CO2 is not causing changes of climate

[WeatherRusty]

Below, just another natural variable that had not yet been considered or taken into account by scientists who try to claim that CO2 is the main driver of climate. How far we have come, and how much further we can move along as a species as we continue to debunk the notion of human released CO2 (a trace gas) as a dominant driver in climate change.

Source

Great! However, CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere faster than all the Carbon sinks, including this one, can remove it. We are on track to have doubled atmospheric CO2 by mid-century.

[Strongbad]

Great! However, CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere faster than all the Carbon sinks, including this one, can remove it. We are on track to have doubled atmospheric CO2 by mid-century.

I understand this, and won't dispute the doubling of atmospheric CO2 either. Since Global temps and sea level are both currently not playing ball with the increase in CO2, I wonder whether scientists like Dr. Lindzen are more correct in stating the CO2 increase will be more of a boon to life on Earth as it is not nearly enough to be considered deadly by him and others.

[WeatherRusty]

I understand this, and won't dispute the doubling of atmospheric CO2 either. Since Global temps and sea level are both currently not playing ball with the increase in CO2, I wonder whether scientists like Dr. Lindzen are more correct in stating the CO2 increase will be more of a boon to life on Earth as it is not nearly enough to be considered deadly by him and others.

CO2 is not considered to be deadly by anyone at the concentrations even remotely possible to occur in our atmosphere in the past, present or future.

CO2 is not the only factor currently influencing weather trends and changes in climate. Internal variability from such things as the PDO, ENSO, aerosols, clouds and the like also force temperature changes as does intrinsic solar variability. Of all these things CO2 is the one factor changing the most on time scales measured in decades. Short term variability has always been and always will be stronger than the slow but incessant increase in forcing due to rising CO2 concentration which works by slowing the loss of surface thermal energy to space.

[bobbutts]

too much bad, not enough strong

[WeatherRusty]

I understand this, and won't dispute the doubling of atmospheric CO2 either. Since Global temps and sea level are both currently not playing ball with the increase in CO2, I wonder whether scientists like Dr. Lindzen are more correct in stating the CO2 increase will be more of a boon to life on Earth as it is not nearly enough to be considered deadly by him and others.

I found an explanation for a measured drop in sea level recently. On WUWT Oceanographer Josh Willis explains how ENSO driven excessive rainfall over the continents has removed water from the world's ocean basins...temporarily.

SEE

[LocoAko]

Funny that you fail to mention that the absolving was done by an internal inquiry, and not instead by an independent body of observers. Second you fail to mention what I already brought up which is mainly that CERN's top guy warned various scientists not to "interpret the data", which is an obvious political power play. If you wish to keep seeing things through AGW lenses, feel free to do so. But it truly is a disaster that you guys can not "hide the decline"

Uh, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate#Inquiries_and_reports

It was investigated by 6 organizations, including the independent Science Assessment Panel, Penn State University, and the National Science Foundation.

It is obvious you are a troll (and a bad one at that) who isn't here and good faith and has absolutely no interest in even attempting to discuss science, interpreted correctly or otherwise. You should stop wasting everyone's time here.

[Strongbad]

Uh, no.

http://en.wikipedia....ies_and_reports

It was investigated by 6 organizations, including the independent Science Assessment Panel, Penn State University, and the National Science Foundation.

It is obvious you are a troll (and a bad one at that) who isn't here and good faith and has absolutely no interest in even attempting to discuss science, interpreted correctly or otherwise. You should stop wasting everyone's time here.

You using the NSF and PSU as two of the organizations further prove that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you would like, do the work yourself. Or instead just Wiki everything and pretend you're happy. Also, trying to tell me I have no right to discuss science as if I am acting in bad faith? You are wasting your time on the computer, alarmist. Get out there and start handing out citizens arrests to the gas guzzlers, otherwise you are wasting the AGW movement's time.

[skierinvermont]

The only problem, is that OLR is increasing.

It's unfortunate that people continue to use and post this CPC OLR data after I went through painstaking effort to show that nobodoy, including the CPC itself, believes this data to be accurate for long-term trends. Considering your whole argument rests on bogus data, I feel no hesitation in dismissing it out of hand.

[Snow_Miser]

Considering your whole argument rests on bogus data, I feel no hesitation in dismissing it out of hand.

Of course, if the data does not agree with the AGW Hypothesis, it is automagically considered 'bogus' data, right?

[skierinvermont]

Of course, if the data does not agree with the AGW Hypothesis, it is automagically considered 'bogus' data, right?

Nice job quoting and responding to only half my post.

As I explain in the other half of my post which you conveniently ignore, the data is not bogus because it disagrees with AGW, it is bogus because the CPC (who created the data) says it should not be used for long-term trends due to uncorrected satellite drift and calibration issues. You can either accept this, or continue to use the data against the express limits of its utility.

[Snow_Miser]

Hi Snowlover123:

I won't call you a liar and I won't disparage Phillip either. Confusion, misinterpretation and coming from different perspectives lead to a breakdown in civility all the way from petty arguments like this to world wars. I am quit sure Phillip understood that decreasing low and middle cloud cover would reflect less SW radiation back to space even if he didn't convey it to you.

Hello Rusty.

I do believe that Phillip knows that Clouds Reflect ISR, but he did not mention it all in his post, while he ruled out the possibility of the cause of the warming being an increase in ISR without mentioning that Cloud Cover had decreased, which could be the cause of the warming- increased ISR reaching Earth's Surface because there are less clouds to reflect Incoming Shortwave Radiation. He could have just mentioned Cloud Cover, and I wouldn't have said that he had made an error by not mentioning Cloud Cover in his post, since they are a crucial factor in the way the Global Energy Flows operate on Earth.

He then calls me a liar, because I point out that he didn't mention Cloud Cover at all, and that decreasing Cloud Cover allows for more ISR to reach Earth's Surface.

That's how I view this whole issue between Phillip and I.

The Earth has been warming so we should expect OLR energy to increase as that is the only way the Earth can balance it's energy budget at the TOA.

Right. However, with Natural Warming, increased ISR would allow for a continued increase in OLR, since there is a continued increase in ISR, and the Earth warms so that the amount of OLR leaving Earth equilibriates to the amount of ISR reaching Earth. With Greenhouse Warming, they would produce a decrease in ISR. The Earth then warms so that OLR slowly equilibriates to the amount of ISR reaching Earth. This would give no change in the amount of OLR.

