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

[BethesdaWX]

and the fact you use a paper that Anthony Watts touted instead of Judith Lean's work shows you really don't even understand the point you are trying to make vis-a-vis solar activity and climate change.

this is what you should have linked to:

Judith Lean, “Cycles and trends in solar irradiance and climate,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, vol. 1, January/February 2010, 111-122.

What don't you understand about the difference between TSI and The Planetary Magnetic Index? TSI and the AP index are almost irrelavent to eachother Multiple members have pointed this out to you, and yet still you cannot seem to catch on.

So what if Watts 'touted' a paper? So what if charlie Sheen 'touted' a paper? So what if my mailman 'touted' a paper?

Strawmen.

[BethesdaWX]

This seems to have been lost in the fray of trolling. I hope mods delete any more TSI/Irradiance related postings which have nothing to do with this debate.

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

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

[BethesdaWX]

her work actually partially supports part of your ramblings--but you've never heard of her b/c you rely on Anthony Watts to tell you about climate change.

Except I have heard of Judith Lean, I do not rely on Anthony Watts, and you're making all of this up.

If you knew better you wouldn't be posting blog science to attempt a non scientific refutation of peer reviewed science that has withstood the test of time.

[BethesdaWX]

not even "the Internet". just "from INTERNET".

BTW here are references from that peer reviewed paper

References

Angell, J. K.: Evidence of a relation between El Ni˜no and QBO and

for an El Ni˜no in 1991–92, Geoph. Res. Letters, 19, 285–288,

1992.

Bitvinskas, O. O.: Dendroclimatic researches (in Russian),

Leningrad, Hydrometeoizdat, 172, 1974.

Diamantides, N. D.: Long-term solar activity and terrestrial connections,

Part II: at the beckon of the Sun?, Ann. Geophysicae,

16, 492–509, 1998.

Druzhinin, I. P., Sazonov, B. I., and Jagodinsky, B. N.: The Space –

the Earth. Predictions, Moscow, 288, 1974.

Enfield, D. B.: El Ni˜no, Past and Present, Rev. of Geophys., 27,

59–187, 1989.

Fangqun Yu: Galactic cosmic rays, particle formation, natural

variability of global cloud properties, and climate implications.

The effect of Solar Proton Events on Ozone and

Other Constitutions in the Middle Atmosphere. In: ISCS

2001 Abstracts. Solar Variability, Climate and Space Weather,

(

http://rise.hao.ucar.edu/iscs/abstract.html).

Graham, N. E. and White, W. B.: The El Ni˜no cycle: Pacific Ocean

– atmospheric system, Science, 240, 1293–1302, 1988.

Herman, J. R. and Goldberg, R. A.: Sun, Weather, and Climate.

National Aeronautics and Space Administrations, Washington,

D.C., 305, 1978.

Howard, R.: Studies of Solar magnetic fields. 1. The average field

strengths, Solar Phys., 38, 283–299, 1974.

Jackman, C. H., McPeters, R. D., Labow, G. J., Fleming, E. J.,

Russel, J. M., and Praderas, C. J.: The Effect of Solar Proton

Events on Ozone and Other Constitutions in the Middle Atmosphere,

In: ISCS 2001 (International Solar Cycle Studies –

2001) Abstracts. Solar Variability, Climate and Space Weather,

(

http://rise.hao.ucar.edu/iscs/abstract.html).

King, J. W.: Sun-weather relationships, Aeronautics and Astronautics,

13, 10–19, 1975.

Lacoss, R. T.: Data adaptive spectral analysis methods, Geophysics,

36, 661–675, 1971.

McCreary, I. P.: A model of tropical ocean-atmosphere interaction,

Mon. Weather Rev., III, 370–387, 1983.

Mullayarov, V. A., Kozlov, V. I., and Karimov, R. R.: Relation

of Thunderstorm Activity to Cosmic Ray Variations. In: ISCS

2001 Abstracts. Solar Variability, Climate and Space Weather,

(

http://rise.hao.ucar.edu/iscs/abstract.html).

Mustel, E. R.: On the reality of the influence of solar corpuscular

streams upon the lower layer of the earth’s atmosphere. In:

The Astronomical Union of Acad. Sciences., Moscow, 24, 5–55,

1972.

Nuzhdina, M. A. and Barkova, N. A.: Tropospoheric response

on Sunspot passage of the Solar Central Meridian. Solar Data,

Leningrad, 7, 105–112, 1983.

