Is AGW overestimated? Talking points, additional hypothesis for climate change, scientific discussion.

[BethesdaWX]

At the request of a member, I would like to discuss what I feel is the more physically possible arena of the skeptic view on AGW. I, for one, accept the common viewpoints that that the earth has warmed significantly, that CO2 is a indeed a well understood GHG, and that increasing CO2 through our emissions will have effects on the climate in some way. But the question is what effects, their significance, and how they will manifest and/or operate.

Another more important and less known forcing on the climate is solar forcing and cloud cover, and how it operates. There is significant evidence, qualitatively at least, that cloud cover change and/or repositionings are driven by the magnetic sun. The IPCC admits in AR4 that clouds are by far the most misunderstood aspect of climate, and that more work needs to be done in order to understand their effect to a higher degree.

What I am going to attempt to provide evidence for, in both peer reviewed studies and data observation, is the significance of the Magnetic Sun on ENSO, Ocean Oscillations such as the PDO/AMO, and the thermal portion of the Earth's energy budget. Much of this involves modulations of atmospheric albedo [clouds], and the kinetic portion of the Earth's energy budget is not only a significant player here, but it only truly exists in the nature it does because of the GHE itself, making it a focal point for energy processing and modulation.

First, to get an idea of the contrasing sciences, I have the links to relavent IPCC simple discussion [with the option for more technical reading on the webpage] on this portion of the climate system, to compare the differing claims on various ideas and datasets. It is also best by the scientific method to provide both sides of the issue.

IPCC discussion

'Winds Waves, and Surface Fluxes' http://www.ipcc.ch/p.../ch3s3-5-6.html

'Radiative Forcing and Climate Response' http://www.ipcc.ch/p...en/ch9s9-2.html

All in Chapter 3: http://www.ipcc.ch/p...wg1/en/ch3.html

So much of the science on this aspect of climate forcing is inconclusive anyway, which of course is the case or we'd be able to apply more confident and thorough model projections into relevant studies that analyze how energy is processed and managed.

First, how has solar activity changed? Peer reviewed study S.K. Solanki¹, I. G. Usoskin², B. Kromer³, M. Schüssler¹, and J. Beer^{4 http://www.ncdc.noaa...olanki2004.html}

Question is, how can the Magnetic Sun influence climate? If it were to do so, it would have to be through the modulation and operation of atmospheric albedo changes before anything else. So it would have to be assumed that the ENSO, AMO, and PDO oscillations are operated atmospherically. And it would also need to be assumed that the AO and AAO are significantly subject to external forcing. So that is a leap that should be checked first. To do this, is there any evidence of ENSO correlating to the Magnetic Sun in any way? The answer is a very clear, YES.

Peer reviewed studies [below] all over have documented and analyzed the quantitative correlation in statistical analysis and potential mechanism. First, here is the Solar Wind Index (AA Index) Superimposed on global temperature since 1850. Note that temperature in this theory responds in terms of equilibrium...as in, consistantly high magnetic flux values will lead to an increase in temperature until equilibrium is reached, rather than follow a step by step trend which if that were to happen, the short reponse time to equilibrium would reduce climate sensitivity to CO2.

The theory operates in a 6-7 year lag, explained below.

Temp and the AA index:

Peer reviewed documentation of the magnetic aspect is heavy.

Magnetic Sun and Temperature correlation http://sait.oat.ts.a...I..76..969G.pdf

Long term variation on the Magneticic Sun and Heliosphere: http://www.eiscat.rl...000JA000115.pdf

Correlation between ENSO and Geomagnetic Activity: http://hal.archives-...s-2-83-2002.pdf

ENSO and the orientation of the subsolar meridian during SSC [sudden Storm Commencement] http://hal-insu.arch...r/hal-00296910/

Magnetic sun and Climate: http://www.sciencedi...012821X06007667

So this is enough for now, but there is a whole arsenal of peer reivewed and observational evidence present. So right now I want to look at a potential causative mechanism, and some observational data.

First the Hypothesis. ENSO...we know that a change in the strength of the trade winds precedes change in SSTA anomalies, and that the entire global wind budget is reconfigured during various ENSO events. But why?

Well, what causes change in winds? Of course it is change in the location and configurations of thermal energy [heat] distributed across the globe. But what causes these variations in the heat budget? Obviously it must be initially due to variations in clouds cover. But how is that solar influenced and not naturally chaotic?