The data for the graph that I posted with the OLR on it can be viewed here. (LINK)

If you calculate the average amount of OLR that was leaving Earth in the 1990s, and compare it to the average in the 2000s, you will find that the average amount of OLR leaving Earth in the 2000s, is ~4.5 w/m^2 greater than the average for the 1990s.

With regard to the cloud issue, I will await further confirmation in the peer-reviewed literature that what is being claimed here is in fact what is occurring.

Dr. Enric Palle and Professor Phillip Goode's results have been submitted and accepted for Peer Review. Their paper can be viewed here, in the peer reviewed journal Atmospheric and Solar Terrestrial Physics. (LINK)

For a more simplistic explaination, Dr. Enric Palle has provided a PDF of his, and Professor Phillip Goode's findings. (LINK)

[Snow_Miser]

Nice job quoting and responding to only half my post.

As I explain in the other half of my post which you conveniently ignore, the data is not bogus because it disagrees with AGW, it is bogus because the CPC (who created the data) says it should not be used for long-term trends due to uncorrected satellite drift and calibration issues. You can either accept this, or continue to use the data against the express limits of its utility.

Nice job earlier, quoting only 1/200th of my post.

Why don't you provide a link where the CPC says their own data is bogus? I'll be interested to read it. If you claim that the OLR data is not ready to be used for long-term trends, how can you claim that most of the warming we have seen up to now has been due to CO2, if you claim that the OLR data is not good to use over long term trends?

[PhillipS]

I do believe that Phillip knows that Clouds Reflect ISR, but he did not mention it all in his post, while he ruled out the possibility of the cause of the warming being an increase in ISR without mentioning that Cloud Cover had decreased, which could be the cause of the warming- increased ISR reaching Earth's Surface because there are less clouds to reflect Incoming Shortwave Radiation. He could have just mentioned Cloud Cover, and I wouldn't have said that he had made an error by not mentioning Cloud Cover in his post, since they are a crucial factor in the way the Global Energy Flows operate on Earth.

He then calls me a liar, because I point out that he didn't mention Cloud Cover at all, and that decreasing Cloud Cover allows for more ISR to reach Earth's Surface.

That's how I view this whole issue between Phillip and I.

Hi Liar,

I figured since you mentioned me by name I should respond. Again you try to rewrite history and put words into my mouth. In my original post I was talking about the Sun's output, TSI, and how the Sun's ouput has been too stable to explain the observed century plus warming trend. That observation was true when I first made it and it is still true.

I was talking about the Earth, the overall land/ocean/atmosphere system, which begins at the Top of Atmosphere (TOA). You keep dishonestly asserting that I was referring to the Earth's surface, which I wasn't. The Earth begins at TOA, the Earth's surface begins at, well, BOA so to speak. The terms "Earth" and Earth's surface" are not synonymous. Your continuing attempts to conflate the two just make you look silly as well as dishonest.

The magnitude of the energy the Earth receives from the Sun is the TSI value - that's what Total Solar Irradiance means, isn't it? Once the Earth receives that energy the components of the Earth system, atmosphere, land, and oceans, will reflect or absorb that energy according to their own characteristics - any heartburn so far? As we've discussed before, TSI is the Earth's gross energy input from the Sun, and ISR is the net solar energy at the point of measurement. At TOA, TSI and ISR are equal. and at the Earth's surface ISR is much lower than TSI due to reflection and absorbsion. Here is an interesting graphic from Wikipedia which may clear up your confusion. The top figure is TSI, the bottom is ISR at the Earth's surface. Clear now?

From my perspective, if Liar hadn't changed rewritten my post to change its meaning and then attributed words to me which I never said we wouldn't have an issue. We would still disagree on many things. but that's no big deal. Liar created the issue with his actions.

[Snow_Miser]

Hi Liar,

How cute. You can't seem to let anything go about you getting it wrong. Very childish.

I figured since you mentioned me by name I should respond. Again you try to rewrite history and put words into my mouth. In my original post I was talking about the Sun's output, TSI, and how the Sun's ouput has been too stable to explain the observed century plus warming trend. That observation was true when I first made it and it is still true.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

I said this before, but maybe you were facing away from your computer screen when you were typing this idiotic and irrelevant post, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The changes in TSI are NOT the only thing that change the amount of incoming energy that reaches Earth's Surface! This is why I was commenting that your post had an error in it.

You keep dishonestly asserting that I was referring to the Earth's surface,

Well, that's the part that's warming the fastest, isn't it?

The terms "Earth" and Earth's surface" are not synonymous. Your continuing attempts to conflate the two just make you look silly as well as dishonest.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

Your assumption that the amount of energy that the Earth's Surface recieves, can not change if the Incoming Energy at the TOA remains the same is a crackpot assumption.

The magnitude of the energy the Earth receives from the Sun is the TSI value - that's what Total Solar Irradiance means, isn't it?

You finally got one thing right.

and at the Earth's surface ISR is much lower than TSI due to reflection and absorbsion.

Yes, and Cloud Cover is mainly causing the Incoming Energy to be reflected before it reaches the surface of the Earth.

Tell me again why a decrease in Cloud Cover can not cause warming at the surface? Before, it seems like you were trying to rule out the cause of the warming as being an increase in ISR, by just saying that the ISR at the TOA has not changed, so that means that the incoming energy at the surface would not change.

It seems like Phillip is trying to suggest that if the ISR at the TOA did not change, then the ISR reaching the surface would not change from the amount it was before.

I really hope that I am wrong on what I wrote above...

The image you posted shows the amount of ISR that reaches Earth's surface... what a shock... at the polar regions, which see less ISR, due to less hours of sunshine, and the angle of the sunshine, they recieve less ISR, and the Tropical Regions recieve more, because of the amount of Sunshine recieved a year, and the angle of the sun.

Why don't you actually post something useful that 99.9% of people don't know already? If not, then you're just wasting your time here with your crackpot assumptions.

[Snow_Miser]

What are you arguing good sir? That ISWR impacts the system is matched within OLWR? That is impossible with clodus reflecting ISWR. Solar output doesn't change, but how much of that solar output (SW) reaches the Earth's surface in the first place will change depending on several atmospheric factors/complexities, (reflected SW), such as Clouds, Ozone, and resulting SST temperatures. CO2 increase will dampen the CO2 spectrum on its own, (trapped OLR), but in this circumstance it is a small issue RF wise compared to what else has been going on in the Stratosphere & LT...at least since 1979, we have seen OLR increase, The Surface Out-warm the LT, and yet we've seen Significantly reduced reflecyed SW radiation...and in all regards, get the whole picture before letting loose, because you'll know that with these unequivocal pieces of evidence we have a multi-contributionary forcing element here before feedback.