Ol’j, A. I.: Rhythmic processes in the Earth atmosphere. In: The

Reports on annual readings on memory of L. S. Berg, 1967–1971

(in Russian), Leningrad, Science, 148–164, 1973.

Connection between ENSO phenomena, solar and geomagnetic activity 89

Othnes, R. K. and Enochson, L.: Applied Time Series Analysis,

V. 1. A Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York – Chichester

– Brisbane – Toronto, 428, 1978.

Philander, S. G. H.: El Ni˜no, La Ni˜na and the Southern Oscillation,

Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 289, 1990.

Pudovkin, M. I.: Influence of solar flares and flare-associated

streams on the state of the lower atmosphere, Ann. Geophysicae,

Suppl. III , 14, C 759, 1996.

Rasmusson, E. M. and Carpenter, T. C.: Variations in tropical sea

surface temperature and surface wind fields associated with the

Southern Oscillation/El Ni˜no,Mon.Weather Rev., 110, 354–382,

1982.

Roberts, W. O.: Relationship between solar activity and climate

change. Goddard Space Flight Center, Special Report, NASA,

13, 1975.

Roberts, W. O. and Olsen, R. H.: New evidence for effects of variable

solar corpuscular emission on the weather, Rev. Geophys.

Space Phys., 11, 731–740, 1973.

Solar-Terrestrial Influences onWeather and Climate. Proceedings of

a Symposium/Workshop held at the Fewcett Center for Tomorrow,

The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 24–28 August,

1978. Edd.: Dordrecht: Holland; Boston: USA; London: UK,

384, 1979.

Spjeldvik, W. A., Almeida, A., Gusev, A., Martin, I. M., and Pugacheva,

G.: New Evidence of Space Weather Impact on the

Terrestrial Weather and Climate in the Earth’s Southern Hemisphere.

In: ISCS 2001 Abstracts. Solar Variability, Climate and

Space Weather, (

http://rise.hao.ucar.edu/iscs/abstract.html).

Trenberth, K. E. and Hoar, T. J.: The 1990–1995 El Ni˜no – Southern

Oscillation Event: Longest on record. Geoph. Res. Letters, 23,

57–60, 1996.

Vitinsky, Yu. I.: Cyclisity and forecast of solar activity (in Russian),

Science, Leningrad, 258, 1973.

Vitinsky, Yu. I., Oll, A. I., and Sazonov, B. I.: The Sun and the

Earth’ atmosphere (in Russian). Hydrometeoizdat, Leningrad,

351, 1976.

Wagner, A. J.: Long-period variations in seasonal sea-level pressure

over the Northern Hemisphere, Month.Weather Rev., 99, 49–66,

1971.

Walker, D. A.: Seismicity of the East Pacific Rise: Correlations with

the Southern Oscillation Index, EOS Trans. AGU, 69, 857–867,

1988.

Walker, D. A.: More evidence indicates link between El Ni˜nos and

seismisity, EOS Trans., 76 (4), 33–36, 1995.

Wilcox, J. M.: Influence of the Solar magnetic field on the troposphere

circulation. In: Solar-Terrestrial Influences on Weather

and Climate, Columbus, Ohio, 175–186, 1978.

Zebiak, S. E. and Cane, M. E.: A model El Ni˜no – Southern Oscillation,

Mon. Weather Rev., 115, 2262–2278, 1987

[BethesdaWX]

then why didn't you cite her substantive and respected work instead of something that pretty much only appears on a Watts blog entry?

Where do you get these false ideas from?

Because TSI is not in question, thats why, and peer reviewed science supports these "ramblings", and has not been refuted. The numerous papers I've posted do not show up on WUWT at all.

You haven't discussed ANY science, all you have done is post Bloggies, make false claims, and set up strawmen. No science, no analysis, no intricate understandings or at least respect, it seems.

[BethesdaWX]

yes, 10-20 years old references are very relevant.

Yes, they are, nothing has changed in the way we measure the AP index. Whats your point??

References from 2001 are "not relevent", but Mike Mann's hockeystick from 1999 is somehow relevant despite being shredded numerously?

[BethesdaWX]

I have offered you some relevant work from respected climate scientists. you have generally responded with 10 year old articles. there's really not much to discuss.

No you didn't, TSI is not relavent, sorry.

Are we clear? TSI = irrelavent.

the fact of the matter is in the graph that Don posted--solar activity is not a major part of global warming.