Look at the AO and AAO oscillations, and their correlation to solar activity. The AO and AAO correlating to solar activity, if that is indeed true, explains how clouds may be reconfigured due to solar activity variations. So in this hypothesis, it is the Magentic Activity change = AO/AAO change = Cloud Anomaly change = heat budget configuration change = wind budget change = ENSO change. We have evidence that the Sun correlates to ENSO. Below I have pointed out an amazing correlation between the AP index in 2003, and the ENSO event of 2009/10, as well as the global temp variations after the El Nino.

You can see the past decade's temperature variation actually correlates in variable manner to the AP index 6.5 years ago. How is this possible in a climate system thought to be chaotic? Well, is it really as chaotic as we think? Meaning, the extend of large scale chaos may be perhaps minute chaotic circulation patterns? Does the Sun force the PDO? There is evidence for this as well, in a correlative manner.

My step-bro pointed this out to me, the polar magnetic fields correlate to every change in the PDO phase, which means the AMO should descend into it's negative phase within the next year or two.

PDO flips when the field strength flips south, AMO flips when the field strength flips north, correlate to the PDO flip positive in the late 1970s, PDO flip negative around year 2000, the AMO flip positive in the early 1990s, the AMO flip coming up within the next few years,

PDO also correlates to the AP index. Thanks again to my step bro.

How is this possible? Theory ties to influence from the AO on cloud configuration.

The AO should show a correlation, and it does...somewhat, but is more correlated to the PDO/AMO Mean, rather than just the PDO and nothing else.

So that proves the correlation, but not the causation. So if there really is a connection, and everything involving the kinetic portion of the energy budget is tied to the magnetic sun, what could the causation be?

The only possibility that makes sense would be variations in albedo. It takes a significant amount of energy change to also ENSO, and the only forcing strong enough would be the modulation od cloud cover.

Peer reviewed science on the AO connection to the Sun:

http://www.sciencedi...464191799000185

http://yly-mac.gps.c...in_Solar_02.pdf

http://www.agu.org/p...005GL023509.pdf

http://www.epi-us.co...empGRLfinal.pdf

The Sun - AO correlation has been more looked at than the climate aspect, because no one figures that changes in the AO change the configuration of cloud cover, which may in turn be linked to a whole arsenal of variable that could unlock a whole bunch of new discoveries and uderstandings in our future.

The AP index relationship to temperature is more Stove/Kettle rather than a matching trend, as should it be.

My forecast for the future climate, after the weak global cooling trend outside the Arctc due to albedo feedback lagging as a result of the AMO and the general lag, we'll see a more intense global cooling trend begin between 2013 and 2015 at latest, more likely it begins closer to 2013 than later. The AMO flips negative between 2013 and 2015 as well. We will be forced to re evaluate our understanding on the climate system.

[Snow_Miser]

I have done extensive research into this point, and I have come to the conclusion that the Climate System is indeed very insensitive to any radiative forcing.

A radiative forcing is an addition or subtraction of energy to Earth's Energy Budget that is not caused by an initial temperature change. A change to Earth's Energy Budget because of a temperature change would be called a feedback.

The IPCC predicts a warming effect from doubling CO2 to be around 3 Degrees Celcius, because they predict a positive water vapour and cloud feedback to help amplify the warming. Their models are modeling a sensitive climate system. But the question is, are the models in line with reality?

Dr. Roy W. Spencer and Dr. William Danny Braswell found that this is not the case.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

Other papers have also reached similar conclusions: (

SOURCE) (SOURCE) (SOURCE) (SOURCE) (SOURCE)

Quoting Papers one two and three in the source list respectively:

Quote: We find that globally adding a uniform 1 W m − 2 source of latent heat flux along with a uniform 1 W m − 2 sink of sensible heat leads to a decrease in global mean surface air temperature of 0.54 ± 0.04 K. This occurs largely as a consequence of planetary albedo increases associated with an increase in low elevation cloudiness caused by increased evaporation. Thus, our model results indicate that, on average, when latent heating replaces sensible heating, global, and not merely local, surface temperatures decrease.

Quote:

The CAM-SP shows strongly negative net cloud feedback in both the tropics and in the extratropics, resulting in a global climate sensitivity of only 0.41 K/(W m-2), at the low end of traditional AGCMs (e.g. Cess et al. 1996), but in accord with an analysis of 30- day SST/SST+2K climatologies from a global aquaplanet CRM run on the Earth Simulator (Miura et al. 2005). The conventional AGCMs differ greatly from each other but all have less negative net cloud forcings and correspondingly larger climate sensitivities than the

superparameterization. The coarse horizontal and vertical resolution of CAM3-SP means that it highly under-resolves the turbulent circulations that produce boundary layer clouds. Thus, one should interpret its predictions with caution. With this caveat, cloud feedbacks are arguably more naturally simulated by superparameterization than in conventional AGCMs [conventional climate models], suggesting a compelling need to better understand the differences between the results from these two approaches.