Bump for Phillip... maybe the bolded section will help clear up your serious confusion.

[PhillipS]

Bump for Phillip... maybe the bolded section will help clear up your serious confusion.

Hi again, Liar,

That was an interesting post to bump up because the highlighted portion completely supports my original post. Let's compare:

Excerpt from my 29 Aug post with the relevant portion highlighted

And you will remember from your high school physics that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy is neither created or destroyed. The Earth can't spontaneously warm any more than a pot of water on a table can spontaneously warm. The warming is the response to a change in the Eath's energy balance. So where did that additional energy that has warmed the Earth come from? Well, there are only two possibilities - (a) the Earth is receiving additional energy or (b ) something has perturbed Earth's climate so that less energy is being radiated out.

Scientists have carefully studied the Sun and have factored in its changes and cycles and have ruled it our as the source of GW because it is just too stable and quiet.

So it is not (a), which means source of the warming is (b ).

And the portion you highlighted in Bethesda's post"

Solar output doesn't change, but how much of that solar output (SW) reaches the Earth's surface in the first place will change depending on several atmospheric factors/complexities, (reflected SW), such as Clouds, Ozone, and resulting SST temperatures.

Both Bethesda and I are saying that the Sun itself can't be the cause of the observed long-term global warming trend. (Though to be totally accurate the Solar output does change, but only by roughly 0.1 percent over the observed record.) I don't even have a lot of disagreement with the balance of the highlighted sentence, but I would have phrased it differently.

If I understand your rants correctly, you are asserting that the observed global warming is largely due to changes in albedo. A higher albedo cools the Earth by reflecting more incoming solar energy and a lower albedo allowing more energy to reach the surface. And you feel that the measured increase in OLR supports your assertions. Am I right so far in my understanding?

The trouble with you 'hypothesis' is that it fails on many, many levels. Far too many for me to want to take the time to debunk. Especially since you've shown no interest in the actual science, or in expanding you knowledge. So I'll keep this short and point out just one, of many, errors. The increase in OLR isn't due to albedo changes because the OLR reaching space isn't being radiated from the Earth's surface. GHGs absorb most surface OLR before it reaches space. The OLR being observed by satellites is being radiated from high in the atmosphere where the mean free path for LW photons is long enough to reach space. If you want the real reason for increasing OLR then look into the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. As the Earth warms up in response to increasing CO2 levels, OLR is supposed to go up. That is one of many observations that support the mainstream AGW theories.

[WeatherRusty]

This cloud/albedo issue is worthy of discussion. The research being done on it is not far fetched and could help explain some of the variance in the paleoclimate record, at least. It's to bad we are in this war of personal attack, it comes with the territory I know, but it gets in the way of discussing the science.

The skeptics are to quick to jump all over this as another "proof" of AGW's fallibility.

The AGW'ers are to quick to dismiss the relevance of this research as just another of hundreds of mutually contradictive denier arguments.

I agree with Skier and PhillipS that the OLR basis for this analysis is highly questionable. The paper cited by Snowlover123 does not go so far as skeptics want to read into it in my humble opinion. The authors present evidence for cloud/albedo, Sun/albedo relationships, but are careful to mention much more research needs to carried out before any conclusions are drawn.

[PhillipS]

This cloud/albedo issue is worthy of discussion. The research being done on it is not far fetched and could help explain some of the variance in the paleoclimate record, at least. It's to bad we are in this war of personal attack, it comes with the territory I know, but it gets in the way of discussing the science.

The skeptics are to quick to jump all over this as another "proof" of AGW's fallibility.

The AGW'ers are to quick to dismiss the relevance of this research as just another of hundreds of mutually contradictive denier arguments.

I agree with Skier and PhillipS that the OLR basis for this analysis is highly questionable. The paper cited by Snowlover123 does not go so far as skeptics want to read into it in my humble opinion. The authors present evidence for cloud/albedo, Sun/albedo relationships, but are careful to mention much more research needs to carried out before any conclusions are drawn.

I agree that the research being done on clouds and albedo is very important. There are large uncertainties in our understanding of the climate processes. The fact that we don't even know conclusively whether clouds are a net positive or negative feedback is an example of how much we still need to learn.

I apologize to the readers who feel I've derailed this thread with my exchanges to SL123. I'll try to rein in my comments in the future and focus on facts instead of foolishness.

Now, back to the topic of CO2 and its role in climate change. Here are some points I feel have been solidly established through research:

1. CO2 is a GHG - if someone is going to dispute this then they should bring out recent peer-reviewed research overturning our understanding of radiative physics and the mountain of empirical data which supports this.

2. Atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen from a pre-industrial level of around 280 ppm to today's 392 ppm - this is solidly supported by ice core and direct measurements,

3. The rise in atmospheric CO2 is largely due to our burning gigatons of fossil fuels - if you want to assert that the CO2 is coming from another source then at least have a peer-reviewed explanation for where all of our CO2 has gone.

4. Doubling CO2 levels will result in a direct no-feedback global temperature increase of about 1.2 C - since Lindzen, Spencer and Curry largely agree with Hansen, Mann and the IPCC on this, good luck trying to convince readers that all of them are wrong.

Where I see additional research needed - feedback processes including clouds, precipitation, and aerosols. The feedback processes are what will determine the overall global warming from our CO2 emissions. There is a lot that we know today about feedbacks, but there are still many areas of uncertainty. Refining our understanding of climate is essential to making informed decisions.

[Strongbad]

4. Doubling CO2 levels will result in a direct no-feedback global temperature increase of about 1.2 C - since Lindzen, Spencer and Curry largely agree with Hansen, Mann and the IPCC on this, good luck trying to convince readers that all of them are wrong.

Speaking of what Lindzen believes regarding 1.2 C warming (cause it never hurts to show Lindzen's opnion of this hogwash science known as AGW)...

It turns out that there is a much more fundamental and unambiguous check of the role of feedbacks in enhancing greenhouse warming that also shows that all models are greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity. Here, it must be noted that the greenhouse effect operates by inhibiting the cooling of the climate by reducing net outgoing radiation. However, the contribution of increasing CO2 alone does not, in fact, lead to much warming (approximately 1 deg. C for each doubling of CO2).

Source

[WeatherRusty]

Speaking of what Lindzen believes regarding 1.2 C warming (cause it never hurts to show Lindzen's opnion of this hogwash science known as AGW)...