Correct, solar irradiance is not a major factor in global warming. What is your point???

also, re: the sources you have been posting: no one denies the Sun has something to do with climate and sensible weather patterns on Earth. but not everything that refers to climate is a global warming proof. you constantly conflate the 2.

The peer reviewed sources I have been posting describe the interaction between the Earth's and Sun's magnetic field, atmospheric albedo, and changes in circulation patterns. Not Solar Irradience or the Solar Cycles.

You are the one who is 'conflating'.

[BethesdaWX]

you erased the part of your first post where you admitted that all you had was correlation and no causation. that told all of us pretty much what we need to know as correlation != causation. my first look into your first source showed that it totally undermined your assertion. that doesn't make anyone feel like it's worth to follow you down all your rabbit holes.

you think you're a scientific genius. good luck with that.

Wrong. We have hypothesized causations that are physically possible but no way to adequately measure them at this time or understand exactly what to look for, because it would be in the overall variation in atmospheric albedo. So yes there is no PROVEN causation, but that doesn't mean there isn't theory. CO2 - to - thermal load increase hasn't been PROVEN yet either, evidence goes both ways there. The Big Bang Theory also isn't PROVEN.

[BethesdaWX]

Heading out, hope that when I get back, there won't be pages and pages full of TSI, SkepticalScience Blogs, "consensus', or anything of the sort. Will this change for the better or will there be more personal attacks and bad science in place?

[Strongbad]

Heading out, hope that when I get back, there won't be pages and pages full of TSI, SkepticalScience Blogs, "consensus', or anything of the sort. Will this change for the better or will there be more personal attacks and bad science in place?

Your best bet is to ignore the true trolls on this forum. They do not care for you or your science. Cognitive dissonance will ensure that they will either intentionally misunderstand or ignore some of the very convincing peer-reviewed papers you have shared.

Not sure if you posted this already as I didn't have time to read the whole of your first post on this thread (very informative!) but what are your thoughts on the peer-reviewed paper below?

http://www.co2scienc...s/V2/N14/C2.php

[salbers]

At the risk of sounding simplistic, how can we ignore growing radiative forcing by the long lived CO2, when we accept the radiative forcing by other gases/aerosols/clouds, and things like rouitine day/night and seasonal temperature changes?

[Snow_Miser]

I was refuting the overall incorrect assertion that the "magnetic sun" is a major contributor to global warming.

I repeat...

The Geomagnetic AP Index is NOT the Total Solar Irradiance.

By posting a graph that shows the Total Solar Irradiance and claiming that it refutes Bethesda's post about Geomagnetic activity indicates that you aren't understanding what he is posting, or arguing.

[donsutherland1]

This isn't solar irradiance being discussed.

Solar irradiance is the major proxy for solar forcing.

FWIW, I decided to take a look at the AP Index and compare it to global temperature anomalies. I used the NCDC data set for global temperatures. I also computed the trend line for each measure. The AP Index had a slightly declining trend line. Global temperatures have had a rising trend line. Actual correlations between the AP Index and global temperature anomalies (lagged or not) were extremely low.

[Snow_Miser]

At the risk of sounding simplistic, how can we ignore growing radiative forcing by the long lived CO2, when we accept the radiative forcing by other gases/aerosols/clouds, and things like rouitine day/night and seasonal temperature changes?

Because CO2's effect is not that much at all.

The IPCC has calculated that an increase in CO2 by 40% since 1790 without any feedbacks will lead to 1.48 w/m^2 of energy to be added to Earth's Energy Budget. This effect is minor compared to the natural cloud variability that occurs over a decadal basis.

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. The predominant decrease has been the decrease in Low Cloud Cover, and that has increased the amount of ISR reaching Earth's Surface by 7 w/m^2.

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 these cloud changes as being due to Greenhouse Gases.

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

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

The decrease in Clouds, specifically Low Clouds has led to 7-8.5 w/m^2 of additional ISR to reach the Earth's Surface, which has a tremendous effect on the Climate.

The further confirmation that CO2's effect is minor is seen with the amount of heat being radiated to space during and after warming. There is much more heat being radiatied to space than modeled in the IPCC, which indicates that the Climate is much less sensitive than what the IPCC's models are speculating. With an insensitive climate system, as seen with negative feedbacks allowing for more heat to radiate to space during a warming period, you get less energy being added to Earth's Energy Budget than what would have been otherwise without the radiative feedback.

Many other papers such as these six have documented strong negative feedbacks in the Climate System: (SOURCE) (SOURCE) (SOURCE) (SOURCE) (SOURCE)(SOURCE)

Quoting papers 1 2 and 3:

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.

