Is the Climate Change we have observed natural or anthropogenic?

[Snow_Miser]

Over the past 30 years, the Global Temperature has risen roughly by 0.3-0.4 Degrees Celcius, according to satellites. Most of that warming took place over the 1980s and the 1990s, since over the last 10 years the LT temperature has not risen, and a slight negative trend has been observed in certain datasets, though it has not reached the 95% Significance quite yet.

There is little to no dispute that the warming that took place occured, and it is confirmed by satellite data and surface temperature data. What is in dispute by many scientists and people is what caused that warming. Many modeled studies such as the recent Knutti and Hegerl 2011 study which claims that 3/4 of the warming is anthropogenic show that without an anthropogenic signal, the Global Temperature would have been cooling in the period in the late 20th Century where warming has been observed.

But this study is a modeled study, and it ignores crucial natural forcings such as the solar influence on ENSO and pressure patterns such as the NAO and AO, UVA and UVB, and the solar related decrease in GCC/TLCC which has added 3X the amount of energy to Earth's Energy Budget (~7 w/m^2 compared to the GHG forcing since 1790 cited by the IPCC as ~2.4 w/m^2)

This graph from Palle 2004 shows the albedo reconstruction from the Earthshine data with the blue line, and the ISSCP reconstrcution in black. Both decreased, until early this century, which is coincidentally when we stopped warming. For a comparison to how small the CO2 and GHG effect is, the amount of Energy that GHGs have added since 1790 is shown in red.

They document these findings in Palle and Goode 2007

They also document that the sharp uptick in albedo seen in 2003 was just a spurious reading.

Dr. Enric Palle presents these findings in a PDF presentation, where he rules out the cause of the warming as being due to Greenhouse Gases.

In Palle and Goode 2007, they speculate that the cause of this decrease in Cloud Cover is Solar related, and is one of the many mechanisms that Solar Activity can have a substantial influence on Earth's Climate.

New research published recently in GRL also shows that a significant amount of the warming we saw in the late-20th Century was natural, as they found that more Solar Irradiance was reaching Earth's Surface from 1991-2010, and a statistically significant increase in ISR was observed in the autumn and summertime in 7 stations. Many Solar Scientists have confirmed that the sun is not getting any brighter, so it is not directly through increases in the Sun's brightness, but it is likely through decreases in Earth's albedo associated with Clouds that is ALLOWING for more ISR to reach Earth's surface. This new paper lines up perfectly with the ISSCP and Earthshine data that show that Clouds as a whole have decreased since 1983.

This paper proposes a semiempirical method to reconstruct ultraviolet erythemal (UVER) irradiance in the past from total shortwave radiation (SW) and total ozone column (TOC) measurements and has been used to obtain a long-term reconstructed UVER series in central Spain. The method is based on radiative transfer modeling combined with empirical relationships, giving an equation that relates UVER and SW irradiance measurements, solar zenith angle, as well as UVER and SW irradiance values calculated under cloudless conditions. TOC measurements are needed as input for the cloudless modeling. Hourly UVER radiation values have been reconstructed and compared with ground-based measurements for seven Spanish locations. The reconstructed hourly UVER irradiance values are in good agreement with the measurements, showing a determination coefficient between 0.95 and 0.99, and the lowest root mean square errors (rmse) in summer taking values from 5% to 9% in the seven stations. Reconstructed daily UVER doses have been compared for eight stations, showing a better agreement than in the hourly case with rmse values from 3% to 8% in summer and from 4% to 9% when all seasons are taken into account. A reconstructed 10 min UVER irradiance data set from 1991 to 2010 has been calculated using the proposed method for the city of Valladolid. Statistically significant UVER trends appear in summer and autumn when UVER levels increased 3.5% and 4.1% per decade, respectively. Brightening was found for SW measurements in the same period, with a statistically significant trend of 4.4% and 5.8% per decade in summer and autumn.

Another paper published this year also shows that increased energy being allowed to reach Earth's Surface, and the amount of additional energy per decade from 1973-1998 was 3.4 w/m^2 per decade. Multiply this by 2.5 to get 8.5 w/m^2, which is the amount of energy Clouds have added to Earth's Energy Budget in Europe. The authors of this paper also show that a clear correlation can be found between the CRF (Cloud Radiative Forcing) and the SSW (Surface Shortwave Radiation) indicating that these increases in ISR have been largely driven by a decrease in Earth's albedo, allowing for more ISR to reach Earth's Surface, rather than the sun brightening.

