WTOP - Live Stream on Climate Change

[WeatherRusty]

I am unsure what you are trying to argue here.

Your entire point seems to be that there are other factors out there which can account for the bulk of 20th century warming.

By doing a quick calculation of solar radiative forcing based on the currently accepted variation in TSI since preindustrial times (1750) I have showed you how the understood changes in solar output are converted to a radiative forcing. Since we are not really certain that the intrinsic solar change has been exactly 1.3 watts there exists a range of uncertainty (0.6 watts to 0.30 watts) in the actual radiative forcing, which is not the same as the change in solar output.

So you now understand this back of the envelope (very close by the way) determination of solar radiative forcing and how it calculated.

If you are trying to replace the need for CO2 forcing, currently at about 1.6 watts, the number 7 very nicely magnifies the solar forcing to equal that of CO2 forcing to this present time. Is that just a coincidence do you think?

BTW ....... 0.3C per watt of forcing represents the linear relationship between radiant energy and temperature as determined by Max Planck. It's how we get nearly 1.2C of warming from 3.7w/m^2.

[Jonger]

Your entire point seems to be that there are other factors out there which can account for the bulk of 20th century warming.

By doing a quick calculation of solar radiative forcing based on the currently accepted variation in TSI since preindustrial times (1750) I have showed you how the understood changes in solar output are converted to a radiative forcing. Since we are not really certain that the intrinsic solar change has been exactly 1.3 watts there exists a range of uncertainty (0.6 watts to 0.30 watts) in the actual radiative forcing, which is not the same as the change in solar output.

So you now understand this back of the envelope (very close by the way) determination of solar radiative forcing and how it calculated.

If you are trying to replace the need for CO2 forcing, currently at about 1.6 watts, the number 7 very nicely magnifies the solar forcing to equal that of CO2 forcing to this present time. Is that just a coincidence do you think?

BTW ....... 0.3C per watt of forcing represents the linear relationship between radiant energy and temperature as determined by Max Planck. It's how we get nearly 1.2C of warming from 3.7w/m^2.

Lost me.. what is this 7 you keep referring to?

[Snow_Miser]

Lost me.. what is this 7 you keep referring to?

The total forcing observed during a solar cycle has been observed to be up to seven times the TSI forcing, which strongly suggests that an amplifying mechanism must be amplifying changes in the sun's total solar irradiance, most likely, this amplifying mechanism is as a result of GCRs.

[Snow_Miser]

If you are trying to replace the need for CO2 forcing, currently at about 1.6 watts, the number 7 very nicely magnifies the solar forcing to equal that of CO2 forcing to this present time. Is that just a coincidence do you think?

BTW ....... 0.3C per watt of forcing represents the linear relationship between radiant energy and temperature as determined by Max Planck. It's how we get nearly 1.2C of warming from 3.7w/m^2.

Multiple analyses have confirmed that there is an additional amplifying mechanism other than TSI during the course of the solar cycle.

According to Marsden and Lingenfelter 2002, Kirkby and Laaksonen 2000 found that the GCR forcing during the solar cycle through low cloud variations is about -1.2 w/m^2. During the course of the 11 year solar cycle, the TSI from the sun fluctuates by about 1 w/m^2, which, when accounting for Earth's geometry and albedo would represent a forcing of around 0.175 w/m^2.

Using Kirkby (who happens to be the lead author of the CERN research taking place right now)'s finding that GCRs create a forcing of around -1.2 w/m^2 during the solar cycle is remarkably consistent with Shaviv's work that the GCR forcing is around 7 times as large as the TSI forcing during the solar cycle.

Since how much TSI has increased over the 20th Century is still relatively uncertain, it is truly unknown what the solar contribution, including the amplification from a decrease in Low Cloud Cover really is.