Quoting Paper 6:

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.

[Snow_Miser]

Solar irradiance is the major proxy for solar forcing.

Not necessarily.

The solar forcing can be amplified through changes in Global Cloud Cover on Earth unrelated to changes in TSI, but related to other changes taking place in the sun.

[donsutherland1]

Not necessarily.

The solar forcing can be amplified through changes in Global Cloud Cover on Earth unrelated to changes in TSI, but related to other changes taking place in the sun.

I'm talking strictly solar forcing. Global cloud cover has an impact. Cosmic ray flux has an impact on global cloud cover. IPCC also took global cloud cover into consideration in its 4th Assessment report.

[Snow_Miser]

I'm talking strictly solar forcing. The IPCC also took global cloud cover into consideration in its 4th Assessment report.

If you are talking about the DIRECT solar forcing, then I would agree.

That's not to mean though that just because it's the direct solar forcing means that it has the most of an impact on the climate.

The indirect solar forcing has much more of an impact on climate change, which is the solar modulation of Cloud Cover through GCR changes and pressure changes associated with solar variation.

The IPCC did not really take Global Cloud Cover into comprehensive consideration. They claim that clouds act as a positive feedback, largely due to the fact that in warmer years, there are less Clouds.

But why can't it be the other way around? Why can't it be fewer clouds causing warming? The IPCC never really dug deep into those questions.

This could mean that the scientists in the IPCC could be confusing cause and effect. In their 2008 paper, Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell found that even when putting negative feedbacks into a climate model, it gave the appearence that positive feedbacks still existed within the climate system, because of the failure to acknowledge the change in the CLOUD FORCING is contaminating the feedback parameters, where clouds cause the temperature change.

http://www.drroyspen...Braswell-08.pdf

[donsutherland1]

If you are talking about the DIRECT solar forcing, then I would agree.

That's not to mean though that just because it's the direct solar forcing means that it has the most of an impact on the climate.

The IPCC did not really take Global Cloud Cover into comprehensive consideration. They claim that clouds act as a positive feedback, largely due to the fact that in warmer years, there are less Clouds.

But why can't it be the other way around? Why can't it be fewer clouds causing warming? The IPCC never really dug deep into those questions.

This could mean that the scientists in the IPCC could be confusing cause and effect. In their 2008 paper, Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell found that even when putting negative feedbacks into a climate model, it gave the appearence that positive feedbacks still existed within the climate system, because of the failure to acknowledge the change in the CLOUD FORCING is contaminating the feedback parameters, where clouds cause the temperature change.

http://www.drroyspen...Braswell-08.pdf

Yes, I am referring to direct solar forcing.

A lot of work still remains to be done in the area of global cloud cover. IPCC acknowledged the uncertainty, explaining:

Representation of clouds may constitute the area in which atmospheric models have been modified most continuously to take into account increasingly complex physical processes. At the time of the TAR clouds remained a major source of uncertainty in the simulation of climate changes (as they still are at present...

The importance of simulated cloud feedbacks was revealed by the analysis of model results (Manabe and Wetherald, 1975; Hansen et al, 1984), and the first extensive model intercomparisons (Cess et al., 1989) also showed a substantial model dependency. The strong effect of cloud processes on climate model sensitivities to greenhouse gases was emphasized further through a now-classic set of General Circulation Model (GCM) experiments, carried out by Senior and Mitchell (1993). They produced global average surface temperature changes (due to doubled atmospheric CO₂ concentration) ranging from 1.9°C to 5.4°C, simply by altering the way that cloud radiative properties were treated in the model. It is somewhat unsettling that the results of a complex climate model can be so drastically altered by substituting one reasonable cloud parametrization for another, thereby approximately replicating the overall inter-model range of sensitivities.

IPCC's report was based on the best understanding that was available at the time (2007). It will be interesting to see how the Fifth Assessment handles the issue of clouds, as additional research results should be available for consideration.

[Snow_Miser]

Yes, I am referring to direct solar forcing.

A lot of work still remains to be done in the area of global cloud cover. IPCC acknowledged the uncertainty, explaining:

IPCC's report was based on the best understanding that was available at the time (2007). It will be interesting to see how the Fifth Assessment handles the issue of clouds, as additional research results should be available for consideration.

It is great to see them acknowledge the uncertanties in the Feedback parameters.

I hope that the IPCC 5th report, which comes out in 2014 acknowledges the fact that Cloud Feedbacks could possibly be misdiagnosed with the potential with a Cloud Forcing contaminating the feedback parameters, but I highly doubt that.