The present study applies a regional climate model with coupled aerosol microphysics and transport in order to simulate dimming and brightening in Europe from 1958 to 2001. Two simulations are performed, one with transient emissions and another with climatological mean emissions over the same period. Both simulations are driven at the lateral boundaries by the ERA-40 reanalysis and by large-scale aerosol concentrations stemming from a global simulation. We find distinct patterns of dimming and brightening in the aerosol optical depth and thus clear-sky downward surface shortwave radiation (SSR) in all analyzed subregions. The strongest brightening between 1973 and 1998 under clear-sky conditions is found in mid-Europe (+3.4 W m⁻² per decade, in line with observations). However, the simulated all-sky SSR is dominated by the surface shortwave cloud radiative forcing (CRF). The correlation coefficient R between 5 year moving averages of the CRF and all-sky SSR equals 0.87 for all of Europe. Both model simulations show a similar evolution of cloud fraction and thus all-sky SSR due to the constrained circulation induced by the reanalysis at the lateral boundaries. For most subregions, the modeled differences in all-sky SSR due to transient versus climatological emissions are insignificant in comparison with estimates of the model's internal variability.

What could possibly be the cause of the decrease in Cloud Cover, that is allowing for all of this energy to be added to Earth's Energy Budget?

The GCR hypothesis was developed by Physicist Dr. Henrik Svensmark, and looking at all of the evidence available, there is pretty good evidence that GCRs have caused at least some changes in the Cloud Cover.

Take this paper, which shows that GCRs have a significant impact on the diurnal temperature range during FDs, when they have the most evident effect on Climate.

They found that within a few days of the Forbush Decrease, (which is a small lag) the diurnal temperature substantially deviates from the normal diurnal temperature mean.

The diurnal temperature mean can be best described as the difference between the daytime and nightime temperatures.

The reason for why the diurnal temperature range would increase right after a FD, indicates not only that GCRs can influence the atmospheric processes on Earth substantially, but they also do so through Cloud Cover changes.

A sudden reduction in GCRs would substanitally lower Cloud Cover for those few days, which would substantially increase the difference in nighttime and daytime temperatures, since Clouds reflect ISR and trap OLR, reducing the diurnal temperature range.

http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans...7-315-2011.pdf

Quoting Paper

The result strongly supports the idea that

cosmic rays influence the atmospheric processes and climate.

Or take this paper, which also finds a strong correlation between FDs and Global aerosoles, the "seeds" for the Clouds.

http://www.deas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/FRSEMR22l/Sources/03-Cosmic-rays/3-Svensmark-et-al- 2009-GRL.pdf

The dashed line is the GCR count and the solid blue line is the aerosol number. A short lag in Global aersoles can clearly be seen right after a Forbush Decrease, which indicates a significant CR-Influence on climate, if Forbush Decreases can have that much of an impact on aerosoles.

Or take this paper which shows a strong correlation between GCRs and Mid Latitude Clouds.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10941/2010/acp-10-10941-2010.pdf

Quote:

The influence of GCRs is clearly distinguishable from changes in solar irradiance and the interplanetary magnetic field. However, the results of the GCM experiment are found to be somewhat limited by the ability of the model to successfully reproduce observed cloud cover. These results provide perhaps the most compelling evidence presented thus far of a GCR-climate relationship. From this analysis we conclude that a GCR-climate relationship is governed by both short-term GCR changes and internal atmospheric precursor conditions.

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

Or take this study which highlights GCRs being a "plausable" Climate Driver:

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/usoskin_CR_2008.pdf

Quote:

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.

----------

Low Level Cloud Cover and GCRs for Europe as presented by Usoskin et. al 2008.

[TerryM]

Over the past 30 years, the Global Temperature has risen roughly by 0.3-0.4 Degrees Celcius, according to satellites. Most of that warming took place over the 1980s and the 1990s, since over the last 10 years the LT temperature has not risen, and a slight negative trend has been observed in certain datasets, though it has not reached the 95% Significance quite yet.

