accuweather firmly in AGW camp?

[Ottawa Blizzard]

I read Brett Anderson's latest column regarding global warming. He seems to insinuate that the reason the American public is the least likely to blame humans for global warming is because the "denial machine" is in full gear. Either that, or he believes the mainstream media "isn't doing its job". Thoughts?

http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/story/48931/americans-least-likely-to-blam-1.asp

[WeatherRusty]

He is absolutely correct. The American perception as to the state of the science is at odds with reality. Americans in large part believe the science is in great dispute within the scientific community when it in reality is not.

[superjames1992]

Brett Anderson is the global warming blogger, after all. This position of his is nothing new and doesn't necessarily reflect Accuweather's opinion.

[Clifford]

I read Brett Anderson's latest column regarding global warming. He seems to insinuate that the reason the American public is the least likely to blame humans for global warming is because the "denial machine" is in full gear. Either that, or he believes the mainstream media "isn't doing its job". Thoughts?

http://www.accuweath...y-to-blam-1.asp

The "Media" is doing a more than adequate job getting the information out there.

I think there are several issues in the USA.

1. Chickens? Eggs come in cartons from the store don't they? Over time, "Mainstream America" gets more and more isolated from issues such as agriculture, and issues such as water rights and water tables. The rolling blackouts in California turned out to be more of a scam than reality. Other scams?
2. The "Global Warming" is essentially imperceptible in the USA. While many may have memories of large past snow storms, recently it has been demonstrated that they still can occur given the right conditions. The "Urban Effect" accounts for the majority of the warming that we actually can see.
3. Too much is being blamed on "Global Warming". So, for example, a recent post on this BBS suggested that sinking islands had to blame "Global Warming", but it appeared as if the islands were sinking at a rate much faster than would be attributable to Global Warming. Perhaps the filming crew put the words in the Islander's mouths, but they seemed to have a passive approach just pointing their fingers at global issues that they could barely understand, rather than hunting for productive engineering issues to save their homes.
4. Likewise, when we had a couple of major Hurricane Landfalls in 2005 with stories of how much worse hurricanes are now than in the past. But, there is very little actual data supporting those assertions. Here we are 6 years later, and still waiting for another destructive hurricane such as 1992 or 2005.
5. Some Americans are very inquisitive. Some of the Global Warming arguments have been over-simplified to the point where they no longer make any sense. For example, Ice Age Atmospheric CO₂ concentrations are clearly driven by temperatures and ocean solubility/partial pressures. And, thus the temperatures drive the Atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, and not the other way around (although feedback mechanisms are still possible).
6. Furthermore, it is becoming more and more obvious that globally we are at risk of entering another ice age, although it is very difficult to predict how or when that will happen.
7. Many of the Global Warming consequences are very speculative. It is a fine line. And, predictions are complex. If one pushes the potential consequences out hundreds or thousands of years, then it becomes untestable, and very remote from us. On the other hand, if the consequences are presented too soon, then the timelines are far too accelerated, and the consequences eventually get disproven.
8. The apparent impact to much of the USA is very minimal. Those in Kansas or Minnesota aren't particularly worried about raising sea levels, and may welcome longer growing seasons and more mild winters.
9. It is too easy to blame the USA for the World's Woes.

Some of us would support things like E85, except few vehicles are actually rated to use the fuel, and it can even be difficult to find the E85 filling stations.

Likewise, the selection of biodiesel capable vehicles is very limited, and most manufactures only rate their vehicles for somewhere between B5 and B20. Oil dilution is a problem with some of the late 2000's vehicles and biodiesel. And those wishing to run higher blends get very little manufacture support.

It is frustrating for many Americans that new US cars get about 20-30 MPG (and are advertised as new fuel efficient alternatives). Many new European Cars get 60-70 MPG.

Many individuals are looking for "Green Alternatives", but the "Green Life" is not easy, and often has very little widespread support.

[superjames1992]

The "Media" is doing a more than adequate job getting the information out there.

I think there are several issues in the USA.

1. Chickens? Eggs come in cartons from the store don't they? Over time, "Mainstream America" gets more and more isolated from issues such as agriculture, and issues such as water rights and water tables. The rolling blackouts in California turned out to be more of a scam than reality. Other scams?
2. The "Global Warming" is essentially imperceptible in the USA. While many may have memories of large past snow storms, recently it has been demonstrated that they still can occur given the right conditions. Tye "Urban Effect" accounts for the majority of the warming that we actually can see.
3. Too much is being blamed on "Global Warming". So, for example, a recent post on this BBS suggested that sinking islands had to blame "Global Warming", but it appeared as if the islands were sinking at a rate much faster than would be attributable to Global Warming. Perhaps the filming crew put the words in the Islander's mouths, but they seemed to have a passive approach just pointing their fingers at global issues that they could barely understand, rather than hunting for productive engineering issues to save their homes.
4. Likewise, when we had a couple of major Hurricane Landfalls in 2005 with stories of how much worse hurricanes are now than in the past. But, there is very little actual data supporting those assertions. Here we are 6 years later, and still waiting for another destructive hurricane such as 1992 or 2005.
5. Some Americans are very inquisitive. Some of the Global Warming arguments have been over-simplified to the point where they no longer make any sense. For example, Ice Age Atmospheric CO₂ concentrations are clearly driven by temperatures and ocean solubility/partial pressures. And, thus the temperatures drive the Atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, and not the other way around (although feedback mechanisms are still possible).
6. Furthermore, it is becoming more and more obvious that globally we are at risk of entering another ice age, although it is very difficult to predict how or when that will happen.
7. Many of the Global Warming consequences are very speculative. It is a fine line. And, predictions are complex. If one pushes the potential consequences out hundreds or thousands of years, then it becomes untestable, and very remote from us. On the other hand, if the consequences are presented too soon, then the timelines are far too accelerated, and the consequences eventually get disproven.
8. The apparent impact to much of the USA is very minimal. Those in Kansas or Minnesota aren't particularly worried about raising sea levels, and may welcome longer growing seasons and more mild winters.
9. It is too easy to blame the USA for the World's Woes.