Quote: The implication of this optical depth bias that owes its source to biases in both the LWP and particle sizes is that the solar radiation reflected by low clouds is significantly enhanced in models compared to real clouds. This reflected sunlight bias has significant implications for the cloud-climate feedback problem. The consequence is that this bias artificially suppresses the low cloud optical depth feedback in models by almost a factor of four and thus its potential role as a negative feedback.

=============

In Dr. Spencer and Dr. Braswell's peer reviewed paper, they documented a large discrepency between the climate models, and what observational data is currently showing.

The observations show that the Earth is capable of releasing much more energy to space during and after the warming, than the climate models show, which would indicate a negative feedback in Earth's Climate, and an insensitive Climate System.

Dr. Richard Lindzen and his accomplished post doc Dr. Yong Sang Choi also came to this same conclusion when they analyzed the Slopes with the temperature rise VS. the amount of energy leaving space. They found that the computer models predicted for the OLR at the TOA to decrease, corresponding to a positive feedback, allowing for even more warming to take place. The actual observations show exactly the opposite. With increasing temperatures, MORE energy is radiated to space, thus corresponding to a positive slope, a negative feedback and an insensitive climate system.

Hnilo et. al 2007 also documented that a negative feedback exists within Earth's Climate by looking at 15 different oscillations that exist naturally in Earth's Climate. They found that decreasing high "ice clouds" helped to stabilize the heat changes that was occuring with these oscillations, thus solid evidence that a negative feedback associated with decreasing high cloud cover (Lindzen's Iris hypothesis) exists in Earth's Climate, and that sensitivity is much lower than shown in the Climate Models.

http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

Quote:

We explore the daily evolution of tropical intraseasonal

oscillations in satellite-observed tropospheric temperature,

precipitation, radiative fluxes, and cloud properties. The

warm/rainy phase of a composited average of fifteen

oscillations is accompanied by a net reduction in radiative

input into the ocean-atmosphere system, with longwave

heating anomalies transitioning to longwave cooling during

the rainy phase. The increase in longwave cooling is traced

to decreasing coverage by ice clouds, potentially supporting

Lindzen’s ‘‘infrared iris’’ hypothesis of climate stabilization.

These observations should be considered in the testing of

cloud parameterizations in climate models, which remain

sources of substantial uncertainty in global warming

prediction.

=============

Since satellite evidence shows a much less sensitive climate than the climate models show, that means that CO2 can NOT explain the warming that has occured in the late-20th Century, because the climate is not sensitive enough to produce that much warming with only the CO2 forcing. This is why Cloud Decreases are essential to also help explain the warming that has occured in the late-20th Century, and the three peer reviewed papers above show that they have added a lot more energy to Earth's Energy Budget than CO2 has since 1790.

The PDO and AMO are oscillations that are associated with cloud variability, but the Forbush Decrease evidence is enough to say that a long term trend in GCRs is likely the primary cause of the decreasing Cloud Cover.

[Snow_Miser]

You might also be interested in these papers, Bethesda:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD015822.shtml

The relationship between the geomagnetic aa index and the winter North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) has previously been found to be nonstationary, being weakly negative during the early 20th century and significantly positive since the 1970s. The study reported here applies a statistical method called the generalized additive modeling (GAM) to elucidate the underlying physical reasons. We find that the relationship between aa index and the NAO during the Northern Hemispheric winter is generally nonlinear and can be described by a concave shape with a negative relation for small to medium aa and a positive relation for medium to large aa. The nonstationary character of the aa-NAO relationship may be ascribed to two factors. First, it is modulated by the multidecadal variation of solar activity. This solar modulation is indicated by significant change points of the trends of solar indices around the beginning of solar cycle 14, 20, and 22 (i.e., ∼1902/1903, ∼1962/1963, and ∼1995/1996). Coherent changes of the trend in the winter time NAO followed the solar trend changes a few years later. Second, the aa-NAO relationship is dominated by the aa data from the declining phase of even-numbered solar cycles, implying that the 27 day recurrent solar wind streams may be responsible for the observed aa-NAO relationship. It is possible that an increase of long-duration recurrent solar wind streams from high-latitude coronal holes during solar cycles 20 and 22 may partially account for the significant positive aa-NAO relationship during the last 30 years of the 20th century.

The Geomagnetic Solar Activity may also have a role with the NAO in addition to having a role with the AO.