[Snow_Miser]

http://www.realclima...e-easy-lessons/

your insistence on posting discredited stuff is perplexing.

Your insistence on posting blogs to refute peer reviewed papers is perplexing.

In addition, what you posted is completely irrelevant to what I had posted about a misdiagnosis occuring with the atmospheric feedbacks because of the change in the Cloud Forcing contaminating the feedback parameters.

You haven't answered my question. What is scientifically unsound about Dr. Spencer's 2011 paper?

[Snow_Miser]

you're honestly unfamiliar with these scientific responses to it?

Trenbeth et al. in Remote Sensing: link to it here: http://www.mdpi.com/...92/3/9/2051/pdf

Dessler in GRL: http://geotest.tamu....Dessler2011.pdf

So because rebuttals got published against the Spencer paper, automatically means that it is wrong and can be discredited? That has to be one of the most biased and flawed arguments I have heard in a long time. When Spencer gets a rebuttal to Dessler, does that mean that Dessler's paper can also be discredited as well?

Both responses, especially Dessler's response are flawed.

Dessler argues for example, that Spencer cherry picked models to exaggerate a discrepency between the IPCC models and the actual observations. But this is completely false. Dr. Spencer picked the 3 most sensitive and the three least sensitive models to show his point. Both show large discrepencies with observational data.

To rebut this false claim, he ran all 14 climate models, with all 140 years of data, and he got this:

With the rest of these picked cherries in the mix, one can still come to the conclusion that the Earth is capable of radiating more heat out to space than modeled, and that these observations are out of the range of what one might consider to be the normal feedback parameters.

Therefore, two conclusions can be reached.

One, the climate is much less sensitive than modeled.

Two, Clouds cause temperature change AND are a response to temperature changes.

Dr. Spencer got his Dessler rebuttal sent to GRL:

http://www.drroyspen...keeps-mounting/

[salbers]

Because CO2's effect is not that much at all.

The IPCC has calculated that an increase in CO2 by 40% since 1790 without any feedbacks will lead to 1.48 w/m^2 of energy to be added to Earth's Energy Budget. This effect is minor compared to the natural cloud variability that occurs over a decadal basis.

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. The predominant decrease has been the decrease in Low Cloud Cover, and that has increased the amount of ISR reaching Earth's Surface by 7 w/m^2.

Thanks for the detailed response that I will further consider. However I would note that the IPCC has the cloud contribution as a negative forcing, not one that has been adding to the warming. Also my main point is that CO2 has its strongest (and increasing warming) effect in the longer term, not one decade vs another. It stays in the atmosphere from centuries to millenia, while the other forcings are likely to be more periodic. The CO2 sensitivity you mention also should be augmented by things like water vapor feedback and ice albedo feedback, both being in the positive direction.

[csnavywx]

The Follow the Money Method (FMM) reveals that Spencer's ultimate backer is ExxonMobil.

The portion about using a mixing depth of 1km instantly kills anything in that piece of work.

[Snow_Miser]

The Follow the Money Method (FMM) reveals that Spencer's ultimate backer is ExxonMobil.

:lol: :lol:

Do you guys EVER argue science?

[csnavywx]

:lol: :lol:

Do you guys EVER argue science?

Diversionary post.

Aside from the fact that the Spencer paper was pretty thoroughly discredited? There are some very serious problems with it. I pointed out (having worked in oceanography before) that using a mixing layer depth of 1000m completely kills the rest of it all by itself.

GIGO --- Garbage In, Garbage Out

My other point is:

AGW is heavily politicized, therefore it helps to see where the money is ultimately coming from to determine possible conflicts of interest. I see a pretty heavy conflict of interest.

[Snow_Miser]

My main point is that CO2 has its strongest (and increasing warming) effect in the longer term, not one decade vs another. It stays in the atmosphere from centuries to millenia, while the other forcings are likely to be more periodic. The CO2 sensitivity you mention also should be augmented by things like water vapor feedback and ice albedo feedback, both being in the positive direction.

You are quite welcome.

I think that it is pretty certain that CO2 has a fairly long residence time, but how long of a residence time is still up for grabs. Even with doubling CO2 likely to occur at the end of this Century, Cloud Cover will still be able to overthrow the warming effect of Carbon Dioxide, since the current Cloud Forcing is 21 w/m^2 and a doubling of CO2 is just 3.7 w/m^2 without any feedbacks. With feedacks, the amount of energy that CO2 would add to Earth's Energy Budget would be even less.