Some of us would support things like E85, except few vehicles are actually rated to use the fuel, and it can even be difficult to find the E85 filling stations.

Likewise, the selection of biodiesel capable vehicles is very limited, and most manufactures only rate their vehicles for somewhere between B5 and B20. Oil dilution is a problem with some of the late 2000's vehicles and biodiesel. And those wishing to run higher blends get very little manufacture support.

It is frustrating for many Americans that new US cars get about 20-30 MPG (and are advertised as new fuel efficient alternatives). Many new European Cars get 60-70 MPG.

Many individuals are looking for "Green Alternatives", but the "Green Life" is not easy, and often has very little widespread support.

Good post.

Speaking of the hurricanes issue, my professor did a study on this with some graduate students. Their study used a model which concluded that we would actually see significantly less hurricanes in 2090 using expected IPCC temperature predictions. The sea surface temperature would be warmer and this would allow the hurricanes to become stronger when they did form. However, his study concluded that there would be more warming aloft than at the surface, resulting in a more stable atmosphere and, thus, making it more difficult for tropical systems to form.

[skierinvermont]

Good post.

Speaking of the hurricanes issue, my professor did a study on this with some graduate students. Their study used a model which concluded that we would actually see significantly less hurricanes in 2090 using expected IPCC temperature predictions. The sea surface temperature would be warmer and this would allow the hurricanes to become stronger when they did form. However, his study concluded that there would be more warming aloft than at the surface, resulting in a more stable atmosphere and, thus, making it more difficult for tropical systems to form.

Yes, this has been the consensus for a few years now. Probably fewer but more intense. Not a super high confidence prediction, but that's what a lot of people think these days based on various modelling studies.

I'd have to check but I think this is what the IPCC suggested back in '07.

[Ottawa Blizzard]

Personally I think the reason there are more doubters in the US is two fold.

1) You guys have a much more diverse media, which is understandable given you have ten times the population of, say, Canada. In Canada and Europe the media is largely left wing and given those on the left tend to promote "collectivism" as opposed to individual opinions, there is a belief that we all should believe one thing.

2) People just don't seem to question established "elites" as much in Europe and Canada (especially Quebec). There is a belief that our "betters" , and the so-called experts know more than us. For example, a look at weather history would show that the current tragic tornado outbreak in the US is part and parcel of a La Nina. Summer 1973 was very hot in the east, as was summer 2010. April 1974 saw severe tornadoes in the US, as is April 2011. People up here generally don't buy into that kind of methodology. There's a general belief that anyone who disagrees with the supposed "collective" opinion is some how deranged or in the pay of the oil companies. The culture of the US just seems to promote a greater diversity of opinions.

[Clifford]

I am sure that there are many different types of people favoring Global Warming, as well as many different groups of doubters.

With Doubters represented by Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals, Environmentalists, and not so environmentally conscious.

In fact, many of the people drawn to boards like this one actually have a strong concern for the environment, whether or not they believe in the great evils of CO₂.

Another thing to add to my list.

This is the "Fast Food" generation.

If we can't have it right now... it isn't worth waiting for.

So, if you tell me we'll be pounded by Category 5 hurricanes... I'm expecting another to hit today. In reality, the USA gets hit by a major highly damaging hurricane every 20 years or so, and it will likely be some time until the next strike.

[BethesdaWX]

He is absolutely correct. The American perception as to the state of the science is at odds with reality. Americans in large part believe the science is in great dispute within the scientific community when it in reality is not.

Rusty, Pull yourself together man!..... at odds with reality?? There is NO "reality" in Catastrophic AGW. And yes, there is significanct dispute within the scientific community actually! You're at odds with reailty.

The only "settled science" is the fact that Co2 produces a warming of 1.2C/per doubling WITHOUT feedbacks. How much warming will show up in the Climate system Via the Feedback aspect is very much UNKNOWN, and many feedbacks are ASSUMED WITHOUT BASIS OR MECHANISM!

There is great dispute among the scientific community in this aspect, and we have no way of knowing..... I don't care what models are used, until we find hard core evidence and mechanisms behind these assumed feedbacks, throw-em out.

This is why the IPCC has been busting. We're in 2011 now... 89 years left until Catastrophe

[WeatherRusty]

Rusty, Pull yourself together man!..... at odds with reality?? There is NO "reality" in Catastrophic AGW. And yes, there is significanct dispute within the scientific community actually! You're at odds with reailty.

The only "settled science" is the fact that Co2 produces a warming of 1.2C/per doubling WITHOUT feedbacks. How much warming will show up in the Climate system Via the Feedback aspect is very much UNKNOWN, and many feedbacks are ASSUMED WITHOUT BASIS OR MECHANISM!

There is great dispute among the scientific community in this aspect, and we have no way of knowing..... I don't care what models are used, until we find hard core evidence and mechanisms behind these assumed feedbacks, throw-em out.

This is why the IPCC has been busting. We're in 2011 now... 89 years left until Catastrophe

I'm glad to see that you have come to your senses with the realization and general acceptance that a doubling of CO2 will produce approximately a radiative forcing of 3.7W/m^2 as measured from the tropopause and a resultant tendency to warm the surface a bit less than 1.2C at equilibrium in a hypothetical situation with zero feedbacks.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is not an unknown. It is not exactly pinned down to better than a factor of 3 however. So we have quite a bit of uncertainty involved. There likely is no rock hard figure, each set of particular global configurations probably has its own unique climate sensitivity to an initial warming influence the equal of 1.2C.