This paper documents a robust relationship between Solar Activity and ENSO:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047964.shtml

The potential role of the stratosphere for the 11-year solar cycle signal in the Pacific region is investigated by idealized simulations using a coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model. The model includes a detailed representation of the stratosphere and accounts for changes in stratospheric heating rates from prescribed time dependent variations of ozone and spectrally high resolved solar irradiance. Three transient simulations are performed spanning 21 solar cycles each. The simulations use slightly different ozone perturbations representing uncertainties of solar induced ozone variations. The model reproduces the main features of the 20th century observed solar response. A persistent mean sea level pressure response to solar forcing is found for the eastern North Pacific extending over North America. Moreover, there is evidence for a La Niña-like response assigned to solar maximum conditions with below normal SSTs in the equatorial eastern Pacific, reduced equatorial precipitation, enhanced off-equatorial precipitation and an El Niño-like response a couple of years later, thus confirming the response to solar forcing at the surface seen in earlier studies. The amplitude of the solar signal in the Pacific region depends to a great extent on the choice of the centennial period averaged.

[BethesdaWX]

I agree with Dr. Spencer in his hypothesis of lower sensitivity to GHG increase, but not by the method he has chosen, which is to use IPCC models to compare radiation release in ENSO events which isn't relly a valid comparison in my view.

However if ENSO is indeed solar driven, it would be huge because if GHGes cannot effect the correlation between solar impulse and ENSO/global temp, in length of thermal release after imput, it means that additional GHGes are not slowing the release of LW enough to have any effect on the in-step correlation of solar imput variation to temperature/ENSO variation, which would:

1) Crush the hypothesis that solar activity is too weak to affectclimate

2) Prove that LW release is nt being hindered by increase in GHGes [this can be possible if convective overturning and cloud formation forming as a result of the GHE compensates in reflecting additional SW radiation while the modes are run kinetically].

So there is a missing key,and I am confident it lies in cloud cover and the kinetic portion of the Earth's internal energy budget.

[BethesdaWX]

I don't have time right now for along reply but that Spencer paper from Remote Sensing has been thoroughly repudiated (long discussion in this forum) and you can't seriously be using it as support.

I never linked it as support, and stated I disagree with its basis. But the reasoning it gets that result while misinterpreted on the part of Dr. Spencer [in my view], actually indirectly ties to this theory.

[Snow_Miser]

I agree with Dr. Spencer in his hypothesis of lower sensitivity to GHG increase, but not by the method he has chosen, which is to use IPCC models to compare radiation release in ENSO events which isn't relly a valid comparison in my view.

I think it is a reasonable comparison.

The Climate Models have been showing positive feedbacks in their modeled runs with a lower amount of OLR escaping to space than if there were no positive feedbacks, thus resulting in much more warming than if there were no positive feedbacks. Dr. Spencer's data shows that much more heat is being allowed to escape to space than what the models have been showing, thus indicating that the climate system is much less sensitive to a radiative forcing than the models show, which could completely disprove the IPCC forecasts, if the models are so disjointed from reality.

These observations, when compared to climate models, are crucial for predicting how much warming can occur in the future, and how much warming is due to man VS. nature.

If the climate is insensitive, then the 40% rise in CO2 could not possibly have caused that large amount of warming that was observed in the 20th Century, which means a much larger forcing is at work as well.

Dr. Spencer shows that the IPCC climate models are off base with climate sensitivity, which would not only completely change the IPCC's conclusions about how much warming observed was anthropogenic, but it would show that there is no significant warming to occur in the next Century. That is why I think that it is a good comparison to show actual observations VS. modeled forecasts.

[Snow_Miser]

that Spencer paper can't seriously be used as support.

Why, because the editor said that Spencer did not adequately represent the other side to this issue in his paper? Because it won't get that many citations?

[BethesdaWX]

I think it is a reasonable comparison.

The Climate Models have been showing positive feedbacks in their modeled runs with a lower amount of OLR escaping to space than if there were no positive feedbacks, thus resulting in much more warming than if there were no positive feedbacks. Dr. Spencer's data shows that much more heat is being allowed to escape to space than what the models have been showing, thus indicating that the climate system is much less sensitive to a radiative forcing than the models show, which could completely disprove the IPCC forecasts, if the models are so disjointed from reality.

These observations, when compared to climate models, are crucial for predicting how much warming can occur in the future, and how much warming is due to man VS. nature.

If the climate is insensitive, then the 40% rise in CO2 could not possibly have caused that large amount of warming that was observed in the 20th Century, which means a much larger forcing is at work as well.

Dr. Spencer shows that the IPCC climate models are off base with climate sensitivity, which would not only completely change the IPCC's conclusions about how much warming observed was anthropogenic, but it would show that there is no significant warming to occur in the next Century. That is why I think that it is a good comparison to show actual observations VS. modeled forecasts.