An increase in energy at the Earth's Surface would lead to there being more evaporation, but it would also lead to more condensation, and more low clouds, resulting in a negative feedback. This paper documents that very idea:

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.

If the atmospheric feedbacks are negative, then the surface feedbacks like albedo changes would have little impact on temperature changes, since they are a product of atmospheric and solar energy changes.

[Snow_Miser]

Aside from the fact that the Spencer paper was pretty thoroughly discredited? There are some very serious problems with it. I pointed out (having worked in oceanography before) that using a mixing layer depth of 1000m completely kills the rest of it all by itself.

I looked in the paper, and no where does it say anything about a 1000m mixed layer. Why don't you point out to me where you see this in the paper?

I found that Spencer and Braswell use of a mixed layer of 25 meters, which they give good and solid reasoning for doing so:

We found that the assumed mixed layer depth of 25 m is consistent with the average behavior of

both the IPCC AR4 coupled climate models and the satellite observations on interannual time scales.

Using Equation (1), we estimated Cp from both the coupled climate models and the satellite data by

regressing 5-month trends (dΔT/dt) in the global average surface temperature anomalies against the

5-month average radiative imbalances, to get 1/Cp as the regression coefficient. The resulting Cp values

from 14 IPCC AR4 models ranged from 11 m to 50 m, with a 14-model average of 27 m, while a

similar regression on the 10+ years of satellite data revealed an equivalent mixing depth of 26 m,

which supports our use of 25 m.

AGW is heavily politicized, therefore it helps to see where the money is ultimately coming from to determine possible conflicts of interest.

Yes, and both sides are guilty of this. Take a look at The Weather Channel for example.

They heavily promote AGW, and every single meteorologist there is a warmer, when multiple studies have shown that a large majority of meteorologists are skeptical on this issue.

The Weather Channel is owned by NBC which is owned by GE. General Electric. One of the world's biggest Green Energy Companies.

[Snow_Miser]

you asked me for scientific proof and? I provided it.

You didn't answer any of my questions.

So because rebuttals got published against the Spencer paper, automatically means that it is wrong and can be discredited? When Spencer gets a rebuttal to Dessler, does that mean that Dessler's paper can also be discredited as well?

I wrote the above because you had initially said...

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 then asked,

You haven't answered my question. What has disproved Dr. Spencer's 2011 paper?

To where you reply:

you're honestly unfamiliar with these scientific responses to it?

This gives me the impression that you believe that once a rebuttal gets published to a paper means that the original paper is now automatically complete garbage. I wonder if you would say the same thing if it were the other way around, and Spencer got his paper published that refuted Dessler...

So wxtrix, using your logic, can we throw Dessler 2011 in the garbage and not seriously use it as support once Spencer and Braswell 2012 gets published, since a scientific paper would have rebutted its (Dessler 2011's) arguments?

Dr. Spencer's paper that rebuts Dessler 2011 hasn't gotten published quite yet, it has not even gotten accepted yet, but I will post it here once it gets accepted, and once it gets published.

[The_Global_Warmer]

What about the massive snow deficit between 50-90N during March-July and the Sea Ice Deficit?

Combined that is quite a bit of albedo change from snow to land and from ice/snow to water over the max sun period.

Clearly while the rest of the Earth is in a cooling phase the arctic is carrying the Global Warming right now. And those are the two major reasons outside of increased GHGs.

What does the most recent data on this say?

The last few springs have seen tremendous snow cover deficits in May and June of 4-5 million Square Kilometers. As well as the lowest sea ice extent/area on record the last 5 years.

[WeatherRusty]

I looked in the paper, and no where does it say anything about a 1000m mixed layer. Why don't you point out to me where you see this in the paper?

I found that Spencer and Braswell use of a mixed layer of 25 meters, which they give good and solid reasoning for doing so:

Yes, and both sides are guilty of this. Take a look at The Weather Channel for example.

They heavily promote AGW, and every single meteorologist there is a warmer, when multiple studies have shown that a large majority of meteorologists are skeptical on this issue.

The Weather Channel is owned by NBC which is owned by GE. General Electric. One of the world's biggest Green Energy Companies.

Their (Weather Channel) responsibilty is to report the science as determined and accepted by the majority of research scientists, academic institutions, the NAS, AMS, AGU etc. etc... It is not their responsibility to grant credibility to a politically motivated opposing viewpoint or any other viewpoint.