average) should be warmer by about 1.3C.

Climate sensitivity is not deduced by adding up various factors, it is estimated from the total system response from all factors known or unknown.

The last sentence is not supported by the evidence as far as I can tell. Throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks is not the scientific method!

[BethesdaWX]

Well lets see, per watt we get about 0.3C of warming so if the OLR is purely thermal in origin we should suspect a 1.3C warmer environment radiating to space. If the radiation originates at the level of emissivity to space then that layer (about 16,000 feet on average) should be warmer by about 1.3C.

Climate sensitivity is not deduced by adding up various factors, it is estimated from the total system response from all factors known or unknown.

The last sentence is not supported by the evidence as far as I can tell. Throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks is not the scientific method!

Says who? You realize we have Cloud Cover Changes (Upper level & lower level), Water Vapor Changes, Albedo Changes, SST changes, stratospheric Ozone changes, etc, altering OLR relative to ISR, right? Why are you consistantly presenting things in an overly simple manner? The climate has not, does not, and will not respond like a piece of wood, as in, directly to forcings within temperature. Also note that it is the sensitivity to a forcing, as in, how many W/m^2 does it take to equate to [blank], temperature, etc. Its how the planet handles the energy, response time, feedback upon relative change in equilibrium, etc. If we presume 1.6W/m^2 from CO2 to be the only overall increase since 1850, then you'd assume a sensitive climate system, as in, small energy change, big response in extended timeframe with feedback. But what if clouds have decreased by 3,4, or 5%? We know for certain that there has been significant ozone depletion within the satellite era, so a higher concentration of UVA/UVB rays at a high frequency would penetrate into the lower troposphere, the Oceans would warm in response to even the slightest change in UV, releasing more CO2, Water Vapor, etc. So why is it that "blackbody" physics can be put aside?

The earth never emits as much energy as it recieves...ever, (Clouds as an example), Much of the Suns Energy is actually absorbed by the climate system. As in.....the waves in the ocean, winds over the desert, etc, are all energies from the sun transferred into kinetic form. And to put in perspective the oceans' role as a heat sink, and the so called "missing energy", may not be missing at all, either it simply doesn't exist, it is in another form, or it is in the deep oceans.

So tell me Rusty, with CO2 at 280ppm for 1000yrs during the end of the last interglacial, how did demperature drop near 7C during this timeframe? CO2 didn't change, it's RF was the same, slight changes in Solar Incoming energies due to orbital change are similar or less than those seen in the 11yr cycle minimum...supposedly, not enough to cause significant change....maybe because TSI is completely irrelavent to climate in the sense of TSI-Temperature? Maybe its more of TSI/Direct/Indirect Solar Forcings-to-Climate System Modulation-to temperature change? This is why the science is not "Settled".

[WeatherRusty]

Says who? You realize we have Cloud Cover Changes (Upper level & lower level), Water Vapor Changes, Albedo Changes, SST changes, stratospheric Ozone changes, etc, altering OLR relative to ISR, right? Why are you consistantly presenting things in an overly simple manner? The climate has not, does not, and will not respond like a piece of wood, as in, directly to forcings within temperature. Also note that it is the sensitivity to a forcing, as in, how many W/m^2 does it take to equate to [blank], temperature, etc. Its how the planet handles the energy, response time, feedback upon relative change in equilibrium, etc. If we presume 1.6W/m^2 from CO2 to be the only overall increase since 1850, then you'd assume a sensitive climate system, as in, small energy change, big response in extended timeframe with feedback. But what if clouds have decreased by 3,4, or 5%? We know for certain that there has been significant ozone depletion within the satellite era, so a higher concentration of UVA/UVB rays at a high frequency would penetrate into the lower troposphere, the Oceans would warm in response to even the slightest change in UV, releasing more CO2, Water Vapor, etc. So why is it that "blackbody" physics can be put aside?

The earth never emits as much energy as it recieves...ever, (Clouds as an example), Much of the Suns Energy is actually absorbed by the climate system. As in.....the waves in the ocean, winds over the desert, etc, are all energies from the sun transferred into kinetic form. And to put in perspective the oceans' role as a heat sink, and the so called "missing energy", may not be missing at all, either it simply doesn't exist, it is in another form, or it is in the deep oceans.