Source

Ok, good! So you agree Lindzen does not disagree with the principle point that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which when doubled in atmospheric concentration will produce a climate forcing equaling 3.7W/m^2 and as a consequence a black body effective temperature increase of a bit less than 1.2C. Since this is derived from the fundamental principles of radiative transfer, The Planck Law, Wein's Displacement Law and the Stephan-Boltzmann Law virtually no physicists will disagree with this conclusion.

The issue is not CO2. The impact of CO2 alone is settled science. The contentious popular debate carried out by those fully aware of the physics involved, and this includes Lindzen and Spencer, involves the feedback process. If 1.2C were all we had to be concerned with we likely would not be having this discussion. The intelligent skeptical arguments attack the science behind the feedback process, while the blogosphere continues to debate long settled science.

If you think studying climate change is hogwash science then go away.

[PhillipS]

Speaking of what Lindzen believes regarding 1.2 C warming (cause it never hurts to show Lindzen's opnion of this hogwash science known as AGW)...

Source

The question of how much warming is needed to become serious is a valid one. The measured global warming since the late 1800s is about 0.8 C. For the purposes of this discussion it doesn't matter how that warming is divided between natural and man-made because all warming has climate consequences we will have to deal with. The warming we've seen so far is not all we will see because the Earth's climate hasn't reached equilibrium yet. Nor can it until GHG concentrations stabilize. If the low end estimates of climate sensitivity (Lindzen's 0.7 C estimate, for example) are correct then we still have about a half degree of additional warming ahead. But if the IPCC mean climate sensitivity of 3.5 C is correct then we will have several additional degrees of global warming to deal with.

One of the earliest predictions of AGW theory is that warming would lead to an increase in extreme weather events. Certainly we have seen a lot of extreme weather in 2010 and 2011 and while it is impossible to attribute any one weather event to AGW, these past two years are a preview of what we can expect in a warmer world. SkepticalScience has a cartoon-free list of peer-reviewed studies on the positive and negative effects of warming on agriculture, health, the environment and other areas. It is pretty sobering, but it is science, not hogwash..

[Snow_Miser]

Hi again, Liar,

Hello again, arrogant ignoramus.

That was an interesting post to bump up because the highlighted portion completely supports my original post. Let's compare:

No it does not. Cloud Cover and Ozone changes change the amount of ISR that reaches Earth's surface, which you completely ignored in your post that you quoted.

Well, there are only two possibilities - (a) the Earth is receiving additional energy or (b ) something has perturbed Earth's climate so that less energy is being radiated out. Scientists have carefully studied the Sun and have factored in its changes and cycles and have ruled it our as the source of GW because it is just too stable and quiet. So it is not (a), which means source of the warming is (b ).

Yes, changes in TSI are not causing Global Warming, because it has flatlined. The Feedbacks from the Solar AA Index are what are causing Global Warming. However, just because TSI has flatlined does not mean that the sun isn't causing Global Warming, and allowing for more ISR to reach Earth's Surface through Cloud Cover changes; causing warming.

The Solar Geomagnetic AA Index is a measurement of how strong the Sun's magnetic field is. It basically controls how many GCRs reach Earth's surface. This is a fact that can not be disputed, and it can be seen clearly in observational evidence.

Depending on how strong the Solar Wind and the Solar AA Index is, will determine how many GCRs there are. We can see that there is a clear inverse relationship between the two. It is also seen in quite a few papers that Cosmic Rays are one of the dominant drivers of Cloud Cover, and the changes in Cloud Cover are driving Climate Changes on Earth.

From Usoskin et. al 2008...

On a short time scale of a few days, there exists much

evidence that CR changes may affect the process of

cyclogenesis via the changing transparency and

pressure, particularly in the North Atlantic during cold

seasons. Although each individual piece of evidence is

barely significant, in aggregate, they suggest that the

relation can be real.

A link between low clouds and CR appears

statistically significant on the interannual time scale

since 1984 in limited geographical regions, the largest

being North Atlantic + Europe and South Atlantic. We

note that many reconstructions of the past climate are

based on European data, where the CR–cloud relation is

the most pronounced. Extension of this relation to the

global scale may be misleading.

A relation between the geomagnetic field changes

and climatic variations provides evidence favouring the

possible CR influence on climate. A study of regional

climate variations in relation to the geomagnetic dipole

axis migration over the last millennium is also

promising.

There is an indication of the climate changes

synchronously with the CR flux on Myr time scales,

but this result is not straightforward to interpret. Large

uncertainties make it only indicative.

Essential progress has been recently achieved in

theoretical modelling of both ionizing effect of CR and

physical mechanisms relating CRII to cloud variations,

but the link between micro- and macro-physics is still

missing. A new experimental evidence, obtained by the

SKYexperiment team, confirm that enhanced ionization

notably facilitates the production of small ion clusters in

realistic atmospheric conditions.

In conclusion, a CR–climate link seems to be a

plausible climate driver, as supported by the bulk of

statistical studies and existing theoretical models.

And it is also shown that the RF of the GHGs since 1790, as cited by the IPCC is dwarfed by just albedo changes alone over the past 21 years. Scientists Dr. Phil Goode and Dr. Enric Palle have worked on measuring the Earth's albedo through a technique known as "earthshine."

The Albedo is calculated when reflected incoming shortwave radiation hits the moon, which bounces off of the moon, and you get Earthshine. Using this technique, they calculated the average albedo on Earth over the past 20-25 years. Their results are stunning.

Here it is shown that the Earth's albedo has been going down, until about 1998. This probably explains most of the warming through that timeframe- an increase in ISR through decreasing Cloud Cover. For a comparison on how this compares with the amount of energy being added to Earth's Energy Budget by GHGs since 1790, as cited in the IPCC, it is shown in red. CO2 has been dwarfed by just albedo changes alone in 21 years, by almost a factor of three. (7 w/m^2 over a 21 year timeframe from albedo changes) and (2.4 w/m^2 since 1790 from increasing GHGs as cited by the IPCC.)

So tell us again, why changes in ISR at the TOA can only produce an increase in ISR at the Earth's surface?