There is little to no dispute that the warming that took place occured, and it is confirmed by satellite data and surface temperature data. What is in dispute by many scientists and people is what caused that warming. Many modeled studies such as the recent Knutti and Hegerl 2011 study which claims that 3/4 of the warming is anthropogenic show that without an anthropogenic signal, the Global Temperature would have been cooling in the period in the late 20th Century where warming has been observed.

But this study is a modeled study, and it ignores crucial natural forcings such as the solar influence on ENSO and pressure patterns such as the NAO and AO, UVA and UVB, and the solar related decrease in GCC/TLCC which has added 3X the amount of energy to Earth's Energy Budget (~7 w/m^2 compared to the GHG forcing since 1790 cited by the IPCC as ~2.4 w/m^2)

This graph from Palle 2004 shows the albedo reconstruction from the Earthshine data with the blue line, and the ISSCP reconstrcution in black. Both decreased, until early this century, which is coincidentally when we stopped warming. For a comparison to how small the CO2 and GHG effect is, the amount of Energy that GHGs have added since 1790 is shown in red.

They document these findings in Palle and Goode 2007

They also document that the sharp uptick in albedo seen in 2003 was just a spurious reading.

Dr. Enric Palle presents these findings in a PDF presentation, where he rules out the cause of the warming as being due to Greenhouse Gases.

In Palle and Goode 2007, they speculate that the cause of this decrease in Cloud Cover is Solar related, and is one of the many mechanisms that Solar Activity can have a substantial influence on Earth's Climate.

New research published recently in GRL also shows that a significant amount of the warming we saw in the late-20th Century was natural, as they found that more Solar Irradiance was reaching Earth's Surface from 1991-2010, and a statistically significant increase in ISR was observed in the autumn and summertime in 7 stations. Many Solar Scientists have confirmed that the sun is not getting any brighter, so it is not directly through increases in the Sun's brightness, but it is likely through decreases in Earth's albedo associated with Clouds that is ALLOWING for more ISR to reach Earth's surface. This new paper lines up perfectly with the ISSCP and Earthshine data that show that Clouds as a whole have decreased since 1983.

Another paper published this year also shows that increased energy being allowed to reach Earth's Surface, and the amount of additional energy per decade from 1973-1998 was 3.4 w/m^2 per decade. Multiply this by 2.5 to get 8.5 w/m^2, which is the amount of energy Clouds have added to Earth's Energy Budget in Europe. The authors of this paper also show that a clear correlation can be found between the CRF (Cloud Radiative Forcing) and the SSW (Surface Shortwave Radiation) indicating that these increases in ISR have been largely driven by a decrease in Earth's albedo, allowing for more ISR to reach Earth's Surface, rather than the sun brightening.

What could possibly be the cause of the decrease in Cloud Cover, that is allowing for all of this energy to be added to Earth's Energy Budget?

The GCR hypothesis was developed by Physicist Dr. Henrik Svensmark, and looking at all of the evidence available, there is pretty good evidence that GCRs have caused at least some changes in the Cloud Cover.

Take this paper, which shows that GCRs have a significant impact on the diurnal temperature range during FDs, when they have the most evident effect on Climate.

They found that within a few days of the Forbush Decrease, (which is a small lag) the diurnal temperature substantially deviates from the normal diurnal temperature mean.

The diurnal temperature mean can be best described as the difference between the daytime and nightime temperatures.

The reason for why the diurnal temperature range would increase right after a FD, indicates not only that GCRs can influence the atmospheric processes on Earth substantially, but they also do so through Cloud Cover changes.

A sudden reduction in GCRs would substanitally lower Cloud Cover for those few days, which would substantially increase the difference in nighttime and daytime temperatures, since Clouds reflect ISR and trap OLR, reducing the diurnal temperature range.

http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans...7-315-2011.pdf

Quoting Paper

The result strongly supports the idea that

cosmic rays influence the atmospheric processes and climate.

Or take this paper, which also finds a strong correlation between FDs and Global aerosoles, the "seeds" for the Clouds.

http://www.deas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/FRSEMR22l/Sources/03-Cosmic-rays/3-Svensmark-et-al- 2009-GRL.pdf

The dashed line is the GCR count and the solid blue line is the aerosol number. A short lag in Global aersoles can clearly be seen right after a Forbush Decrease, which indicates a significant CR-Influence on climate, if Forbush Decreases can have that much of an impact on aerosoles.