[Snow_Miser]

Eyeballing Lean, Bradley and Beer 1995's reconstruction of TSI, it seems that TSI has increased by roughly 3.5 w/m^2 since the 1600-1700s, which would represent a TSI forcing of around 0.61 w/m^2 after you account for Earth's geometry and albedo. Using the GCR amplifyer, you get a forcing of around 4.3 w/m^2 from the sun, and would represent the sun contributing to 73% to the warming observed over the last century using this analysis, remarkably close to previous estimates from Scafetta and West. The amount of warming from natural causes might be even higher, since it can not be ruled out that internal climate variability plays an important role in the changing climate as well. (Mochizuki et. al 2010) (Wyatt et. al 2012)

[ben4vols]

If you honestly think this combined with some nonsensical conspiracy theorist rants, than please never post again. TIA.

It's sad to see meteorologists get brainwashed with this stuff. I also like the conspiracy angle, even though I have never mentioned a conspiracy.

[winterymix]

http://www.agu.org/j...4/2009RG000282/

A primary conclusion of the paper is this, "Extensive climate model studies have indicated that the models can only reproduce the late twentieth century warming when anthropogenic forcing is included, in addition to the solar and volcanic forcings [IPCC, 2007..."

Is someone here arguing otherwise? Really?

[Snow_Miser]

I was assuming a a constant climate sensitivity, but yes, you have to assume a lower climate sensitivity if the forcing has been doubled above what most consensus estimates use.

Agreed with your first point WxUSAF, I was merely citing those papers to show that there is an observational and detectable GCR signal in the atmospheric parameters and temperatures. Other papers like Kirkby et. al 2000 and Shaviv 2008 have documented that the total forcing during the solar cycle is about 7 times higher than what you would expect with TSI alone.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p1275t4383874p65/

If you assume a blackbody sensitivity of 3.3 w/m^2, you would get an anthropogenic forcing of temperatures to be 0.48 Degrees C since 1750, with nearly all of this forcing occuring during the 20th Century. With sensitivity estimates like from the NASA TERRA satellite showing sensitivities of around 8.3 w/m^2, the contribution of anthropogenic forcings dramatically reduces to a minor effect.

If we assume a climate sensitivity of around 8.3 w/m^2, we get an anthropogenic rise in temperatures since 1750 to be 0.19 Degrees C, with nearly all of that increase happening during the 20th Century.

That is why determining how sensitive climate is to an increase in CO2 is very important for attributing past climate change to various factors.

[winterymix]

It's sad to see meteorologists get brainwashed with this stuff. I also like the conspiracy angle, even though I have never mentioned a conspiracy.

I know WxUSAF; you can learn from the man. Ben4vols should be "read only" status in this forum.

[Snow_Miser]

A primary conclusion of the paper is this, "Extensive climate model studies have indicated that the models can only reproduce the late twentieth century warming when anthropogenic forcing is included, in addition to the solar and volcanic forcings [iPCC, 2007..."

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/06/judithgate-ipcc-relied-on-one-solar.html

The IPCC did not extensively look into alternative viewpoints besides the anthropogenic viewpoint, which is a finding that the IAC report highlighted.

They also had only one solar scientist to evaluate the solar contribution to past climate change, and when she did so, she cited her own piece of scientific literature to back up her statements.

Essentially, in a short summary, the IPCC replied one one solar scientist who agreed with herself to determine the solar contribution to past climate change over the 20th Century.

[ben4vols]

I know WxUSAF; you can learn from the man. Ben4vols should be "read only" status in this forum.

I'd be glad to learn if he provides some material that would be worthy of learning.

[Sickman]

I'd be glad to learn if he provides some material that would be worthy of learning.

Worthy of learning???

Apparently the only things you find "worthy of learning" are things that you already agree with. Is that learning?

You'd be best served to tone down the vitrol, especially with a degreed met.