However, by assessing past climate change (the past several ice age cycles), volcanic eruptions and yes, computer modeling we have honed in on a most likely range of sensitivity ( 2C - 4.5C).

Here is a paper discribing the determination of climate sensitivity not involving modeling:

Using NCEP reanalysis data that span four and a half solar cycles, we have obtained the spatial pattern over the globe which best separates the solar-max years from the solar-min years, and established that this coherent global pattern is statistically significant using a Monte-Carlo test. The pattern shows a global warming of the Earth’s surface of about 0.2 °K, with larger warming over the polar regions than over the tropics, and larger over continents than over the oceans. It is also established that the global warming of the surface is related to the 11-year solar cycle, in particular to its TSI, at over 95% confidence level. Since the solar-forcing variability has been measured by satellites, we therefore now know both the forcing and the response (assuming cause and effect). This information is then used to deduce the climate sensitivity. Since the equilibrium response should be larger than the periodic response measured, the periodic solar-cycle response measurements yields a lower bound on the equilibrium climate sensitivity that is equivalent to a global warming of 2.3 °K at doubled CO2. A 95% confidence interval is estimated to be 2.3-4.1 °K. This range is established independent of models.

Source: This is Excellent

[LocoAko]

I'm glad to see that you have come to your senses with the realization and general acceptance that a doubling of CO2 will produce approximately a radiative forcing of 3.7W/m^2 as measured from the tropopause and a resultant tendency to warm the surface a bit less than 1.2C at equilibrium in a hypothetical situation with zero feedbacks.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is not an unknown. It is not exactly pinned down to better than a factor of 3 however. So we have quite a bit of uncertainty involved. There likely is no rock hard figure, each set of particular global configurations probably has its own unique climate sensitivity to an initial warming influence the equal of 1.2C.

However, by assessing past climate change (the past several ice age cycles), volcanic eruptions and yes, computer modeling we have honed in on a most likely range of sensitivity ( 2C - 4.5C).

Here is a paper discribing the determination of climate sensitivity not involving modeling:

Using NCEP reanalysis data that span four and a half solar cycles, we have obtained the spatial pattern over the globe which best separates the solar-max years from the solar-min years, and established that this coherent global pattern is statistically significant using a Monte-Carlo test. The pattern shows a global warming of the Earth’s surface of about 0.2 °K, with larger warming over the polar regions than over the tropics, and larger over continents than over the oceans. It is also established that the global warming of the surface is related to the 11-year solar cycle, in particular to its TSI, at over 95% confidence level. Since the solar-forcing variability has been measured by satellites, we therefore now know both the forcing and the response (assuming cause and effect). This information is then used to deduce the climate sensitivity. Since the equilibrium response should be larger than the periodic response measured, the periodic solar-cycle response measurements yields a lower bound on the equilibrium climate sensitivity that is equivalent to a global warming of 2.3 °K at doubled CO2. A 95% confidence interval is estimated to be 2.3-4.1 °K. This range is established independent of models.

Source: This is Excellent

Yes, and it is my understanding the majority of this uncertainty is in regard specifically to aerosol feedbacks, no?

[BethesdaWX]

I'm glad to see that you have come to your senses with the realization and general acceptance that a doubling of CO2 will produce approximately a radiative forcing of 3.7W/m^2 as measured from the tropopause and a resultant tendency to warm the surface a bit less than 1.2C at equilibrium in a hypothetical situation with zero feedbacks.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is not an unknown. It is not exactly pinned down to better than a factor of 3 however. So we have quite a bit of uncertainty involved. There likely is no rock hard figure, each set of particular global configurations probably has its own unique climate sensitivity to an initial warming influence the equal of 1.2C.

However, by assessing past climate change (the past several ice age cycles), volcanic eruptions and yes, computer modeling we have honed in on a most likely range of sensitivity ( 2C - 4.5C).

Here is a paper discribing the determination of climate sensitivity not involving modeling:

Using NCEP reanalysis data that span four and a half solar cycles, we have obtained the spatial pattern over the globe which best separates the solar-max years from the solar-min years, and established that this coherent global pattern is statistically significant using a Monte-Carlo test. The pattern shows a global warming of the Earth’s surface of about 0.2 °K, with larger warming over the polar regions than over the tropics, and larger over continents than over the oceans. It is also established that the global warming of the surface is related to the 11-year solar cycle, in particular to its TSI, at over 95% confidence level. Since the solar-forcing variability has been measured by satellites, we therefore now know both the forcing and the response (assuming cause and effect). This information is then used to deduce the climate sensitivity. Since the equilibrium response should be larger than the periodic response measured, the periodic solar-cycle response measurements yields a lower bound on the equilibrium climate sensitivity that is equivalent to a global warming of 2.3 °K at doubled CO2. A 95% confidence interval is estimated to be 2.3-4.1 °K. This range is established independent of models.

Source: This is Excellent

Wrong......Absolutely Not.

This is where things get stupid and horrendouslty laughable on the AGW side...., blatant assumption regarding ONLY in the "Simple Rapid Feedback" Spectrum, confusing "cause & effect".... I'll explain below.

Most of the Feedbacks used in Modeling are ASSUMPTION. As in, NO MECHANISM,and are assumed to be positive, all revolving around the warming of CO2 in Order to be Positive. So if the assumptions (Such as GCC, (LLGCC, ULGCC, etc) are negative in the first place, then The models are Automatically wrong....................The biggy here is GCC (Global Cloud Cover). We see that GCC tends to be less during Warm Years, thus it is ASSUMED that it must becaused by the Warming.... Umm, No. Yet, it is censored the fact that Decreasing GCC may have caused the Warming in the First Place. We have a Clear Mechanism for the latter, but none for the Former! So, whats the deal?