So tell me Rusty, with CO2 at 280ppm for 1000yrs during the end of the last interglacial, how did demperature drop near 7C during this timeframe? CO2 didn't change, it's RF was the same, slight changes in Solar Incoming energies due to orbital change are similar or less than those seen in the 11yr cycle minimum...supposedly, not enough to cause significant change....maybe because TSI is completely irrelavent to climate in the sense of TSI-Temperature? Maybe its more of TSI/Direct/Indirect Solar Forcings-to-Climate System Modulation-to temperature change? This is why the science is not "Settled".

If you mean the interglacial 125,000 years ago I am not familiar with that episode, but something similar happened early on during our current interglacial, a sudden drastic cooling named the Younger Dryas. It is thought that an enormous flood of fresh water was released from the breakup of the ice dam containing the glacial melt waters of LAKE AGASSIZ, dumping suddenly into the north Atlantic which would have brought the Gulf Stream to a near halt.

WRT where 0.3C/watt is derived from, the fact that a body radiates at an average wavelength proportional to the energy radiated which is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature. Look up Planck's Law, Wein's Displacement Law and Stephen-Boltzmann Law. These are black-body formulas but can be adjusted for grey bodies (Stephan-Boltzmann) by dividing by (1-albedo), or for the Earth 0.30. to give Earth's effective temperature. From this we get for a doubling of CO2 3.7W/m^2=~1.2C of temperature response at equilibrium.

Remember, energy is always conserved. What comes in must eventually go out. If it does not temp will either rise or fall untll that thermodynamic requirement is reached. There is no way around it.

[BethesdaWX]

If you mean the interglacial 125,000 years ago I am not familiar with that episode, but something similar happened early on during our current interglacial, a sudden drastic cooling named the Younger Dryas. It is thought that an enormous flood of fresh water was released from the breakup of the ice dam containing the glacial melt waters of LAKE AGASSIZ, dumping suddenly into the north Atlantic which would have brought the Gulf Stream to a near halt.

WRT where 0.3C/watt is derived from, the fact that a body radiates at an average wavelength proportional to the energy radiated which is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature. Look up Planck's Law, Wein's Displacement Law and Stephen-Boltzmann Law. These are black-body formulas but can be adjusted for grey bodies (Stephan-Boltzmann) by dividing by (1-albedo), or for the Earth 0.30. to give Earth's effective temperature. From this we get for a doubling of CO2 3.7W/m^2=~1.2C of temperature response at equilibrium.

Remember, energy is always conserved. What comes in must eventually go out. If it does not temp will either rise or fall untll that thermodynamic requirement is reached. There is no way around it.

1) Yes, I do mean the Interglecial 125K yrs ago:

Whatever small change in solar influence we had completely overwhelmed CO2 changes, from 260-280ppm, we saw a temperature drop of about 8C actually

2) Not the point since you have modulating aspects on heat that Already Exists. Again, Low Clouds, in an example, while allowing 0.6W/m^2 per 1% change, will not equate to the same number in OLR, instead, we see a 3% change in LLGCC equating to 1.8W/m^2, and an 0.7W/m^2 increase in OLR based on satellite data that I can link if you'd like me to.

Also ever think that Earth's albedo fluctuates? Total cloud cover equates to about 50% of Earth's total Albedo, however, that is including both upper level clouds and lower level clouds. If we only take into account low level clouds, and remove them entirely, while leaving high level clouds in place, we get a much higher number, that can be accounted for in a non-fluctuating base. Wtih upper level clouds trapping OLR, and Low Level Clouds Reflecting ISR, removing both & equating to 50% of Earth's total Albedo is very significant, this is why it is so complicated. Because changes in varying levels can give you the 4-4.5W/m^2 increase on a decadal scale, while not representing the surface temperatures, since the Sun's total radiation does not change.

Also keep in mind where the change in clouds, or presence of clouds in general, is located. The tropical regions are vital in this instance as to how much energy the climate system can recieve, absorb, and distribute.

So talk about something that cannot be formulated & measured in a direct sense, this is it.

3) Yes, this is true, but doesn't change the fact that much of the energy recieved is transformed into kinetic form...again, the waves in the ocean, winds, even raindrops, are all kinetic energy souced from the sun. And I'm sure you know why this is significant in regards to how much it takes to cause a change in temperature if energy is transformed, stored in the deep oceans, etc. Again, cannot be formulated.

[WeatherRusty]

1) Yes, I do mean the Interglecial 125K yrs ago:

Whatever small change in solar influence we had completely overwhelmed CO2 changes, from 260-280ppm, we saw a temperature drop of about 8C actually

2) Not the point since you have modulating aspects on heat that Already Exists. Again, Low Clouds, in an example, while allowing 0.6W/m^2 per 1% change, will not equate to the same number in OLR, instead, we see a 3% change in LLGCC equating to 1.8W/m^2, and an 0.7W/m^2 increase in OLR based on satellite data that I can link if you'd like me to.