[WeatherRusty]

Agreed with your first point WxUSAF, I was merely citing those papers to show that there is an observational and detectable GCR signal in the atmospheric parameters and temperatures. Other papers like Kirkby et. al 2000 and Shaviv 2008 have documented that the total forcing during the solar cycle is about 7 times higher than what you would expect with TSI alone.

http://www.springerl...275t4383874p65/

If you assume a blackbody sensitivity of 3.3 w/m^2, you would get an anthropogenic forcing of temperatures to be 0.48 Degrees C since 1750, with nearly all of this forcing occuring during the 20th Century. With sensitivity estimates like from the NASA TERRA satellite showing sensitivities of around 8.3 w/m^2, the contribution of anthropogenic forcings dramatically reduces to a minor effect.

If we assume a climate sensitivity of around 8.3 w/m^2, we get an anthropogenic rise in temperatures since 1750 to be 0.19 Degrees C, with nearly all of that increase happening during the 20th Century.

That is why determining how sensitive climate is to an increase in CO2 is very important for attributing past climate change to various factors.

By convention, climate sensitivity is expressed as a temperature response to a standard forcing.

Such as for instance, 0.75C per 1 watt of forcing. Or 0.75C/1w/m^2

What you are showing here is to say 8.3 watts of forcing is required to bring about a transient temperature response equaling 1.0C. Or 1C/8.3w/m^2

Do I have that correct?

If so, then the feedback response would be less than the Planck response at 1.2C / 3.7w/m^2. That is to say the total response including feedback would be less than the Planck response of 1.2C. This would be a climate dominated by negative feedback.

Is that what you believe?

[WeatherRusty]

I'd be glad to learn if he provides some material that would be worthy of learning.

Where I come from, material worthy of learning would be endorsed by the National Academy of Science such as is the case with the general ideas put forth by AGW. The people you have chosen to listen to are operating on the fringes of mainstream science at best. Worth considering maybe, but certainly not to the degree of confidence you place in them.

[cmc0605]

While discussing stuff on the internet is fun, I don't know if there's much point in beating the "solar" dead horse over and over. No one except Snowlover seems to buy it, and it certainly has not gained much reception in the scientific community. To be perfectly blunt, no one serious attaches any credibility to the work of people like Scafetta, Svensmark, Shaviv, West, Soon, and a few others. The reasons are not found in any conspiracy theory, confirmation bias, or gatekeeping, but in the quality of their work, which has repeatedly been shown to not only be "wrong" but full of elementary errors, lack of understanding of basic climate physics, and not at all useful for contributing to our understanding. If there was any solid evidence that cosmic rays had an impact on climate beyond localized correlations, it would have received more acceptance by now. People like Scafetta have now turned to astrology, attempting to explain global warming with things like the orbital influence of Jupiter, etc. It's all odd stuff. It's also unfortunate that these people have given some of the interesting solar-climate work a bad name, but plenty of that "good" work is out there, and doesn't at all support the outlandish claims Snowlover continues to cite as fact. His consistent reliance on very dubious sources explains why he is so confused about the basic physics of climate.

Even worse than this is Joe Bastardi's typical rant about global warming, which as usual, displays complete and under incompetence about the basic physics of climate. He continues to cite irrelevant information about the carbon cycle, erroneous information about water vapor, and idiotic junk about "cycles" which he himself doesn't seem to understand.

The fact is that CO2 has increased by ~40% since the industrial revolution. Its fractional percent by volume with respect to the whole atmosphere is a meaningless quantity, since the bulk of the atmosphere (O2 and N2) have a negligible direct effect on the atmospheric greenhouse effect. The contribution of these gases amounts only to about one half of one percent of the terrestrial greenhouse effect, and can perhaps be comparable to that of methane in very dry regions like Antarctica. But fully 20% of the greenhouse effect is due to CO2, with the rest being due to water vapor and clouds, with only a very small contribution (< 5%) to methane, O3, and other effects. Water vapor does not in any way make up 400x more of the greenhouse effect than CO2. But because water vapor and clouds are essentially controlled by temperature, this makes CO2 the controlling "knob" that regulates the strength of Earth's greenhouse effect. That CO2 acts as the core skeleton behind the greenhouse effect, and is amplified by the effects of water vapor and clouds, is unique amongst neighboring planetary situations.