This is just one of Many Thousands of feedbacks that are either unknown, not understood, or simply assumed to be positive. Water Vapor is Another Overly-Weighted feedback in a Similar Regard,I'll get to that as well.

........................................Rusty, do you see the Irony? The IPCC states clearly that TSI in the Grand Maximum cannot have caused the warming due to its small energy increase.....Yet Orbital Cycles, with even smaller energy dispersion changes, supposedly Cause Ice Ages and Interglacials??? This would never Work......unless feedbacks are positive to the Sun/Incoming SW radiation! So the IPCC is automatically wrong there as well! So now... there goes about 70% of the forecasted warming.

The Ice ages do not correlate that well with the orbital cycles at all, and if they were/are the cause, those mechanisms are not CO2 related, and it shows how sensitive the planet is to incoming SW radiation changes..... Proving MY Point. A feedback can be positive to certain aspects in forcings, of the climate system, and negative to others. depending on how they directly/indirectly impact the climate system. And I'm not saying that most of what we do now isn't correct, but that what we don't know will change what we do know, we saw it happen in the 90's with the 1988 predictions being downgraded, and we'll see it it again soon.

Many People don't seem to realize that feedbacks can be positive to Incoming SW radiation, as seen in the past, but negative to Outgoing LW radiation at different frequencies. Its not a "One fits all" scenario. Satellites measuring LW infrared radiation from earth/changes in the CO2 spectrum, DO NOT measure Reflected Visible Light (SW radiation) By clouds, and it is the diehard foolery like this that will topple AGW. AGW requires positive feedbacks within the climate system, which is based on limited understanding and growing contrary evidence. Negative feedbacks may render CO2 warming un-measurable. Feedbacks from Increasing SW radiation, or visible light, are on a completely different spectrum. Equilibirum, as in, how fast the earth can equalize the difference between outgoing & incoming energy, is something we are still trying to learn more about. 4yrs, 6yrs, 15yrs, in a mean timespan, will affect how much impact it can have.

Now you will see we don't need any CO2 warming to get to our current Global Temperature.

CLOUDS

The overall reflectance (albedo) of planet Earth is about 30 percent, meaning that about 30 percent of the incoming shortwave solar radiation is radiated back to space. If all clouds were removed, the global albedo would decrease to about 15 percent, and the amount of shortwave energy available for warming the planet surface would increase from 239 W/m² to 288 W/m² (

Hartmann 1994). However, the longwave radiation would also be affected, with 266 W/m² being emitted to space, compared to the present 234 W/m² (Hartmann 1994). The net effect of removing all clouds would therefore still be an increase in net radiation of about 17 W/m². So the global cloud cover has a clear overall cooling effect on the planet, even though the net effect of high and low clouds are opposite (see figure above). This is not a pure theoretical consideration, but is demonstrated by observations (see diagram below).

Variations in solar irradiance are recognized as a fundamental forcing factor in the climate system and may directly or indirectly influence the amount of clouds. For instance it is generally believed that the main cause of the cold intervals during the Little Ice Age 1300-1900 was reduced solar irradiance (Lean and Rind 1998; Shindell et al. 2001).

http://www.climate4you.com/

The solar irradiance varies by about 0.1 percent over the approximate 11-year solar cycle, which would appear to be too small to have an impact on climate. Nevertheless, many observations suggest the presence of 11-year signals in various meteorological time series, e.g., sea surface temperature (White et al. 1997) and cloudiness over North America (Udelhofen and Cess 2001).

The flux of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) varies inversely with the solar cycle. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997) suggested that GCR enhance low cloud formation, explaining variations on the order of 3 percent global total cloud cover over a solar cycle. A 3 percent cloud cover change corresponds to a radiative net change of about 0.5 W/m^2, which may be compared with the IPCC 2007 estimate of 1.6 W/m² for the total effect of all recognized climatic drivers 1750-2006, including release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels.

Since clouds have a net cooling effect on climate, the above would imply (Svensmark 1998) that the estimated reduction of cosmic ray flux during the 20th century (Marsh and Svensmark 2000) might have been responsible for a significant part of the observed warming. Since 1983, the cooling cover of low clouds have decreased from 29% to about 25%, During the same period the net change of warming high clouds have been small.

The new hypothesis on cloud formation being influenced by the intensity of galactic cosmic rays has been exposed to critique (Kristjánsson et al. 2002; Kristjánsson et al. 2004). Later, however, new experiments demonstrated that cosmic rays may indeed produce cloud condensation nuclei (CCN's). By way of the SKY experiment in Copenhagen was demonstrated how electrons set free in the air by passing cosmic rays help to assemble building blocks for CCN's (Svensmark et al. 2006, Svensmark 2007).

As more experiments are carried out and longer and improved dataseries on cloud cover, cosmic rays, atmospheric water vapour, the amount of atmospheric aerosols, etc. are established, knowledge on cloud cover formation will improve. Until all processes controlling cloud formation are thoroughly understood, any attempt of modelling future climate change may well prove in vain.

The SUN

The spectral analysis shown here is from sediment cores obtained from Effingham Inlet, Vancouver Island, British Columbia. The annually deposited laminations of the core are linked to the changing climate conditions. The analysis shows a strong correlation to the 11-year sunspot cycle.

See here for a powerpoint slide show by Tim Patterson.

N. Shaviv and J. Veiser using seashell thermometers shows a strong correlation between temperature and the cosmic ray flux over the last 520 million years.