To ENSO or to CO2? The only thing we need to do to disprove AGW is prove that the ENSO is modulated by solar activity. If that is the case, and the correlation length and amplitude is unchanging between the Sun and ENSO through time, then it can be determined that CO2 is not inhibiting the release of LW after imput, and hence, the warming can't be caused by CO2.

Thats truly all we need.

[Snow_Miser]

To ENSO or to CO2? The only thing we need to do to disprove AGW is prove that the ENSO is modulated by solar activity. If that is the case, and the correlation length and amplitude is unchanging between the Sun and ENSO through time, then it can be determined that CO2 is not inhibiting the release of LW after imput, and hence, the warming can't be caused by CO2.

Well, there are a lot of things that simply point to CO2 as being a non-climate driver, and you point out one of them, and it is extremely valid.

However, my point about how sensitive the climate system is is extremely valid as well for the reasons I stated above.

If the climate system is not sensitive to any radiative forcing, as Dr. Spencer has shown through more heat escaping out to space when a radiative forcing is implanted in the Global Energy Budget, then it is not sensitive to any radiative forcing, period, which means that CO2 increasing 40% could not possibly have caused the warming observed over the 20th Century.

[Vergent]

The models overestimate warming because they are missing some negative feedbacks and pathways,

Offsetting Global Warming: Molecule in Earth's Atmosphere Could 'Cool the Planet'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120112142232.htm

They succeeded in documenting a chemical pathway that turns S02 and NO2 into forms that cause condensation. This pathway had long been suspected. They now have the equipment to detect it. Here to fore the rates for SO2 and NO2 loss from the atmosphere was too slow, and the effect of the presence of these gasses on albedo was too low. So our climate models should improve, as we learn more.

[BethesdaWX]

Well, there are a lot of things that simply point to CO2 as being a non-climate driver, and your point out one of them, and it is extremely valid.

However, my point about how sensitive the climate system is is extremely valid as well for the reasons I stated above.

If the climate system is not sensitive to any radiative forcing, as Dr. Spencer has shown through more heat escaping out to space when a radiative forcing is implanted in the Global Energy Budget, then it is not sensitive to any radiative forcing, period, which means that CO2 increasing 40% could not possibly have caused the warming observed over the 20th Century.

We're kind of talking about the same thing, just explained in different means. By insensitivity it'd mean the added RF would be processed in the kinetic portion of the budget as the slower LW radiation is released, the more convective overturning results, lightning, so on and so forth. More OLR has resulted from less clouds in the tropics but that is a side effect of the causative mechanism which is operated externally.

Knowing that, CO2 obviously is trapping the expected amount of LW but if it'd manifest it'd be in nighttime warming only with no effect during the daytime since the LW re-emitted portion by CO2, in the morning, relative to the incoming SW budget from the Sun is so minute it wouldn't be noticable in forcing to warm the daytime temp up, as to note the SW flux incoming during the day vs any remaining LW energy is not equating in difference to a significant means to balance the rate of daytime warming out, it will warm more slowly during the day.

Then of course that is assuming a very positive feedback to an increased GHE, it seems likely to be much less in my view.

[Snow_Miser]

I wonder why none of our warmer friends have responded to this topic yet...

[dabize]

I wonder why none of our warmer friends have responded to this topic yet...

They have.

Vergent is a "warmer" (according to the usual suspect types on the other side of the argument here), but he is also honest. He is right - it is not surprising that negative feedback elements should pop up as we characterize the consequences of AGW.

However I would argue that the reports put forward by the IPCC (which are generally accepted baseline estimates of AGW that inform the "warmist" positions here), have been repeatedly shown to be UNDERestimates of the seriousness of AGW and its potential effects on climate.

This is because a) we don't know all of the POSITIVE feedback elements in the cascade of AGW consequences yet either and because these reports are based on CONSENSUS - they are necessarily conservative (as opposed to mean) estimates.

So yes, there are new negative feedback elements that may slow the rate of AGW relative to what might otherwise occur, but there seem to be even more positive such elements - since the rate of key AGW consequences - notably Arctic sea ice thinning and loss - is outpacing current estimates.

[Snow_Miser]

Vergent is a "warmer" (according to the usual suspect types on the other side of the argument here), but he is also honest. He is right - it is not surprising that negative feedback elements should pop up as we characterize the consequences of AGW.

Yes, Vergent and wxtrix are both "warmers." I was refering to the other warmers that are very prolific in their postings on the Climate Forum.