Or take this paper which shows a strong correlation between GCRs and Mid Latitude Clouds.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10941/2010/acp-10-10941-2010.pdf

Quote:

The influence of GCRs is clearly distinguishable from changes in solar irradiance and the interplanetary magnetic field. However, the results of the GCM experiment are found to be somewhat limited by the ability of the model to successfully reproduce observed cloud cover. These results provide perhaps the most compelling evidence presented thus far of a GCR-climate relationship. From this analysis we conclude that a GCR-climate relationship is governed by both short-term GCR changes and internal atmospheric precursor conditions.

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

Or take this study which highlights GCRs being a "plausable" Climate Driver:

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/usoskin_CR_2008.pdf

Quote:

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.

----------

Low Level Cloud Cover and GCRs for Europe as presented by Usoskin et. al 2008.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm

[dabize]

http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

The proportion of the warming attributable to humans vs what could be expected naturally is described nicely here

[Snow_Miser]

http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm

After all the effort that I put into my initial post, the least you could have done was to reply to it in your own words instead of placing just a link in your initial post.

However, your link does NOT adress that right after a FD a significant deviation from the diurnal temperature can be observed (which indicates a sudden decrease in Cloud Cover right after a sudden decrease in GCRs.) Clouds reflect ISR and OLR and thus they are crucial to model correctly if one wants to predict future climate years in advance. If clouds are subtracted from Earth's Global Energy Flows, then you get more ISR reaching Earth's Surface and more OLR escaping at the TOA. This would INCREASE the diurnal temperature, since it is a difference between the daytime temperature and the nighttime temperature. If Clouds were to be removed, more energy would reach Earth's surface during the daytime, warming the daytime temperatures, and more heat would be allowed to radiate into space, cooling the nighttime temperatures. A clear increase in the Diurnal temperature range can be seen in Dragic et. al 2011 a few days after the FD, which indicates that GCRs DO impact the cloud cover, and if GCRs impact the cloud cover that much through a simple FD decrease, and deviate the diurnal temperature range by 0.6 Degrees C, then it can be concluded that GCRs significantly impact Earth's Climate.

Your link also does not adress that right after a FD decrease, the Global aerosoles as measured by AERONET decrease a few days after the initial FD, which also indicates a CR-Influence on climate. And the fact that many studies have come to the same conclusion that GCRs significantly impact the climate, and a clear correlation can be observed between GCRs and Cloud Cover, and the fact that some studies even suggest that GCRs could be a climate "driver."

[Snow_Miser]

http://thingsbreak.f...rgy-balance.pdf

The proportion of the warming attributable to humans vs what could be expected naturally is described nicely here

I have already adressed this study in my initial post. Models that do not take Decreasing Cloud Cover into account when simulating anthropogenic and natural forcings and the possible percentage of attributation to each will not provide accurate, objective results.

[TerryM]

After all the effort that I put into my initial post, the least you could have done was to reply to it in your own words instead of placing just a link in your initial post.

You're right - I apologize.

Truth is I was not familiar with many of the acronyms in your post - read the linked articles and assumed you were making your argument based on the already disproven theory of cosmic ray cloud cover and global warming.

I'll try to get up to speed on FD events and what they portend before commenting again.

Again I apologize for assuming that this was simply a rehashing of the cosmic ray theory.

[Snow_Miser]

I'll try to get up to speed on FD events and what they portend before commenting again.

Perhaps I can explain a few acronyms that you may not be familiar with.

FDs or Forbush Decreases occur when a CME, or Coronal Mass Ejection, a massive burst of solar wind, causes a sudden decrease in GCRs. Since it takes a few days for the GCRs respond, a short lag can be expected in the diurnal temperature range and the AERONET data if you want to see if GCRs are having a potential impact on the Cloud Cover since FDs are nice tools to see if GCRs can substantially alter climate or not. The data is a resounding YES. A few days after a FD shows a very notable spike in the diurnal temperature range, which can ONLY be explained by a temporary decrease in Cloud Cover, and the AERONET data showing a dip in Global aerosoles as the GCR Flux is significantly reduced due to the CME. This is substantial proof that GCRs significantly impact the atmospheric processes on Earth.

IMO it could very well be GCRs, but it could also be a forcing we have yet to discover.