Cosmic Ray Flux and Tropical Temperature Variation Over the Phanerozoic 520 million years

Sun and Cosmic Rays

During the 20th century the Sun has continued to warm and may have contributed directly to a third of the warming over the last hundred years. The change in solar output is too small to directly account for most of the observed warming. However, the Sun-Cosmic Ray connection provides an amplification mechanism by which a small change in solar irradiance will have a large effect on climate.

A paper by H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen of the Center for Sun-Climate Research of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen has shown that cosmic rays highly correlate to low cloud formation. Changes in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays alter the Earth’s cloudiness.

A recent experiment in 2005 shows the effect of cosmic rays in a reaction chamber containing air and trace chemicals found over the oceans. Electrons released in the air by cosmic rays act as a catalyst in making aerosols. They significantly accelerate the formation of stable, ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules, which are the building block for the cloud condensation nuclei.

Data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project and the Huancayo cosmic ray station shows a remarkable correlation between low clouds (below 3 km) and cosmic rays. There are more than enough cosmic rays at high altitudes, so changes in the cosmic rays do not effect high clouds. But fewer cosmic rays penetrate to the lower clouds, so they are sensitive to changes in cosmic rays.

Low-level clouds cover more than a quarter of the Earth's surface and exert a strong cooling effect on the surface. A 2% change in low clouds during a solar cycle will change the heat input to the Earth's surface by 1.2 watts per square metre (W/m²). This compares to the total warming of 1.4 W/m² the IPCC cites in the 20th century. (The IPCC does not recognize the effect of the Sun and Cosmic rays, and attributes the warming to CO2.)

Cosmic ray flux can be determined from radioactive isotopes such as beryllium-10, or the Sun’s open coronal magnetic field. The two independent cosmic ray proxies confirm that there has been a dramatic reduction in the cosmic ray flux during the 20th century as the Sun has gained intensity and the Sun's coronal magnetic field has doubled in strength.

The graph below shows a correlation between the cosmic ray counts and the global troposphere temperature radiosonde data. The cosmic ray scale is inverted to correspond to increasing temperatures. High solar activity corresponds to low cosmic ray counts, reduced low cloud cover, and higher temperatures. The upper panel shows the troposphere temperatures in blue and the cosmic ray count in red. The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols and a linear trend of 0.14 Celsius/decade.

The negative correlation between cosmic ray counts and troposphere temperatures is very strong, indicating that the Sun is the primary climate driver. H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen published the above graph in a paper October 2007 in response to a paper by M. Lockwood and C. Frohlich, in which they argue that the historical link between the Sun and climate came to an end about 20 years ago. However, the Lockwood paper had several deficiencies, including the problem that they used surface temperature data that is contaminated by the urban heat island effect (see below). They also fail to account for the large time lag between long-term solar intensity changes to the climate temperature response.

Over the 20th century the Sun has increased activity and irradiance intensity, directly providing some warming. The graph below from here shows the rising solar flux during most of the twentieth century.

CO2 Concentrations 500 Million Years

The graph shows CO2 concentration over the last 500 million years. The CO2 does not correlate with temperature. Note when CO2 concentrations were more than 10 times present levels about 175 million years ago and 440 million years ago, the Earth was in two very cold ice ages.

See here for a paper on CosmoClimatology by Henrik Svensmark.

See here for a discussion of the Shaviv and Veizer 2003 paper by Tim Patterson. See here for their paper.

Milankovitch Cycles

The Earth-Sun orbital changes are the principal causes of long term climate change. During the last 800,000 years, eight periods of glaciations have occurred. Each ice age lasts about 100,000 years with warm interglacial periods lasting 10,000 to 12,000 years. Milutin Milankovitch (1879-1958) identified three major cyclical variables which became recognized as the major causes of climate change. The amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth depends on the distance of the Earth to the Sun and the angle of incidence of the Sun’s rays upon the Earth’s surface. The Earth’s axis tilt changes on a 40,000-year cycle, the precession of the equinox changes on a 21,000-year cycle, and the eccentricity of the Earth’s elliptical orbit changes on a 100,000-year cycle.

The Earth's axis tilt (also known as obliquity of the ecliptic) changes from 22 to 24.5 degrees over a 40,000-year cycle. Summer to winter extremes are greater when the axis tilt is greater. The precession of the equinox refers to the Earth's wobble as it spins on its axis. Currently, the north axis points to the North Star, Polaris. In 13,000 years it would point to the star Vega, then return to Polaris in another 13,000 years, creating a 26,000-year cycle. When this is combined with the advance of the perihelion (the point at which the Earth is closest in its orbit to the Sun), it produces a 21,000-year cycle. The variation of the elliptical shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun ranges from an almost exact circle (eccentricity = 0.0005) to a slightly elongated shape (eccentricity = 0.0607) on a 100,000-year cycle. The Earth's eccentricity varies primarily due to interactions with the gravitational fields of other planets. The impact of the variation is a change in the amount of solar energy from closest approach to the Sun (perihelion, around January 3) to the furthest distant to the Sun (aphelion, around July 4). Currently the Earth's eccentricity is 0.016 and there is about a 6.4 percent increase in incoming solar energy from July to January. In the Northern Hemisphere, winter occurs during the closest approach to the Sun. The graph below shows the three cycles versus time. The vertical line represents the present, negative time is the past and positive time is the future. See here.

Analysis of deep-sea cores shows sea temperature changes corresponding to these cycles, with the 100,000-year cycle being the strongest.

These solar cycles do not cause enough change in solar radiation reaching the Earth to cause the major climatic change without an amplifier effect. A plausible amplifier is the Sun’s varying solar wind that modifies the amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth’s atmosphere.