And the portion you highlighted in Bethesda's post"

Solar output doesn't change, but how much of that solar output (SW) reaches the Earth's surface in the first place will change depending on several atmospheric factors/complexities, (reflected SW), such as Clouds, Ozone, and resulting SST temperatures. <BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

Here is where you crackpot theory comes unhinged. The ozone changes and Cloud Cover changes are causing more ISWR to reach Earth's Surface, and it warms the Earth's surface! This is my main disagreement with you:

You don't think that the warming can be caused by a decrease in Cloud Cover, because it is not causing an increase in ISR at the TOA. As long as the incoming energy at the surface increases, (Which decreasing ozone and Cloud Cover has done) then it causes warming at the surface, regardless of if the incoming energy at the TOA has remained the same.

Both Bethesda and I are saying that the Sun itself can't be the cause of the observed long-term global warming trend.

That is a complete straw man. Bethesda and I both have similar views of the climate- that the changes in the Solar AA Index are causing changes in the GCR Flux, which is changing Cloud Cover, which is changing climate.

It all comes down to the sun in the end.

If I understand your rants correctly, you are asserting that the observed global warming is largely due to changes in albedo. A higher albedo cools the Earth by reflecting more incoming solar energy and a lower albedo allowing more energy to reach the surface. And you feel that the measured increase in OLR supports your assertions. Am I right so far in my understanding?

Look up the definition of rant, before you use it incorrectly again, as well as many other words, but I think we can both agree on this statement.

The increase in OLR isn't due to albedo changes because the OLR reaching space isn't being radiated from the Earth's surface. GHGs absorb most surface OLR before it reaches space. The OLR being observed by satellites is being radiated from high in the atmosphere where the mean free path for LW photons is long enough to reach space. If you want the real reason for increasing OLR then look into the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. As the Earth warms up in response to increasing CO2 levels, OLR is supposed to go up. That is one of many observations that support the mainstream AGW theories.

This is another crackpot theory, that defies all the laws of physics possible. When the Earth warms, the surface emits more OLR, so that it can equilibriate to the amount of ISR that is reaching Earth's surface. With a decrease in albedo, you get less Clouds to trap OLR, so you get an increase in OLR. In addition, since Clouds are increasing the amount of ISR that reaches Earth's surface, the OLR would continually increase, since there is a continued increase in ISR reaching Earth's surface from decreasing Cloud Cover. To claim that when the surface warms, it will not emit more OLR is just bizzare. With GHGs, they would produce an initial decrease in OLR, and then Earth would warm until the OLR has equilibriated to the amount of ISR that has reached Earth's Surface. This would lead to no change in OLR at all.

[skierinvermont]

Hello again, arrogant ignoramus.

No it does not. Cloud Cover and Ozone changes change the amount of ISR that reaches Earth's surface, which you completely ignored in your post that you quoted.

Yes, changes in TSI are not causing Global Warming, because it has flatlined. The Feedbacks from the Solar AA Index are what are causing Global Warming. However, just because TSI has flatlined does not mean that the sun isn't causing Global Warming, and allowing for more ISR to reach Earth's Surface through Cloud Cover changes; causing warming.

The Solar Geomagnetic AA Index is a measurement of how strong the Sun's magnetic field is. It basically controls how many GCRs reach Earth's surface. This is a fact that can not be disputed, and it can be seen clearly in observational evidence.

Depending on how strong the Solar Wind and the Solar AA Index is, will determine how many GCRs there are. We can see that there is a clear inverse relationship between the two. It is also seen in quite a few papers that Cosmic Rays are one of the dominant drivers of Cloud Cover, and the changes in Cloud Cover are driving Climate Changes on Earth.

From Usoskin et. al 2008...

And it is also shown that the RF of the GHGs since 1790, as cited by the IPCC is dwarfed by just albedo changes alone over the past 21 years. Scientists Dr. Phil Goode and Dr. Enric Palle have worked on measuring the Earth's albedo through a technique known as "earthshine."

The Albedo is calculated when reflected incoming shortwave radiation hits the moon, which bounces off of the moon, and you get Earthshine. Using this technique, they calculated the average albedo on Earth over the past 20-25 years. Their results are stunning.

Here it is shown that the Earth's albedo has been going down, until about 1998. This probably explains most of the warming through that timeframe- an increase in ISR through decreasing Cloud Cover. For a comparison on how this compares with the amount of energy being added to Earth's Energy Budget by GHGs since 1790, as cited in the IPCC, it is shown in red. CO2 has been dwarfed by just albedo changes alone in 21 years, by almost a factor of three. (7 w/m^2 over a 21 year timeframe from albedo changes) and (2.4 w/m^2 since 1790 from increasing GHGs as cited by the IPCC.)

So tell us again, why changes in ISR at the TOA can only produce an increase in ISR at the Earth's surface?

Here is where you crackpot theory comes unhinged. The ozone changes and Cloud Cover changes are causing more ISWR to reach Earth's Surface, and it warms the Earth's surface! This is my main disagreement with you:

You don't think that the warming can be caused by a decrease in Cloud Cover, because it is not causing an increase in ISR at the TOA. As long as the incoming energy at the surface increases, (Which decreasing ozone and Cloud Cover has done) then it causes warming at the surface, regardless of if the incoming energy at the TOA has remained the same.

That is a complete straw man. Bethesda and I both have similar views of the climate- that the changes in the Solar AA Index are causing changes in the GCR Flux, which is changing Cloud Cover, which is changing climate.

It all comes down to the sun in the end.

Look up the definition of rant, before you use it incorrectly again, as well as many other words, but I think we can both agree on this statement.

This is another crackpot theory, that defies all the laws of physics possible. When the Earth warms, the surface emits more OLR, so that it can equilibriate to the amount of ISR that is reaching Earth's surface. With a decrease in albedo, you get less Clouds to trap OLR, so you get an increase in OLR. In addition, since Clouds are increasing the amount of ISR that reaches Earth's surface, the OLR would continually increase, since there is a continued increase in ISR reaching Earth's surface from decreasing Cloud Cover. To claim that when the surface warms, it will not emit more OLR is just bizzare. With GHGs, they would produce an initial decrease in OLR, and then Earth would warm until the OLR has equilibriated to the amount of ISR that has reached Earth's Surface. This would lead to no change in OLR at all.

The primary evidence of your post is the graph of low level cloud cover vs GCR from Usoskin. Couple points in regard to this graph:

1) You failed to mention (or were unaware) that this graph is only for western Europe, and that over the large majority of the globe, no correlation is found. Given the size of the globe and the shortness of the period examined, it would be expected that some regions would have low level cloud cover trends than correlate with GCRs simply by chance. If you look hard enough for any correlation, you will find it. A good example of how to lie with statistics. If the earth as a whole doesn't correlate, break it up into small enough pieces until you find somewhere on earth that does correlate. Knowingly posting this regional graph without noting that it is regional, not global, is highly intellectually dishonest.