Whether GCRs are the primary drivers of Cloud Cover or not are up for debate. I personally am not sure whether GCRs are, but they can certainly influence the atmospheric processes, which leads me to believe that they have likely contributed somewhat to the Cloud Cover Changes.

[WeatherRusty]

This cloud albedo argument makes the case that more energy is reaching Earth's surface due to a reduction in cloud amount, specifically if I read into it correctly, low cloud amount. The claim does not appear to take into account the fact that low cloudiness contributes about 25% to the total greenhouse effect. It is not at all clear that the NET of all energy in and out of the system is substantially altered by reducing cloudiness.

The cited 7W/m^2 increase to input energy from reduced cloudiness appears not to be properly offset by the significant greenhouse effect being reduced by the same loss in low cloud amount.

[superjames1992]

In short, the correct answer to the OP is "both"!

[skierinvermont]

I have already adressed this study in my initial post. Models that do not take Decreasing Cloud Cover into account when simulating anthropogenic and natural forcings and the possible percentage of attributation to each will not provide accurate, objective results.

How you do know cloud cover is decreasing? We have no accurate data on cloud cover.

Oh wait we've had this conversation before and you just ignore this fact.

[tacoman25]

Over the longterm, the global warming we have seen over the past century or so is almost certainly mostly due to increased greenhouse gases.

Over shorter time periods, and especially in specific locations/regions, climate changes are heavily influenced by a variety of natural factors as well.

[Snow_Miser]

This cloud albedo argument makes the case that more energy is reaching Earth's surface due to a reduction in cloud amount, specifically if I read into it correctly, low cloud amount. The claim does not appear to take into account the fact that low cloudiness contributes about 25% to the total greenhouse effect. It is not at all clear that the NET of all energy in and out of the system is substantially altered by reducing cloudiness.

The cited 7W/m^2 increase to input energy from reduced cloudiness appears not to be properly offset by the significant greenhouse effect being reduced by the same loss in low cloud amount.

That is correct, I am refering to an additional 7 w/m^2 of additional ISR reaching Earth's Surface due to primarily a low cloud decrease. I forgot to include the fact that a decrease in LLGCC would cause more OLR to be allowed to escape to the TOA, so the amount of energy decreasing Clouds as a whole have added to Earth's Energy Budget would be less than 7 w/m^2. Thank you for catching my mistake. However, you remove Low Clouds, you are going to get warming, because Low Clouds reflect much more ISR than they "trap" OLR, which causes the Total Cloud Forcing to be somewhere around 21 w/m^2.

[Snow_Miser]

Oh wait we've had this conversation before and you just ignore this fact.

I don't believe we had so I think you are mistaken on that point. If you could post different Cloud Datasets that do not show clouds decreasing, then please do so.

The evidence from the peer reviewed papers that I posted that shows increasing ISR reaching Earth's Surface, a correlation with the changes in the Cloud Radiative Forcing and ISR to have an r^2 value of 0.87, which indicates a VERY high correlation, and it also indicates that decreasing Cloud Cover is likely the cause of the increased amount of ISR reching Earth's Surface with that high of a correlation. In addition, the Earthshine data and the ISSCP are in agreement that Clouds decreased from 1983, the beginning of when records on keeping Clouds began, up until 2001-2003, when Clouds stopped decreasing and flatlined from then on out. Coincidentally this is also when OHC began to flatline and also when the LT Temperatures began to also flatline.

[skierinvermont]

I don't believe we had so I think you are mistaken on that point. If you could post different Cloud Datasets that do not show clouds decreasing, then please do so.

The evidence from the peer reviewed papers that I posted that shows increasing ISR reaching Earth's Surface, a correlation with the changes in the Cloud Radiative Forcing and ISR to have an r^2 value of 0.87, which indicates a VERY high correlation, and it also indicates that decreasing Cloud Cover is likely the cause of the increased amount of ISR reching Earth's Surface with that high of a correlation. In addition, the Earthshine data and the ISSCP are in agreement that Clouds decreased from 1983, the beginning of when records on keeping Clouds began, up until 2001-2003, when Clouds stopped decreasing and flatlined from then on out. Coincidentally this is also when OHC began to flatline and also when the LT Temperatures began to also flatline.