The following figure shows the longest-term data available representing the solar activity. “Three independent indices... The observed annual mean sunspot numbers (scale at right) also follows the 11-year solar activity cycle after 1700. The curve extending from 1000 to 1900 is a proxy sunspot number index derived from measurements of carbon-14 in tree rings. Increased carbon-14 is plotted downward (scale at left-inside), so increased solar activity and larger proxy sunspot numbers correspond to reduced amounts of radiocarbon in the Earth’s atmosphere. Open circles are an index of the occurrence of auroras in the Northern Hemisphere (scale at left-outside). [Professor Kenneth R. Lang, Tufts University <A href=http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_picture.asp?id=119">http://ase.tufts.edu...ture.asp?id=119]

Sunspot Number and Solar Activity Proxy 1000 -2000

The following figure compares the solar proxy 10Be concentration with a combined with filtered temperature record of the northern hemisphere from Beer et al [“The role of the sun in climate forcing”, J. Beer, W. Mende, R. Stellmacher, Swiss Federal Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Switzerland and Institute of Meteorology, Germany, Quaternary Science Reviews, 2000]. “If one computes the global and annual mean of solar forcing caused by the 100 kyr period of eccentricity one gets an amplitude of 0.12Wm~2 in the spherical mean. This value is too small to be detected in climate records. But, despite the tiny global forcing value, we can observe the 100 kyr frequency during the last 800 kyr in most paleoclimatic records. The global mean temperature changes between glacial and interglacial periods are large: about 20C for polar (Johnsen et al., 1995) and 5 for tropical regions (Stute et al., 1995). As a consequence the sensitivity for the 100 kyr Milankovitch forcing formally turns out to be about a 100 times larger than the values obtained from GCMs [emphasis added]. This result illustrates that using global and annual averages to estimate the climate sensitivity can be very misleading, especially when seasonal and local effects are significant. E.g. in the case of glaciers strong melting during the summer cannot be compensated by ice accumulation during the rest of the year. Beyond a certain threshold the winter temperatures have a vanishing influence on ice accumulation. So, constant small differences can be accumulated to large effects over long periods of time (10 kyr or half a period of the precessional cycle).”

Temperature and Solar Activity Proxy 1720 -2000

The following figure is from a 2006 paper by Beer et al [“Solar Variability Over the Past Several Millennia” J. Beer, M. Vonmoos and R. Muscheler (Swiss Federal Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, and NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center) Space Science Reviews, 2006, and shows the earth’s orbital eccentricity (panel (a) - the deviation from a circular orbit for the past 640,000 years with a clear period of ~100,000 years) and the corresponding sequence of glacial and interglacial periods found in the δD record from Dome C (Antarctica) (Spahni, 2005) that is an indicator of temperature shown in panel (. The red curve in panel ( reflects the summer insolation at 65◦N which includes, in addition to the eccentricity, the tilt angle (period of~40,000 years) and the precession of the Earth’s axis (period of ~20,000 years). “Note that the mean annual global insolation changes caused by the eccentricity are very small (<2.5 Wm−2)” and yet they cause significant climate changes. [http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2006_solar_variability]] The paper states: “It is well known that the Sun plays the fundamental role as our energy source. However, it is still an open question what role the Sun plays in climate change… the observed changes of the TSI over an 11-year cycle are very small (0.1%), corresponding to an average temperature change of 1.5 K of the photosphere and, on Earth, to a global forcing change of 0.25 Wm−2 (averaging over the globe and taking into account the albedo of 30%). This led many people to conclude that, even if the solar constant is not constant, the changes are too small to be climatically relevant without invoking additional strong amplification mechanisms. This conclusion seems to be premature, firstly because there is no doubt that there are positive feedback mechanisms in the climate system. A cooling for example, leads to growing ice sheets which increases the albedo and thus the cooling. The existence of feedback mechanisms is illustrated by the discussed glacial-interglacial cycles that are related to a very weak annual mean change in insolation.”

http://www.appinsys....larEvidence.htm

The Theory for "extreme" AGW simply cannot have every climactic feedback revolving around it, thats not how it works, and it goes against well known laws of physics.

[LehighValleyBlizzard]

I read Brett Anderson's latest column regarding global warming. He seems to insinuate that the reason the American public is the least likely to blame humans for global warming is because the "denial machine" is in full gear. Either that, or he believes the mainstream media "isn't doing its job". Thoughts?

http://www.accuweath...y-to-blam-1.asp

It's not denial, it's skepticism which is healthy and should be encouraged in order to combat "Group Think" which is the enemy of free, rational thought in many scientific disciplines and human organizations. See for example: String Theory.

The Climate system far too complicated to believe that human activity is the primary cause of the currently observed warming.

[WeatherRusty]

It's not denial, it's skepticism which is healthy and should be encouraged in order to combat "Group Think" which is the enemy of free, rational thought in many scientific disciplines and human organizations. See for example: String Theory.

The Climate system far too complicated to believe that human activity is the primary cause of the currently observed warming.

It's both denial and skepticism. There exists a "manufactured doubt machine", motivated mostly by political and ideological "group think". Don't confuse this with your natural tendency to question or be initially skeptical of what seems a rather preposterous scientific finding.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Personally I think the reason there are more doubters in the US is two fold.

1) You guys have a much more diverse media, which is understandable given you have ten times the population of, say, Canada. In Canada and Europe the media is largely left wing and given those on the left tend to promote "collectivism" as opposed to individual opinions, there is a belief that we all should believe one thing.