However I would argue that the reports put forward by the IPCC (which are generally accepted baseline estimates of AGW that inform the "warmist" positions here), have been repeatedly shown to be UNDERestimates of the seriousness of AGW and its potential effects on climate.

Well this is completely mistaken.

The observations show that the Earth is capable of releasing much more energy to space during and after the warming, than the climate models show, which would indicate a negative feedback in Earth's Climate, and an insensitive Climate System.

Dr. Richard Lindzen and his accomplished post doc Dr. Yong Sang Choi also came to this same conclusion when they analyzed the Slopes with the temperature rise VS. the amount of energy leaving space. They found that the computer models predicted for the OLR at the TOA to decrease, corresponding to a positive feedback, allowing for even more warming to take place. The actual observations show exactly the opposite. With increasing temperatures, MORE energy is radiated to space, thus corresponding to a positive slope, a negative feedback and an insensitive climate system.

Hnilo et. al 2007 also documented that a negative feedback exists within Earth's Climate by looking at 15 different oscillations that exist naturally in Earth's Climate. They found that decreasing high "ice clouds" helped to stabilize the heat changes that was occuring with these oscillations, thus solid evidence that a negative feedback associated with decreasing high cloud cover (Lindzen's Iris hypothesis) exists in Earth's Climate, and that sensitivity is much lower than shown in the Climate Models.

http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

I have shown that the IPCC's computer models have been documented to be way more sensitive with the Climate System than actual observations have shown, and your claim is that the climate is even more sensitive than what they show? What evidence do you have to support this?

This is because a) we don't know all of the POSITIVE feedback elements in the cascade of AGW consequences yet either and because these reports are based on CONSENSUS - they are necessarily conservative (as opposed to mean) estimates.

If you claim that we don't know all of the atmospheric feedbacks, how do you know that those feedbacks are positive, that will result in CAGW? Being that feedbacks still have so much uncertainty, don't you think a consensus is pretty much meaningless at this time, if there even was one?

Arctic sea ice thinning and loss - is outpacing current estimates.

And how do you know that this is proof that AGW is worse than believed to have originally been? How do you know that the models are not incorrectly handeling natural variability, and modeling it to be more insignificant than it actually is, producing less melting than if natural variability were included?

http://www.agu.org/p...9GL038777.shtml

Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, ( the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and © the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.

If the climate models were not forecasting the record breaking positive AMO to occur last year, then it would be assumed that they would show less melting than if this powerful signal was correctly implemented in the models.

[BethesdaWX]

They have.

Vergent is a "warmer" (according to the usual suspect types on the other side of the argument here), but he is also honest. He is right - it is not surprising that negative feedback elements should pop up as we characterize the consequences of AGW.

However I would argue that the reports put forward by the IPCC (which are generally accepted baseline estimates of AGW that

inform the "warmist" positions here), have been repeatedly shown to be UNDERestimates of the seriousness of AGW and its potential effects on climate.

This is because a) we don't know all of the POSITIVE feedback elements in the cascade of AGW consequences yet either and because these reports are based on CONSENSUS - they are necessarily conservative (as opposed to mean) estimates

So yes, there are new negative feedback elements that may slow the rate of AGW relative to what might otherwise occur, but there seem to be even more positive such elements - since the rate of key AGW consequences - notably Arctic sea ice thinning and loss - is outpacing current estimates.

Not true.

1). There is no consensus, there are thousands of 'skeptic' atmospheric scientists. Even if there was, consensus isn't science. Science should only be performed through the scientific method.

2). I posted relevant IPCC discussions, which they come to the conclusion that 'uncertainties remain large', and admit themselves that this arena of climate forcings is poorly understood.

3). The IPCC has not 'underestimated' anything, their modeling has WELL overestimated the warming, and each report has lowered the climate sensitivity to CO2.

Nothing you say has any basis in fact.

[BethesdaWX]

let's start with one assertion and see if it's accurate, and therefore if it's even worth the time to debate any of this stuff.

uh, that study that you cited doesn't support your contention that solar activity has contributed to global warming. indeed, the Solanki team's overall research come to the opposite conclusion:

furthermore:

http://www.ens-newsw...4-08-03-03.html

so this team's research totally repudiates your assertion.

if you can some up with something that supports your point this "magentic sun" stuff could be discussed.

but all you've done is provide a link to research that totally discredits your assertion. either you're just trolling or you have zero idea of what you are talking about and need to just pipe down here.

I don't think you read carefully.