I have pointed out to you over a half dozen times that the cloud data you use is not considered reliable for long-term trends by the experts that created it.

There is no reliable data on clouds.

[Snow_Miser]

I have pointed out to you over a half dozen times that the cloud data you use is not considered reliable for long-term trends by the experts that created it.

There is no reliable data on clouds.

So you can not produce any other Cloud datasets that differ significantly than what ISSCP has produced since 1983?

ISSCP is definitely not perfect and has flaws, such as potential drifting errors, but it's hard to say that Clouds have not decreased when the Earthshine data is in large agreement with the ISSCP, the fact that changes in ISR have a high correlation to the changes in the Cloud Radiative Forcing, and multiple papers have confirmed increased ISR is reaching the surface.

Since ISR has a high correlation to Cloud Cover, it can be assumed that decreasing Cloud Cover is primarily responsible for the increase in ISR reaching the surface (although decreasing volcanism can also be partly responsible for more ISR reaching the Surface as well.)

[skierinvermont]

bad data + bad data != good data

[Snow_Miser]

bad data + bad data != good data

There are many lines of evidence that show increased SW radiation reaching Earth's Surface, and as I showed, ISR has a VERY high correlation to the Cloud Radiative Forcing. Therefore it is likely that the increased SW radiation reaching the surface is likely due to a decrease in Cloud Cover.

In addition, ISSCP and Earthshine both also show Clouds decreasing as well.

I'm starting to get the impression that anything that shows Clouds decreasing is considered to be "bad data," since all of these different pieces of data that measure completely different variables, completely different ways, all show that Clouds have likely decreased causing an increase in SW radiation reaching Earth's Surface.

To claim that all these different sets of data that measure completely different variables are all wrong with their conclusions all showing clouds decreasing has no foundation.

[kylemacr]

I don't believe we had so I think you are mistaken on that point. If you could post different Cloud Datasets that do not show clouds decreasing, then please do so.

The evidence from the peer reviewed papers that I posted that shows increasing ISR reaching Earth's Surface, a correlation with the changes in the Cloud Radiative Forcing and ISR to have an r^2 value of 0.87, which indicates a VERY high correlation, and it also indicates that decreasing Cloud Cover is likely the cause of the increased amount of ISR reching Earth's Surface with that high of a correlation. In addition, the Earthshine data and the ISSCP are in agreement that Clouds decreased from 1983, the beginning of when records on keeping Clouds began, up until 2001-2003, when Clouds stopped decreasing and flatlined from then on out. Coincidentally this is also when OHC began to flatline and also when the LT Temperatures began to also flatline.

Let's assume that the statements here are correct, because they seem plausible and I don't know any better. You are showing a strong correlation between cloud cover and insolation, as well as temperatures. What does this have to do with disproving that CO2 plays a role in global warming?

[Snow_Miser]

What does this have to do with disproving that CO2 plays a role in global warming?

I never said that this means CO2 does not have an impact on temperatures as concentrations increase.

I'm saying that it plays a minor role in Climate Change, when compared to the natural cycles and factors that need to be considered, like the possible cloud albedo decrease.

[kylemacr]

I never said that this means CO2 does not have an impact on temperatures as concentrations increase.

I'm saying that it plays a minor role in Climate Change, when compared to the natural cycles and factors that need to be considered, like the possible cloud albedo decrease.

I guess it was implied by the subtitle of this thread. The link between GCR and cloud coverage and temperature seems legit though... but no where in those papers do they make the claims that this disproves the existence of an anthropogenic signal also. What's wrong with just accepting that there's a good natural climate driver that's currently being quantified in the literature, why do we also have to turn this back into proving or disproving AGW?

[Snow_Miser]

What's wrong with just accepting that there's a good natural climate driver that's currently being quantified in the literature, why do we also have to turn this back into proving or disproving AGW?

Exactly, AGW is real, and I apologize if I caused you some confusion if it seemed like I denied that AGW was not real. CO2 is so minor compared to the vast natural cycles, and it will continue to be like that in the years to come.

[WeatherRusty]

Exactly, AGW is real, and I apologize if I caused you some confusion if it seemed like I denied that AGW was not real. CO2 is so minor compared to the vast natural cycles, and it will continue to be like that in the years to come.