Also ever think that Earth's albedo fluctuates? Total cloud cover equates to about 50% of Earth's total Albedo, however, that is including both upper level clouds and lower level clouds. If we only take into account low level clouds, and remove them entirely, while leaving high level clouds in place, we get a much higher number, that can be accounted for in a non-fluctuating base. Wtih upper level clouds trapping OLR, and Low Level Clouds Reflecting ISR, removing both & equating to 50% of Earth's total Albedo is very significant, this is why it is so complicated. Because changes in varying levels can give you the 4-4.5W/m^2 increase on a decadal scale, while not representing the surface temperatures, since the Sun's total radiation does not change.

Also keep in mind where the change in clouds, or presence of clouds in general, is located. The tropical regions are vital in this instance as to how much energy the climate system can recieve, absorb, and distribute.

So talk about something that cannot be formulated & measured in a direct sense, this is it.

3) Yes, this is true, but doesn't change the fact that much of the energy recieved is transformed into kinetic form...again, the waves in the ocean, winds, even raindrops, are all kinetic energy souced from the sun. And I'm sure you know why this is significant in regards to how much it takes to cause a change in temperature if energy is transformed, stored in the deep oceans, etc. Again, cannot be formulated.

Without question a change in cloud amount will affect surface temperature. Some clouds add to the greenhouse effect (high clouds) while others (low clouds) scatter shortwave radiation back to space without warming the surface. Deep convective clouds are considered neutral in their impact on surface temperature. They radiate much colder from their tops than the surface would while also reflecting large amount of short wave insolation, the two affects negating each other almost perfectly.

Overall on average, total cloud cover tends to reduce surface temperature below what would be the case absent any clouds.

So, you don't need to convince anyone of the importance clouds make to Earth's albedo, greenhouse effect and resulting surface temperature. However, no one understands how or if cloud amount changes as the climate warms.

See for more detail

[BethesdaWX]

Without question a change in cloud amount will affect surface temperature. Some clouds add to the greenhouse effect (high clouds) while others (low clouds) scatter shortwave radiation back to space without warming the surface. Deep convective clouds are considered neutral in their impact on surface temperature. They radiate much colder from their tops than the surface would while also reflecting large amount of short wave insolation, the two affects negating each other almost perfectly.

Overall on average, total cloud cover tends to reduce surface temperature below what would be the case absent any clouds.

So, you don't need to convince anyone of the importance clouds make to Earth's albedo, greenhouse effect and resulting surface temperature. However, no one understands how or if cloud amount changes as the climate warms.

See for more detail

Correct, but there is much more to the story. Again with the incredibly simplified expectations from a very complicated system. You also did not answer the issue regarding the previous interglacial's 8C drop with virtually no change in CO2 that would have a significant impact.

Rather than cloud cover changing as a result of temperature change, think about clouds as an independant driver of temperature through changes in the solar wind (GCR theory). Also another theory is present (will get to that soon). In this case, Low Cloud Cover is the only aspect worth looking into (GCR theory), the upper levels have plentiful GCR counts as is, so a change in GCR activity would only exhibit an effect in low clouds, not upper level clouds.

- Knowing this, biggest issue is where the cloud changes take place. Evidence tends to show the equatorial regions exhibit by far the greatest change in low clouds, maybe even individually/completely. This is a very big deal based on distribution of incoming energy. The Equatorial Regions not only have by far the largest amount of overall energy present, but also 90% of the region is covered by water (20N-20S). And noting this, a change in low clouds by a measely 1% equates to near 1W/m^2 of additional SW radiative forcing goig right into the oceans, then distributed around the globe. That is conservative based another theory that is actually varifyable. (not to menttion the key to this is the SW energy penetrates deeper into the oceans. The IPCC even admits that climate models cannot explain the profile of Ocean Warming).

- Either in tandom with, or apart from, the GCR theory, the simply Geomagnetic Flux-to-AO/NAO theory has significant implications on climate. When you have a -AO and/or a -NAO, the Jet streams are pushed farther south, weather patterns actually slow down, and naturally the PV (Polar Vortex) can be used to determine this. This is important because Jets pushed south results in higher tropical cloud cover for obvious reasons, only this instance results in Low Cloud Changes Potentially >10-15%, and in the tropical regions, that is an incredible amount of energy change, and obviously why the Multi-decadal solar activity periods are so important. The effect on high clouds is less known, so far only low level clouds have been capable of analyzing.