2) The cloud data he is using comes from his 36th reference which is ISCCP cloud data. As I have shown to Bethesda and Bethesda has acknowledged, this data is not suitable for long-term trends. There are other sources of cloud data besides ISCCP which yield different results. As such, any regional correlation found based on this spurious data will also be spurious.

There are many many studies which find no correlation between GCRs, aerosols or CCNs and low level clouds and many others which point to the lack of a physical mechanism:

http://www.leif.org/...009GL037946.pdf

A modeling study of aerosol microphysics finds that changes in GCR intensity is orders of magnitude too small to lead to an appreciable change in total CCNs and cloud cover. The primary problem is that although GCRs do lead to an increase in the smallest aerosols (as the CERN experiment recently confirmed) just because there are more of the smallest aerosols does not mean there will be more CCNs which are formed by the growth of the smallest aerosols into larger ones. For one, nanometer sized aerosols must compete with each other for condensable gases. Thus fewer of the nanometer sized aerosols will survive to CCN size. Second, a large fraction of total CCNs comes from direct emissions. They conclude that the GCR-related change in forcing via low level clouds is on the order of .01W/m2.

http://www.atmos-che...1-4001-2011.pdf

Another similar paper.

http://atmos-chem-ph...-21525-2009.pdf

A study of aerosol formation found no correlation with GCR intensity and that the vast majority of aerosol formation was not related to ionization (the proposed mechanism by which GCRs cause aerosol formation).

Most important is that GCRs have shown no decrease over the last 30+ years and recent have increased to record high levels which should be (but isn't) causing extreme cooling. Thus GCRs cannot be responsible for the increase in temperature the last 30+ years, unless you propose there is a 30+ year time lag which violates all of the physical mechanisms proposed thus far.

Numerous other references may be found here:

http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm

I have extended this 2003 graph showing the lack of correlation between GCR and temperature to the present. As you can see, they continue to diverge with GCR increasing to record levels but temperature continuing to rise . Note the GCR axis is flipped upside down so downwards=more GCR.

[Snow_Miser]

Hi Skier, thank you for your response, and your PM. I appreciate both of them.

The primary evidence of your post is the graph of low level cloud cover vs GCR from Usoskin.

I would agree so, yes.

1) You failed to mention (or were unaware) that this graph is only for western Europe, and that over the large majority of the globe, no correlation is found. Given the size of the globe and the shortness of the period examined, it would be expected that some regions would have low level cloud cover trends than correlate with GCRs simply by chance.

Unfortunately, the main problem with the statistical analysis, is that we have not had enough of a timeframe to really determine if the correlation is statistically significant or not. So we will never truely know if the correlations are statistically signficiant or not. However, you can not say that the correlation in Western Europe is not statistically significant because it could just be by chance. That's forming unfounded assumptions, which is not a convincing counter argument. There is also ENSO to consider for as to why in other parts of the world, why CR-Temperatures are not statistically significant.

A good chunk of the globe, as stated in the paper has statistically significant correlations to Cloud Cover. The image is a look at one of those areas that has that statistically significant correlation.

However, the actual scientists in the paper did conclude that through these statistical analyses, that a CR-Climate Driver is "plausable."

2) The cloud data he is using comes from his 36th reference which is ISCCP cloud data. As I have shown to Bethesda and Bethesda has acknowledged, this data is not suitable for long-term trends. There are other sources of cloud data besides ISCCP which yield different results. As such, any regional correlation found based on this spurious data will also be spurious.

It may not be suitable for long term trends such as saying it caused all of the warming from 1850, since we do not have adequate Cloud Cover data that goes back to that timeframe, however, I think that we can adequately make conclusions on if the Cloud Cover decreased since 1983, and if those Cloud Cover changes caused the late-20th Century Warming, that many CAGW Proponents claim is where the anthropogenic forcing overwhelmed the natural forcing. They quite often show this graph:

However, this graph is completely misleading, because it is a MODEL SIMULATION for natural and anthrpogenic forcings. The models are put in that CO2 is a primary driver, (which it is not) and they would obviously come up with this result. This graph only includes TSI, Volcanism, and CO2. They do not include the PDO/AMO, GCC changes, Ozone changes, dust changes etc, and the model would come up with a completely different graph, if those factors were included.

Again, it is evident that through many ways of observing Cloud Cover, such as Earthshine and the ISSCP, that albedo has largely decreased from 1983-2004, which would explain most of the warming that took place in the late-20th Century. The Scientists that created the Earthshine experiment were Dr. Phil Goode and Dr. Enric Palle. Here is some more information on the Earthshine Project.

The Albedo is calculated when reflected incoming shortwave radiation hits the moon, which bounces off of the moon, and you get Earthshine. Using this technique, they calculated the average albedo on Earth over the past 20-25 years. Their results are stunning.

Here it is shown that the Earth's albedo has been going down, until about 1998. This probably explains most of the warming through that timeframe- an increase in ISR through decreasing Cloud Cover. For a comparison on how this compares with the amount of energy being added to Earth's Energy Budget by GHGs since 1790, as cited in the IPCC, it is shown in red. CO2 has been dwarfed by just albedo changes alone in 21 years, by almost a factor of three. (7 w/m^2 over a 21 year timeframe from albedo changes) and (2.4 w/m^2 since 1790 from increasing GHGs as cited by the IPCC.)

Their peer reviewed paper can be viewed here.

There are many many studies which find no correlation between GCRs, aerosols or CCNs and low level clouds and many others which point to the lack of a physical mechanism:<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

And there are many studies that do. I don't want to turn this into a 'who can post the most papers supporting me' argument.