I linked more than one paper for a reason. There is a difference between TSI/solar output affecting global temperature, and internal cloud modulations subject to external forcings represented in the terrestial magnetic index initially, in which 1% change in tropical LLCC [clouds] = ~1W/m^2 of RF change. I never mentioned cosmic rays either, so why are you bringing up irrelavent areas of potential climate forcings?

You just picked out a snippet of one paper dealing with direct solar influence and omitting the published stated evidence dealing with ENSO and the AO modulated externally. That is discussed in on numerous occasions. Do I have to actually quote the statements for you? I hope not.

[BethesdaWX]

there is also this:

http://www.skeptical..._Temp_basic.gif[/img

Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

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

warming.htm

it's weird how BB is citing research that undermines his assertion and has not even addressed these obvious

How is TSI/solar output relevant to the planetary magnetic index??? AND you're posting bloggies?

TSI is totally irrelevant to the terrestrial magnetic index, so why are you referring to it? Let's hear it. You didn't read. No one believes TSI affects climate significantly, that is just old tired warmista fluff.

Again demonstrating you didn't read ANYTHING I wrote or don't understand it. If anyone 'doesn't belong' here [your original quote], it's you, if you don't know the difference between TSI and the AP/AA Index.....

[dabize]

What a load of bulls**t.

1). There is no consensus, there are thousands of 'skeptic' atmospheric scientists. Even if there was, consensus isn't science. Science should only be performed through the scientific method.

2). I posted relevant IPCC discussions, which they come to the conclusion that 'uncertainties remain large', and admit themselves that this arena of climate forcings is poorly understood.

3). The IPCC has not 'underestimated' anything, their modeling has WELL overestimated the warming, and each report has lowered the climate sensitivity to CO2.

Nothing you say has any basis in fact.

So much for gemutlichkeit......

Ironic that this guy complains about scientists being dismissive of outside opinion.

If one's position is weak, there is no option but to shout

[BethesdaWX]

Some quotes.

Conclusion:

– In our opinion, cyclic dynamics of ENSO phenomena

are due to solar activity and geomagnetic variations.

It is background long-period variations on which high frequency

oscillations are imposed.

Spectra of ENSO indices show two main spectral bands,

namely, long-period and short-period oscillations in the

period ranges 10–23 and 2–7 years, respectively. Shortperiod

oscillations include subharmonics of the solar

cycle (5–6 years), QB (P = 1.78; 2.13, 2.67 years), QA

(1.07; 1.19; 1.33 years) and quasi-triennial (3.5 years)

cycles.

Weak correlations occur between long-period variations

of ENSO data and the Ap-index of geomagnetic disturbance,

ENSO and Wolf-number data. At the beginning

of the 70-th phase shift between ENSO and heliogeophysical

data sets occurs. At that time the background

solar magnetic field was reversed. Full reversal

of the solar magnetic field constitutes the 22-year solar

magnetic cycle (Hale’s cycle). The sign and direction

of the IMF also changes during that period. Obviously,

solar-terrestrial connections are realized by means of

the IMF. Many meteorological and climatic parameters

correlate better with the 22-year solar cycle than with

the 11-year solar cycle.

– QB and QA oscillations in ENSO data are coherent with

the same oscillation in Ap-index andWolf number data.

5.3-year oscillation is coherent in ENSO andWolf number

data.

This is why the TSI is irrelavent:

According to Echer et al. (2004),

the probable cause seems to be related to the

double peak structure of geomagnetic activity.

The second peak, related to high speed solar

wind from coronal holes, seems to have

increased relative to the first one, related to

sunspots (CMEs) but, as already mentioned,

this type of solar activity is not accounted

for by the sunspot number. In Figure 6 the

long-term variations in global temperature are

compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic

activity as expressed by the ak-index

(Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation

between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01

for the whole period studied.It could therefore

be concluded that both the decreasing correlation

between sunspot number and geomagnetic

activity, and the deviation of the global

temperature long-term trend from solar activity

as expressed by sunspot index are due to

the increased number of high-speed streams of

solar wind on the declining phase and in the

minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

[Snow_Miser]

holiday weekend + lives = less posting on weekends.

That's fine, I was just wondering, that's all.

[BethesdaWX]

So much for gemutlichkeit......

Ironic that this guy complains about scientists being dismissive of outside opinion.

If one's position is weak, there is no option but to shout

What are you talking about?

1) There is no consensus, and consensus has nothing to do with science. I can post a link of 1K 'skepticalo' scientists with relavent degrees right now, if you so please. Want me to?

2) The IPCC has overestimated warming, we haven't budged since 2002 Each report has lowered the sensitivity to CO2 LW increase.

3) You provided no evidence for anything relavent. Ask me for any evidence and I shall provide it for you.