- Also in the -AO and/or -NAO, You keep more Ice in the Arctic, and thus albedo increases. This, along with very large changes in the energy budget, are capable of extra-significant changes to the global temperature, and we're not even talking 0.5C incriments Try 3-4 degrees Centigrade over 300yrs+...potentially.

This could also explain the large differential between the MWP & LIA. I tend to believe the larger differentials between the two, in this case 1-1.5C. Before 1850, we had already warmed significantly from the LIA by maybe 0.5-0.7C, Sea Level had begun to rise, actually rising faster than it has been doing so in recent decades. And obviously, there was no "AGW" then. All this comes down to climate sensitivity estimations being overblown absurdly.

A peer reviewed paper by Roy Spencer was Published Today Actually, it is a good read. http://www.mdpi.com/...92/3/8/1603/pdf

cheers

[WeatherRusty]

Correct, but there is much more to the story. Again with the incredibly simplified expectations from a very complicated system. You also did not answer the issue regarding the previous interglacial's 8C drop with virtually no change in CO2 that would have a significant impact.

Rather than cloud cover changing as a result of temperature change, think about clouds as an independant driver of temperature through changes in the solar wind (GCR theory). Also another theory is present (will get to that soon). In this case, Low Cloud Cover is the only aspect worth looking into (GCR theory), the upper levels have plentiful GCR counts as is, so a change in GCR activity would only exhibit an effect in low clouds, not upper level clouds.

- Knowing this, biggest issue is where the cloud changes take place. Evidence tends to show the equatorial regions exhibit by far the greatest change in low clouds, maybe even individually/completely. This is a very big deal based on distribution of incoming energy. The Equatorial Regions not only have by far the largest amount of overall energy present, but also 90% of the region is covered by water (20N-20S). And noting this, a change in low clouds by a measely 1% equates to near 1W/m^2 of additional SW radiative forcing goig right into the oceans, then distributed around the globe. That is conservative based another theory that is actually varifyable. (not to menttion the key to this is the SW energy penetrates deeper into the oceans. The IPCC even admits that climate models cannot explain the profile of Ocean Warming).

- Either in tandom with, or apart from, the GCR theory, the simply Geomagnetic Flux-to-AO/NAO theory has significant implications on climate. When you have a -AO and/or a -NAO, the Jet streams are pushed farther south, weather patterns actually slow down, and naturally the PV (Polar Vortex) can be used to determine this. This is important because Jets pushed south results in higher tropical cloud cover for obvious reasons, only this instance results in Low Cloud Changes Potentially >10-15%, and in the tropical regions, that is an incredible amount of energy change, and obviously why the Multi-decadal solar activity periods are so important. The effect on high clouds is less known, so far only low level clouds have been capable of analyzing.

- Also in the -AO and/or -NAO, You keep more Ice in the Arctic, and thus albedo increases. This, along with very large changes in the energy budget, are capable of extra-significant changes to the global temperature, and we're not even talking 0.5C incriments Try 3-4 degrees Centigrade over 300yrs+...potentially.

This could also explain the large differential between the MWP & LIA. I tend to believe the larger differentials between the two, in this case 1-1.5C. Before 1850, we had already warmed significantly from the LIA by maybe 0.5-0.7C, Sea Level had begun to rise, actually rising faster than it has been doing so in recent decades. And obviously, there was no "AGW" then. All this comes down to climate sensitivity estimations being overblown absurdly.

A peer reviewed paper by Roy Spencer was Published Today Actually, it is a good read. http://www.mdpi.com/...92/3/8/1603/pdf

cheers

My explanations are relatively simple because they represent what is happening at the most fundamental of levels. This goes for the discussion going on over at the arctic sea ice thread as well. Global warming is being driven by changes which fundamentally alter Earth's energy balance and the consequences are a direct reflection of the requirements of thermodynamics.

You skeptics/deniers wish to present a case where the issue is so complex and convoluted that we have little chance of understanding it to the level of being able to make predictions with any confidence. You are wrong, plain and simple.

What kind of a fool needs to be told by the Surgeon General that inhaling smoke from a burning cigarette may be harmful to their health? It should be a common sense conclusion. Similarly, the Laws of Thermodynamics are so well grounded in reality that the conclusion is fundamentally obvious. Add a factor (CO2) which concentrates energy near Earth's surface, and that surface must warm. Past climate change informs us that the system is plenty sensitive enough to slight perturbation to be of great concern to us.