2) People just don't seem to question established "elites" as much in Europe and Canada (especially Quebec). There is a belief that our "betters" , and the so-called experts know more than us. For example, a look at weather history would show that the current tragic tornado outbreak in the US is part and parcel of a La Nina. Summer 1973 was very hot in the east, as was summer 2010. April 1974 saw severe tornadoes in the US, as is April 2011. People up here generally don't buy into that kind of methodology. There's a general belief that anyone who disagrees with the supposed "collective" opinion is some how deranged or in the pay of the oil companies. The culture of the US just seems to promote a greater diversity of opinions.

It purely goes back to education or just natural intelligence. This goes back to that secular vs religious thing.

Lets be honest for a moment. The United States is at the beginning of there secular movement like the rest of the West Started 20 years ago.

things will change. Or it will change when the ice cap is shriveled up more then George on Seinfeld!

[The_Global_Warmer]

It's not denial, it's skepticism which is healthy and should be encouraged in order to combat "Group Think" which is the enemy of free, rational thought in many scientific disciplines and human organizations. See for example: String Theory.

The Climate system far too complicated to believe that human activity is the primary cause of the currently observed warming.

Ok? You know this how?

[BethesdaWX]

It's both denial and skepticism. There exists a "manufactured doubt machine", motivated mostly by political and ideological "group think". Don't confuse this with your natural tendency to question or be initially skeptical of what seems a rather preposterous scientific finding.

There is "denial" on both sides of the debate, although "denial" is the wrong word to use imo, and should be replaced with "Unhealthy Skeptisism" and "Healthy Skeptisism" to differentiate the demeanors. Really its silly to call someone a denier over hypothesized science, and that word is not only disrespectful, but it often starts flame-wars as well.

[WeatherRusty]

There is "denial" on both sides of the debate, although "denial" is the wrong word to use imo, and should be replaced with "Unhealthy Skeptisism" and "Healthy Skeptisism" to differentiate the demeanors. Really its silly to call someone a denier over hypothesized science, and that word is not only disrespectful, but it often starts flame-wars as well.

Are you on the fence with acceptance of what climate science has to tell us about the implications of how the activities of nearly 7,000,000,000 people are affecting the global climate? Or, are you one who steadfastly holds to the believe that God would not allow for such an outcome or that a minuscule component of the atmosphere is incapable of driving climate change? Maybe you think the Sun is more powerful than man, therefor man's activities can not alter climate?

Do you actively seek to promote doubt of climate science and it's scientists? Do you actively promote ideas which run contrary to mainstream scientific thought? Do you support politics and organizations who's deny the science outright (Republican Party) (Heartland Institute) etc.

There are those who remain skeptical even after self educating themselves on the subject matter. Be careful where you obtain your information. You could easily be led astray.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Are you on the fence with acceptance of what climate science has to tell us about the implications of how the activities of nearly 7,000,000,000 people are affecting the global climate? Or, are you one who steadfastly holds to the believe that God would not allow for such an outcome or that a minuscule component of the atmosphere is incapable of driving climate change? Maybe you think the Sun is more powerful than man, therefor man's activities can not alter climate?

Do you actively seek to promote doubt of climate science and it's scientists? Do you actively promote ideas which run contrary to mainstream scientific thought? Do you support politics and organizations who's deny the science outright (Republican Party) (Heartland Institute) etc.

There are those who remain skeptical even after self educating themselves on the subject matter. Be careful where you obtain your information. You could easily be led astray.

Pretty much every major weather/climate organization must be crap. It's hard to understand.

[LakeEffectKing]

Are you on the fence with acceptance of what climate science has to tell us about the implications of how the activities of nearly 7,000,000,000 people are affecting the global climate? Or, are you one who steadfastly holds to the believe that God would not allow for such an outcome or that a minuscule component of the atmosphere is incapable of driving climate change? Maybe you think the Sun is more powerful than man, therefor man's activities can not alter climate?

Do you actively seek to promote doubt of climate science and it's scientists? Do you actively promote ideas which run contrary to mainstream scientific thought? Do you support politics and organizations who's deny the science outright (Republican Party) (Heartland Institute) etc.

There are those who remain skeptical even after self educating themselves on the subject matter. Be careful where you obtain your information. You could easily be led astray.

Everything you stated is also applicable to the "other" side...ie information in IPCC essentially promulgated via Greenpeace...etc.

And you conveniently percieve the "disinformation machine" as having too large a proportion of the "credit" when it comes to skeptics. And how do you even assess such a degree of influence vs. "true" skepticism??

[WeatherRusty]

Everything you stated is also applicable to the "other" side...ie information in IPCC essentially promulgated via Greenpeace...etc.

And you conveniently percieve the "disinformation machine" as having too large a proportion of the "credit" when it comes to skeptics. And how do you even assess such a degree of influence vs. "true" skepticism??

I honestly don't think so. I enjoy this forum because most folks here who are skeptical of AGW are so because they believe they have assessed the science sufficiently to come to hold an educated opinion. The same can not be said for the general population, they are influenced most strongly by their general ideological position. AGW has become so politicized that folks tend to gravitate their stance on AGW toward sources of information they trust rather than an understanding of the science. Poll after poll demonstrates the polarization of the issue along political and ideological lines. The door is open for the spin doctors to do their work, and they do it well.

[WeatherRusty]

Pretty much every major weather/climate organization must be crap. It's hard to understand.

Please take a look at this helpful source of information: SEE HERE

Climate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is unprecedented and is very likely caused by humans. Although there is strong consensus among climate experts, many in the general public still think that these scientists are unsure about climate change and the role that humans have played in modern day global warming. The real science is primarily represented in peer-reviewed science journals but there are some good sources listed in Suggested Reading. Science journals are typically not accessible to the general public and are also highly mathematical. Global warming misinformation is primarily published on Web pages, blogs, television shows, radio, and other forms of mass media, all of which are much more accessible to the general public than scientific journals. The result is that the misinformation is reaching more people than the real science. This Website tries to bridge the knowledge gap by summarizing some of the key research that has led scientists to their overwhelming consensus while also addressing some of the unfounded claims by climate change denialists.