Since you posted three peer reviewed papers supporting your notion, I will post five supporting mine.

http://www.sciencedi...27311770500829X

The paper above discusses how the Cosmic Rays, modulated through Solar Activity are driving the climate through Cloud Cover changes.

http://www.springerl...70n09u25144257/

From the abstract:

¹⁰Be vary with climate changes, the concentrations of these isotopes also inform about climate changes in the past. A performed analysis indicates that cosmic ray flux variations are apparently the most effective natural factor of climate changes on a large time scale.

http://www.springerl...8867847u3plhkm/

From the abstract:

A physical mechanism which may have a potential to connect climate with cosmic rays (CR) involves aerosol particle formation by CR generated atmospheric ions followed by new particle growth. Only grown particles can scatter sunlight efficiently and can eventually act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) and thereby may influence climate. Moreover grown particles live longer as they are less rapidly scavenged by pre-existing larger particles. The present paper discusses aerosol particle formation and growth in the light of new measurements recently made by our MPIK Heidelberg group. Emphasis is placed upon the upper troposphere where very low temperatures tend to facilitate new particle formation by nucleation. The new measurements include: laboratory measurements of cluster ions, aircraft measurements of ambient atmospheric ions, and atmospheric measurements of the powerful nucleating gas H₂SO₄ and its precursor SO₂. The discussion also addresses model simulations of aerosol formation and growth. It is concluded that in the upper troposphere new aerosol formation by CR generated ions is a frequent process with relatively large rates.

http://www.springerl...8wt4l6w5h1w433/

Using of 200-year variations in solar activity and geomagnetic dipole changes in the time interval to 100000 years ago it is shown geophysical parameters effectively influence climate change. This effect is realized through modulation of the intensity of galactic cosmic ray fluxes penetrating the atmosphere.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009EO440001.shtml

There has been prolonged debate in the scientific community as to whether or not changes in solar activity significantly affect Earth's climate. One of the main arguments against solar influence is that because the intensity of solar radiation changes by too little (∼0.1%) during the course of a solar cycle (or on longer time scales) to have a significant impact on changes in Earth's climate, an amplifying mechanism must be at work if solar influence is to be taken seriously. Ney [1959] proposed that the solar-modulated terrestrial cosmic ray flux (CRF) is another solar influence that must be considered as possibly affecting climate. The CRF affects the electrical conductivity of the atmosphere through ion production and is the meteorological variable subject to the largest solar cycle modulation that penetrates into the denser layers of the atmosphere.

Most important is that GCRs have shown no decrease over the last 30+ years and recent have increased to record high levels which should be (but isn't) causing extreme cooling. Thus GCRs cannot be responsible for the increase in temperature the last 30+ years, unless you propose there is a 30+ year time lag which violates all of the physical mechanisms proposed thus far.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

Well, keep in mind that the GCRs do not impact temperature directly. They impact the amount of aerosoles that form, which allows for a specified amount of Clouds to form, which impacts temperature.

A period where the solar activity is high, (but not increasing) can decrease Cloud Cover as much as when the Solar Activity was increasing, as long as equilibrium between the amount of GCRs and the amount of CCNs has not occured, yet.

I have extended this 2003 graph showing the lack of correlation between GCR and temperature to the present. As you can see, they continue to diverge with GCR increasing to record levels but temperature continuing to rise . Note the GCR axis is flipped upside down so downwards=more GCR.

What is the data you used to extend that graph from 2003? Could you provide a source?

[skierinvermont]

Hi Skier, thank you for your response, and your PM. I appreciate both of them.

I would agree so, yes.

Unfortunately, the main problem with the statistical analysis, is that we have not had enough of a timeframe to really determine if the correlation is statistically significant or not. So we will never truely know if the correlations are statistically signficiant or not. However, you can not say that the correlation in Western Europe is not statistically significant because it could just be by chance. That's forming unfounded assumptions, which is not a convincing counter argument. There is also ENSO to consider for as to why in other parts of the world, why CR-Temperatures are not statistically significant.

A good chunk of the globe, as stated in the paper has statistically significant correlations to Cloud Cover. The image is a look at one of those areas that has that statistically significant correlation.

Statistically significant correlations occur by chance all the time. If you break the globe up into small enough regions you will be able to find a statistically significant correlation for any variable. It is up to the author to prove that the correlation is due to a causative mechanism and not chance. Given the vast majority of the globe has no correlation to GCRs it is highly probable that correlations occurred in small regions due to chance and not causation. This is especially true given he is using a 90% significance level rather than the 95% significance level that is typical for attribution of causation.

I'm sure I would find a correlation between the number of calories I eat in a day and at least some parts of the globe's cloud cover at the 90% significance level. This is not good evidence of causation. To show causation we would look for a GLOBAL correlation and at the 95% significance level.

However, the actual scientists in the paper did conclude that through these statistical analyses, that a CR-Climate Driver is "plausable."

I have never heard of this journal and am unaware of the quality of its peer-review process. The paper has never been cited in a major journal and what few citations are mostly by the same author that wrote this paper. Instead of repeatedly publishing in minor journals citing himself, Usoskin should publish in a high-impact journal with a tough review process. My guess is, he has been rejected by these tougher journals for precisely the flaws I have pointed out.

It may not be suitable for long term trends such as saying it caused all of the warming from 1850, since we do not have adequate Cloud Cover data that goes back to that timeframe, however, I think that we can adequately make conclusions on if the Cloud Cover decreased since 1983,

No. The ISCCP data which begins around 1980 or so, and which was used in the study you provided, is not considered accurate for decadal trends. There are uncorrected satellite calibration issues. I have provided peer-reviewed studies elsewhere which say this about ISCCP, and I have emailed the lead researcher responsible for the data directly to confirm this. There is no good cloud cover data in existence. There are quite a few sources of cloud cover data, including ISCCP, and they all have different results.

and if those Cloud Cover changes caused the late-20th Century Warming, that many CAGW Proponents claim is where the anthropogenic forcing overwhelmed the natural forcing. They quite often show this graph:

However, this graph is completely misleading, because it is a MODEL SIMULATION for natural and anthrpogenic forcings. The models are put in that CO2 is a primary driver, (which it is not) and they would obviously come up with this result. This graph only includes TSI, Volcanism, and CO2. They do not include the PDO/AMO, GCC changes, Ozone changes, dust changes etc, and the model would come up with a completely different graph, if those factors were included.

Not true. The graph does include the natural ocean variability (which would include the AMO and PDO), ozone changes (both natural and anthropogenic) and aerosol changes as well as simulated changes in GCC from natural and anthropogenic causes. Thing is, there is no evidence that the AMO, PDO, natural ozone changes, or natural cloud cover changes have caused much warming or cooling. Cloud cover could if it had changed, but there isn't any good evidence on whether cloud cover has increased or decreased, and there is no proven natural mechanism by which it could have changed.

Again, it is evident that through many ways of observing Cloud Cover, such as Earthshine and the ISSCP, that albedo has largely decreased from 1983-2004, which would explain most of the warming that took place in the late-20th Century. The Scientists that created the Earthshine experiment were Dr. Phil Goode and Dr. Enric Palle. Here is some more information on the Earthshine Project.

The Albedo is calculated when reflected incoming shortwave radiation hits the moon, which bounces off of the moon, and you get Earthshine. Using this technique, they calculated the average albedo on Earth over the past 20-25 years. Their results are stunning.