You skeptics/deniers can continue to desperately seek reasoning as to how this may not be so, but your task is the monumental one. You must demonstrate why/how the climate will not act as it has in the past, and why the laws of thermodynamic should be overridden in this particular case of climate change.

[Sunny and Warm]

My explanations are relatively simple because they represent what is happening at the most fundamental of levels. This goes for the discussion going on over at the arctic sea ice thread as well. Global warming is being driven by changes which fundamentally alter Earth's energy balance and the consequences are a direct reflection of the requirements of thermodynamics.

You skeptics/deniers wish to present a case where the issue is so complex and convoluted that we have little chance of understanding it to the level of being able to make predictions with any confidence. You are wrong, plain and simple.

What kind of a fool needs to be told by the Surgeon General that inhaling smoke from a burning cigarette may be harmful to their health? It should be a common sense conclusion. Similarly, the Laws of Thermodynamics are so well grounded in reality that the conclusion is fundamentally obvious. Add a factor (CO2) which concentrates energy near Earth's surface, and that surface must warm. Past climate change informs us that the system is plenty sensitive enough to slight perturbation to be of great concern to us.

You skeptics/deniers can continue to desperately seek reasoning as to how this may not be so, but your task is the monumental one. You must demonstrate why/how the climate will not act as it has in the past, and why the laws of thermodynamic should be overridden in this particular case of climate change.

While using skeptic/denier terms repeatedly obviously makes you feel better and/or somehow superior, it reduces everything else you type to very small, unreadable print. That's the Law of Unintended Consequences. The fact that you use such terms while conducting a debate on an issue tells me that you are not really intent on debating at all, but simply trying to goad others into a frothy lather. Unlike others, you bring nothing to the table, and likely embarrass them by being on the "team".

[WeatherRusty]

While using skeptic/denier terms repeatedly obviously makes you feel better and/or somehow superior, it reduces everything else you type to very small, unreadable print. That's the Law of Unintended Consequences. The fact that you use such terms while conducting a debate on an issue tells me that you are not really intent on debating at all, but simply trying to goad others into a frothy lather. Unlike others, you bring nothing to the table, and likely embarrass them by being on the "team".

So, when I am called an alarmist or a warmalist or whatever, that's ok, but when the shoe is on the other foot.... I'll let others decide how much I have brought to the table or how useful I have been around here. I don't really care what you think of me anyway, as you are so hell bent on scientific defiance as to be unreachable.

If you are not denying the scientific consensus, then what would you call it?

[Sunny and Warm]

So, when I am called an alarmist or a warmalist or whatever, that's ok, but when the shoe is on the other foot.... I'll let others decide how much I have brought to the table or how useful I have been around here. I don't really care what you think of me anyway, as you are so hell bent on scientific defiance as to be unreachable.

If you are not denying the scientific consensus, then what would you call it?

Which scientific consensus are we speaking about ...

1. The flat earth consensus
2. The earth is the center of the universe consensus
3. There is no new frontiers in science consensus, we already know it all.
4. CO2 is the cause of global warming consensus
5. That plate tectonics is an absurd theory consensus (when it first came out, what a brouhaha)
6. etc, etc, etc

It is amazing to me the length to which ideas are held fast to the chest as if it were a religious thing without any critical eye being cast toward dissenting data. If you would open your eyes, you could see that there is much data not supported by your precious hypothesis. And yet, the expected emotional lashout inevitably occurs and always on schedule when faced with unexplainable data.

[phil882]

That's weird, i thought this was a thread about solar changes and not the constant climate change bashing that goes on both sides... back on topic please!

Today's Sun has a few nice blemishes.

[Sunny and Warm]

That's weird, i thought this was a thread about solar changes and not the constant climate change bashing that goes on both sides... back on topic please!

Today's Sun has a few nice blemishes.

You have to admit though, that at this stage of the cycle, this is pretty paltry stuff.

[WeatherRusty]

That's weird, i thought this was a thread about solar changes and not the constant climate change bashing that goes on both sides... back on topic please!

Today's Sun has a few nice blemishes.

This is a thread embedded in a climate change forum. The gist of the discussion concerns how solar variability could be impacting on climate change. The physics of the matter indicates solar variability to be of minor importance, the equal of 0.1% of average TSI or 1.3 watts. This introduces a solar based forcing of about 0.12 watts of climate forcing capable of moving temperature, even with feedbacks, only a few tenths of 1C degree..