That's like saying the electromagnetic force dominates gravity simply because I can lift my arm over my head despite the whole Earth gravitationally pulling my arm downward. Yet my arm has no chance of defeating gravity and escaping Earth's gravitational field without the assistance from a very powerful chemical rocket driven by the electromagnetic force.

The forcing by CO2 dominates long term, and the difference with natural cycles is not even close.

[BethesdaWX]

That's like saying the electromagnetic force dominates gravity simply because I can lift my arm over my head despite the whole Earth gravitationally pulling my arm downward. Yet my arm has no chance of defeating gravity and escaping Earth's gravitational field without the assistance from a very powerful chemical rocket driven by the electromagnetic force.

The forcing by CO2 dominates long term, and the difference with natural cycles is not even close.

I don't think so, big question is how adequately the molecule is mixed in the atmosphere and how sensitive the climate system is to changes in radiative forcing, not "the IPCC has narrowed down the most likely sensitivity to blah". Satellite data of CO2 ppm# indicate the mixing at all levels and thresholds could be dubious at best, even taken on a 35 day mean we find variations by 50-70ppm.

More important here is albedo. It doesn't require a change in cloud cover at all on a global scale to change imput into the oceans by a large amount, just the positioning of various low and mid level anomalies relative to the intensity of incoming shortwave radiation. In the tropics, clouds impose a reduction of net energy intake, while over the poles they trap more LW. And it is changed weather patterns over longer periods of time asociated with the Sun -> PDO, Sun -> ENSO thing that affect climate long term. TSI isn't even worthy of mention. Nether are GCR's, nore the AMO or PDO. It's what drives the AMO and PDO that effect climate. All changes in the climate are achieved through the most efficient means necessary, which is why ENSO occurs right at the equator.

Example of a monthly CO2 global measure, July 2003:

This is a monthly data image, the daily value would see much more significant effect through variation in various weather patterns.

Evidenced further for being less mixed is the last Interglacial. Temp dropped 8C before CO2 even budged worth a lick:

None of that change was CO2 induced. Rather it was albedo induced. CO2 had little to no effect there.

[Snow_Miser]

...

A quick question Rusty,

Cloud Cover as measured by ISSCP, Earthshine, and the ISR being measured at Earth's Surface all indicate that we have flatlined in Cloud Cover since 2003.

Don't you find it interesting, that this is when OHC at 0-700 m began to flatten out?

[BethesdaWX]

A quick question Rusty,

Cloud Cover as measured by ISSCP, Earthshine, and the ISR being measured at Earth's Surface all indicate that we have flatlined in Cloud Cover since 2003.

Don't you find it interesting, that this is when OHC at 0-700 m began to flatten out?

I don't think he will. Equatorial cloud cover is much more important though, Arctic and upper hemispheric cloud cover actually adds to warming in a GHE manner. There are those who dislike ISCCP's global cloud count due to "high error bars", but tropical cloud counts are not derived within the same problematic issues that the global value has within it.

A 4% decrease in tropical clouds adds ~ 4W/m^2 of additiona RF into the oceans...this is all since 1979, near or over 450% greater contribution than CO2 since that time, not including albedo loss from the Arctic due to the +AMO looping into the +IOD, nor ozone depletion in the stratosphere leading to an increased UV flux into the oceans.

Can also see cloud changes are preceding temp changes, so it's not the temp change, but the warming flat-lining during this period is pretty significant, the net cloud count actually was decreasing slightly until 2009 still. Thats alot of RF added.

[WeatherRusty]

A quick question Rusty,

Cloud Cover as measured by ISSCP, Earthshine, and the ISR being measured at Earth's Surface all indicate that we have flatlined in Cloud Cover since 2003.

Don't you find it interesting, that this is when OHC at 0-700 m began to flatten out?

To the larger concern that changes in the Earth's albedo will affect global temperatures, there is absolutely no doubt of that. Albedo is factored into the Stephan-Boltzmann equation in determining the global black body temperature (it becomes a grey body).

On the face of it, if the Earth's albedo has actually changed in a persistent manner, then yes that would be very interesting indeed. Let's wait on the greater scientific community's assessment before we jump to any conclusions however.

[BethesdaWX]

To the larger concern that changes in the Earth's albedo will affect global temperatures, there is absolutely no doubt of that. Albedo is factored into the Stephan-Boltzmann equation in determining the global black body temperature (it becomes a grey body).