[Snow_Miser]

If one's position is weak, there is no option but to shout

The skeptic position is far more stronger than the AGW position, and Bethesda and I have posted multiple links that show why.

Have you thought about all of the information that I posted that rebutted your claims?

[Snow_Miser]

They are both either trolling or did not read, I don't know which. But I'm lol'ing as I'm typing this.

TSI? SkepticalScience Blog? What's next, maybe flying pigs?

I'm likely willing to guess that wxtrix did not understand what you posted, or simply did not take the time to read the paper.

TSI and the Geomagnetic AP Index are two entirely different things.

[BethesdaWX]

I understand that it's all gibberish.

I don't think you do, if it were gibberish there wouldn't be peer reviewed science supporting it, and there wouldn't be datasets made to measure it. I was hoping for an in depth scientific response from you but apparently that is not going to happen.

[Snow_Miser]

I understand that it's all gibberish.

Then why did you post a TSI chart when you tried to refute Bethesda's claim about the Geomagnetic Planetary AP Index?

[BethesdaWX]

I was refuting the overall incorrect assertion that the "magnetic sun" is a major contributor to global warming. there's zero reason to attend to minute details if the overall basis for the assertion has already been shown by science to be wholly incorrect.

You haven't refuted anything, though. In fact you may have strengthened my position. I provided peer reviewed evidence for my claims, you posted a graph of TSI leveling off since 1980 from SkepticalScience Blog which is not a factor of relevance to the geomagnetic conductive interaction.

So if you want to refute me you need to post peer reviewed science in a relevant manner,not irrelavent imput values from the Sun that barely change from one solar cycle to the next.

Peer reviewed science says:

In our opinion, cyclic dynamics of ENSO phenomena are due to solar activity and geomagnetic variations. It is background long-period variations on which high frequency oscillations are imposed.

Spectra of ENSO indices show two main spectral bands,

namely, long-period and short-period oscillations in the

period ranges 10–23 and 2–7 years, respectively. Shortperiod

oscillations include subharmonics of the solar

cycle (5–6 years), QB (P = 1.78; 2.13, 2.67 years), QA

(1.07; 1.19; 1.33 years) and quasi-triennial (3.5 years)

cycles.

Weak correlations occur between long-period variations

of ENSO data and the Ap-index of geomagnetic disturbance,

ENSO and Wolf-number data. At the beginning

of the 70-th phase shift between ENSO and heliogeophysical

data sets occurs. At that time the background

solar magnetic field was reversed. Full reversal

of the solar magnetic field constitutes the 22-year solar

magnetic cycle (Hale’s cycle). The sign and direction

of the IMF also changes during that period. Obviously,

solar-terrestrial connections are realized by means of

the IMF. Many meteorological and climatic parameters

correlate better with the 22-year solar cycle than with

the 11-year solar cycle.

– QB and QA oscillations in ENSO data are coherent with

the same oscillation in Ap-index andWolf number data.

5.3-year oscillation is coherent in ENSO andWolf number

data.

This cannot be refuted via the Scientific Method, and the IPCC has stated "uncertainties remain large" because of this aspect. Even thought it's a way overblown probability, the IPCC says '90% chance' that warming is human caused for a reason.

[donsutherland1]

FWIW, here's what the IPCC presented in terms of radiative forcings in its 2007 report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

Solar irradiance is discussed on pp.188-193.

[BethesdaWX]

you're quoting a paper, that is 10 years ago, which has been cited only 6 times in a decade, and which gives the origin of all the data for its figures as:

The references are linked in the paper(s) .

The understanding of this aspect of physical science is poor [iPCC has a while chapter on this stuff and it is the reason they quote 'uncertainties remain large'...and we are nowhere near understanding how specifically it operates in processing. If there is qualitative evidence, but not fully quantitative evidence, why would it be cited numerously? Obviously it has not and cannot be refuted, at least by the scientific method, because there is only qualitative comparisons drawn, and that is all we are able to do.

How often a paper is cited, when it was published, etc, is not at all related to scientific analysis via the scientific method and should not be brought up here. I linked numerous papers and can link numerous more, but it seems all you're here to do is avoid the scientific method, which on a science forum, well..

[BethesdaWX]

FWIW, here's what the IPCC presented in terms of radiative forcings in its 2007 report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...g1-chapter2.pdf

Solar irradiance is discussed on pp.188-193.

This isn't solar irradiance being discussed. As for cloud changes there is no way to determine what clouds did from 1750 to the beginning of the satellite era at different levels of the atmosphere [high clouds trap LW, Middle and Low clouds Block SW influx].

[LocoAko]

OK.

"The internet"?