[Msalgado]

The problem is the signal to noise ratio. I'll give you this forum as an example. We have a lot of bright and qualified posters here who could shed a lot of light upon many of the actual science and give professional opinions on the studies that come out (some do) but the fact of the matter is that the loudest voices in the forum are 3 or 4 people who just love to talk past each other and post non stop graphs that inevitably make me ignore them. The moment I see a skier or bethesda post, I scroll. I was pretty dissapointed to see them take over the solar thread because that was a thread that was actually updated from time to time with good information from someone qualified in the field.

I mean no offense to those I mentioned, but I have no doubts that I am not alone in the way I am completely turned off to most discussions by behavior of that nature. I think thats a big part of the reason the American public isn't as informed as it should be. That, and you factor in that the biggest face for AGW theory is Al Gore. No one out there is going to look at Al Gore as a man who has scientific gravitas or some one you can trust for good information. Had he had that kind of sway with the public he wouldn't have lost to George W. Bush. While I realize that Al Gore isn't a real member of the scientific community, most of the public doesn't make that distinction.

When the loudest voices in the discussion turn most people off the discussion will never get far at any level.

[ORH_wxman]

The problem is the signal to noise ratio. I'll give you this forum as an example. We have a lot of bright and qualified posters here who could shed a lot of light upon many of the actual science and give professional opinions on the studies that come out (some do) but the fact of the matter is that the loudest voices in the forum are 3 or 4 people who just love to talk past each other and post non stop graphs that inevitably make me ignore them. The moment I see a skier or bethesda post, I scroll. I was pretty dissapointed to see them take over the solar thread because that was a thread that was actually updated from time to time with good information from someone qualified in the field.

I mean no offense to those I mentioned, but I have no doubts that I am not alone in the way I am completely turned off to most discussions by behavior of that nature. I think thats a big part of the reason the American public isn't as informed as it should be. That, and you factor in that the biggest face for AGW theory is Al Gore. No one out there is going to look at Al Gore as a man who has scientific gravitas or some one you can trust for good information. Had he had that kind of sway with the public he wouldn't have lost to George W. Bush. While I realize that Al Gore isn't a real member of the scientific community, most of the public doesn't make that distinction.

When the loudest voices in the discussion turn most people off the discussion will never get far at any level.

No, because Al Gore came out with his "Inconvenient Truth" well after that election on that first point.

On the second bolded, I find it interesting that the majority of the public does not share his view. If they do not make that distinction then why does more than half of the public think he is full of sh**? its probably because they think he is. Maybe I'm missing your point, and if I am, I apologize in advance. I would say this for a person who thinks we haven't warmed or that warming has been 100% natural.

I completely agree with your former points...most threads seem to dissolve into a posting war of graphs that do not really solve anything....but such is the way of climate science. Since climate science has a relatively poor consensus, we will see graphs from peer reviewed sources on each side.

[Msalgado]

No, because Al Gore came out with his "Inconvenient Truth" well after that election on that first point.

On the second bolded, I find it interesting that the majority of the public does not share his view. If they do not make that distinction then why does more than half of the public think he is full of sh**? its probably because they think he is. Maybe I'm missing your point, and if I am, I apologize in advance. I would say this for a person who thinks we haven't warmed or that warming has been 100% natural.

I think its a fair point to say that Gore's perception changed from 2000 to the release of his film in a relative sense to George Bush but on its own I'm not sure people really had a different opinion of him than they did in 2000. Absence makes the heart grow fonder so who knows.

The general American public does not really accept climate science to begin with, though. I have not seen public surveys done regarding their feelings toward actual scientists from which to compare their sentiments toward Al Gore and I don't think we can analyze that public opinion without context.

In the end, my only point is that the waters are generally extremely muddied when it comes to this discussion all across the board. I generally accept AGW is a strong and likely possibility but I also am extremely skeptical of "catastrophic" warming scenarios. I definitely believe that political statements such as the science is settled are brought into the scientific discussion far too often. Its one thing to use that type of phrase in a public debate and quite another to involve it in a scientific discussion, IMO.

[Mencken_Fan]

Everything you stated is also applicable to the "other" side...ie information in IPCC essentially promulgated via Greenpeace...etc.

And you conveniently percieve the "disinformation machine" as having too large a proportion of the "credit" when it comes to skeptics. And how do you even assess such a degree of influence vs. "true" skepticism??

I would suggest "skepticism" requires knowledge beforehand; that is, Americans are notoriously ignorant about science and therefore incapable of true skepticism. If the masses were intellectually honest when taking polls, the proper answer "I don't know" would be given at least 90% of the time.

Evangelical America has primarily an ideological epistemology; these people tend to parrot the views of their leaders - leaders grounded in Bronze Age science. This significant portion of our population rejects AGW out of hand, just as they do evolution and the many sciences that rely on evolution as a foundation. When I consider America's view on AGW I automatically remove this large piece of the pie.

Secular America with its "evidence-based" epistemology - if considered alone - would give a sharply different poll result. Within this group there would be a small percentage of ideologues, a small percentage of AGW skeptics - with the rest divided between AGW and intellectual dishonesty (failure to admit "I don't know.")

As a secularist, I look upon AGW with much interest and curiosity, accept it as real - but don't presume to know the outcome with any certainty. What I do find curious from the recent posts here is that a small amount of global cooling can lead to runaway cold (ice ages); but apparently a small amount of warming cannot lead to runaway warming. The logic escapes me.