On the face of it, if the Earth's albedo has actually changed in a persistent manner, then yes that would be very interesting indeed. Let's wait on the greater scientific community's assessment before we jump to any conclusions however.

I appriciate this objective post, man. I think that goes for both sides too.

It will be very soon though imo that we'll know whether or not it is mostly natural or anthropogenic forces that have warmed the climate because the Solar magnetic state indicates we're in the last 10-14 months of our warm period before we should begin to cool down gradually, but noticably, assuming it is the solar influence on albedo. In which case if we continue to warm the solar theory would be invalidated and there'd be little left for skeptics to go by.

[Snow_Miser]

Let's wait on the greater scientific community's assessment before we jump to any conclusions however.

I have done a lot of research on this subject, and I plan to get a Ph.D in Environmental Science/Atmospheric Science in the future. I am entirely convinced right now that nearly all of the warming we have seen is natural, and mankind plays a much more minor role than what the IPCC has highlighted in their 2007 report.

[WeatherRusty]

I have done a lot of research on this subject, and I plan to get a Ph.D in Environmental Science/Atmospheric Science in the future. I am entirely convinced right now that nearly all of the warming we have seen is natural, and mankind plays a much more minor role than what the IPCC has highlighted in their 2007 report.

If increased solar radiation reaching the surface where the main cause of the warming we should expect the pattern of temperature increase to be reflected by additional daytime heating. That is not what we observe however, the pattern of warming is that of nighttime warming more than daytime. Most of the warming has been occurring during the night time hours during which the net flow of energy is out to space, a clear fingerprint of greenhouse warming.

Fewer clouds would add to warming during the daytime while also permitting a greater loss of thermal energy to space at night. The dominant warming period would be during the daytime.

[Snow_Miser]

If increased solar radiation reaching the surface where the main cause of the warming we should expect the pattern of temperature increase to be reflected by additional daytime heating. That is not what we observe however, the pattern of warming is that of nighttime warming more than daytime. Most of the warming has been occurring during the night time hours during which the net flow of energy is out to space, a clear fingerprint of greenhouse warming.

Fewer clouds would add to warming during the daytime while also permitting a greater loss of thermal energy to space at night. The dominant warming period would be during the daytime.

The BADLY sited weather stations are showing the nighttime temperatures warm faster than the daytime temperatures. Interestingly, in the raw data with the adequately sited Weather Stations, there is actually a positive diurnal temperature trend, wheras in the badly sited weather stations, there is a negative slope in the diurnal temperature range, indicating that Urbanization alone has contributed to at least most of the reason as to why the diurnal temperature slope is negative in the badly sited weather stations. A negative slope in the diurnal temperature trend indicates that the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures is becoming less. This is due to surface land use changes distorting the Energy Flows, with asphault now absorbing more ISR as opposed to some ISR being reflected like regular land would allow. The asphault would store more energy than regular land would, and during the nighttime, less heat is radiated from the asphault, and little heat is lost from the asphault system, as opposed to the land system, which can not store that much heat, and the heat is quickly lost from the land system. Thus, in Urbanized locations, it can be expected to see a negative diurnal temperature slope, as observed due to land use changes. However, what is REALLY interesting is that in the adequately cited weather stations, there is a POSITIVE slope in the diurnal temperature range for the raw data. In the adequately cited weather stations, there is no Urbanization to create this slope, so what could be causing it? Could the decreasing Cloud Cover allow for more ISR to reach Earth's Surface, warming the daytime temperatures, and allow for more OLR to escape, cooling the nighttime temperatures, that would create a positive trend in the diurnal temperature range for the nicely sited weather stations?

The chart above is from Fall et. al 2011. The lines all represent the how well the weather stations have been sited. CRN 1 and 2 indicate weather stations where little to no Urbanization bias can be observed. CRN 3 is where a moderate Urbanization bias can be observed. CRN 4 and 5 are where a high Urbanization bias can be observed. With the raw data, there is a clear upward trend in the diurnal temperature range for CRN 1 and 2. The only way that this could be explained is through a decrease in Cloud Cover impacting the diurnal temperature range in the badly cited stations, as it is the only known variable that would increase daytime temperatures and decrease nighttime temperatures if a decrease in GCC were to occur.