Here it is shown that the Earth's albedo has been going down, until about 1998. This probably explains most of the warming through that timeframe- an increase in ISR through decreasing Cloud Cover. For a comparison on how this compares with the amount of energy being added to Earth's Energy Budget by GHGs since 1790, as cited in the IPCC, it is shown in red. CO2 has been dwarfed by just albedo changes alone in 21 years, by almost a factor of three. (7 w/m^2 over a 21 year timeframe from albedo changes) and (2.4 w/m^2 since 1790 from increasing GHGs as cited by the IPCC.)

Their peer reviewed paper can be viewed here.

The earshine concept is interesting. I will review the paper when I've got more time. Hopefully it's better than the Usoskin paper.

And there are many studies that do. I don't want to turn this into a 'who can post the most papers supporting me' argument.

Since you posted three peer reviewed papers supporting your notion, I will post five supporting mine.

http://www.sciencedi...27311770500829X

The paper above discusses how the Cosmic Rays, modulated through Solar Activity are driving the climate through Cloud Cover changes.

http://www.springerl...70n09u25144257/

From the abstract:

http://www.springerl...8867847u3plhkm/

From the abstract:

[/color]http://www.springerl...8wt4l6w5h1w433/

http://www.agu.org/p...9EO440001.shtml

The 1st, 2nd, and 4th links are from minor journals with low impact factors. The papers have been rarely cited. What few citations there are of these papers come from other minor journals usually written by the same authors. If the authors have something legitimate to contribute, make the effort to publish in a high impact journal with a strong peer-review process. Unfortunately I cannot find full-text versions to find what the flaws are which have most likely prevented these papers from reaching high-impact journals. The 3rd link provides evidence only of nucleation which I have already acknowledged does occur to some extent (as shown by the CERN experiment). It provides little evidence that the nucleated particles grow to large enough sizes to be CCNs.

Well, keep in mind that the GCRs do not impact temperature directly. They impact the amount of aerosoles that form, which allows for a specified amount of Clouds to form, which impacts temperature.

A period where the solar activity is high, (but not increasing) can decrease Cloud Cover as much as when the Solar Activity was increasing, as long as equilibrium between the amount of GCRs and the amount of CCNs has not occured, yet.

CCNs are supposed to increase almost instantaneously in response to GCRs. It's a very fast process of CCN formation and destruction. GCR activity has remained constant until 2005 (and thus cannot have caused warming) and then has increased rapidly since 2005 to record levels (which should be causing major cooling).

What is the data you used to extend that graph from 2003? Could you provide a source?

It is loosely based on GCR and temperature data for the last 8 years. As I'm sure you are aware GCRs have gone through the roof the last 8 years and temperatures have continued to rise (albeit at a slower pace than in the 90s).

[John S2]

GCRs have gone through the roof the last 8 years and temperatures have continued to rise (albeit at a slower pace than in the 90s).

Do you think it is possible that this could be a reason why temperatures have risen more slowly in recent years?

[skierinvermont]

Do you think it is possible that this could be a reason why temperatures have risen more slowly in recent years?

Not specifically GCRs no, but the solar minimum yes due to the reduced TSI. The reduced TSI of the solar minimum is enough to cause around .1C of cooling.

There hasn't been any observed change in cloud condensation nuclei (CCNs) which is the proposed causal pathway of GCRs. There are just too many other sources of aerosols and CCNs for GCRs to be important. GCRs have a relatively modest impact on the production of nanometer sized aerosols. Because there is already a large supply of such nanometer sized particles competing for condensible gases to form CCNs, a small increase in the number of smallest particles will have almost no effect on the number of larger CCNs.

[Strongbad]

Nice little factoid: During Cambrian Era (approx 600 million years ago) Co2 in terms of PPM was around 7,000. Global temperatures never however rose above 2C. Whenever you hear that the climate is not in equlibrium and needs to adjust in response to CO2 increasing, think about those numbers up there. CO2 is currently 350ppm, and we have seen a .8C jump over the past century. What does this lead us to believe? Quite frankly, it is entirely plausible to believe that Global Temps increase due to other natural forces that have a much Greater effect on Earth's climate.

[skierinvermont]

Nice little factoid: During Cambrian Era (approx 600 million years ago) Co2 in terms of PPM was around 7,000. Global temperatures never however rose above 2C. Whenever you hear that the climate is not in equlibrium and needs to adjust in response to CO2 increasing, think about those numbers up there. CO2 is currently 350ppm, and we have seen a .8C jump over the past century. What does this lead us to believe? Quite frankly, it is entirely plausible to believe that Global Temps increase due to other natural forces that have a much Greater effect on Earth's climate.

The sun was much dimmer back then. The sun has increased in intensity over the last 600+ million years enough to cause several C of warming. For example in the Late Ordovician solar output was at levels which required CO2 concentrations > 3000ppm to prevent glaciation. CO2 is believed to have briefly dropped below 3000ppm around ~444 million years ago, which corresponds to the brief Late Ordovician glaciation event. If you read the science of CO2, temperature, and solar reconstruction, the relationship between the three variables is consistent with and corroborates GHG driven climate change. There is plenty of peer-reviewed science available on geologic climate change. Instead of quoting misleading factoids off blogs, read the actual science.

[PhillipS]

My link

Nice little factoid: During Cambrian Era (approx 600 million years ago) Co2 in terms of PPM was around 7,000. Global temperatures never however rose above 2C. Whenever you hear that the climate is not in equlibrium and needs to adjust in response to CO2 increasing, think about those numbers up there. CO2 is currently 350ppm, and we have seen a .8C jump over the past century. What does this lead us to believe? Quite frankly, it is entirely plausible to believe that Global Temps increase due to other natural forces that have a much Greater effect on Earth's climate.

Things were very different 600 million years ago so be careful about making comparisons to today's climate. One consideration is the uncertainty in your figure of 7,000 ppm. Can you share with us where you got that figure? If, as I suspect, it came from Berner's GEOCARB model, then there is a tremendous uncertainty in the older values. Berner himself says in the conclusion of his paper "Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally".

Another factor is that the Sun wasn't as bright back then. Check out the 'Faint Young Sun Paradox". Early in Earth's history, about 4 billion years ago, the TSI was only around 70% of today's value. I don't know the TSI value at 600 M years ago, but it was less than today's 1365 W/m2. Higher GHG levels were needed to prevent the Earth from freezing.