[ben4vols]

Worthy of learning???

Apparently the only things you find "worthy of learning" are things that you already agree with. Is that learning?

You'd be best served to tone down the vitrol, especially with a degreed met.

I didn't start the vitrol, the degreed met did. I'm a degreed engineer, do I not get special preference?

[csnavywx]

The total forcing observed during a solar cycle has been observed to be up to seven times the TSI forcing, which strongly suggests that an amplifying mechanism must be amplifying changes in the sun's total solar irradiance, most likely, this amplifying mechanism is as a result of GCRs.

This assertion simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny. TSI/GCR changes should exert a relatively uniform change, but that's not what we observe. Instead, we see an increase in tropospheric temperature, a decrease in stratospheric temperature and preferential warming in the Arctic and at the margins. In addition, we have not seen a long term change or trend in GCRs. Low-level cloud cover data is inadequate to make much of any definite determination. TSI as a result of solar cycles has no statistically significant long term trend.

This is all from easily sought out data and studies. The small minority of studies that suggest otherwise have had some rebuttals with strong arguments.

In short, your argument (while not impossible) is very weak.

[Msalgado]

While discussing stuff on the internet is fun, I don't know if there's much point in beating the "solar" dead horse over and over. No one except Snowlover seems to buy it, and it certainly has not gained much reception in the scientific community. To be perfectly blunt, no one serious attaches any credibility to the work of people like Scafetta, Svensmark, Shaviv, West, Soon, and a few others. The reasons are not found in any conspiracy theory, confirmation bias, or gatekeeping, but in the quality of their work, which has repeatedly been shown to not only be "wrong" but full of elementary errors, lack of understanding of basic climate physics, and not at all useful for contributing to our understanding. If there was any solid evidence that cosmic rays had an impact on climate beyond localized correlations, it would have received more acceptance by now. People like Scafetta have now turned to astrology, attempting to explain global warming with things like the orbital influence of Jupiter, etc. It's all odd stuff. It's also unfortunate that these people have given some of the interesting solar-climate work a bad name, but plenty of that "good" work is out there, and doesn't at all support the outlandish claims Snowlover continues to cite as fact. His consistent reliance on very dubious sources explains why he is so confused about the basic physics of climate.

Even worse than this is Joe Bastardi's typical rant about global warming, which as usual, displays complete and under incompetence about the basic physics of climate. He continues to cite irrelevant information about the carbon cycle, erroneous information about water vapor, and idiotic junk about "cycles" which he himself doesn't seem to understand.

The fact is that CO2 has increased by ~40% since the industrial revolution. Its fractional percent by volume with respect to the whole atmosphere is a meaningless quantity, since the bulk of the atmosphere (O2 and N2) have a negligible direct effect on the atmospheric greenhouse effect. The contribution of these gases amounts only to about one half of one percent of the terrestrial greenhouse effect, and can perhaps be comparable to that of methane in very dry regions like Antarctica. But fully 20% of the greenhouse effect is due to CO2, with the rest being due to water vapor and clouds, with only a very small contribution (< 5%) to methane, O3, and other effects. Water vapor does not in any way make up 400x more of the greenhouse effect than CO2. But because water vapor and clouds are essentially controlled by temperature, this makes CO2 the controlling "knob" that regulates the strength of Earth's greenhouse effect. That CO2 acts as the core skeleton behind the greenhouse effect, and is amplified by the effects of water vapor and clouds, is unique amongst neighboring planetary situations.

Excellent post.

[Eric (skeptic)]

The CO2 effect is nonlinear. With no CO2 there would be little water vapor and earth would be an icebox. A small amount of CO2 is all it takes to get out of the frozen state. But rather than a knob, my preferred analogy is an amplifier. Coming out of the last ice age the SH warmed and melted first, releasing CO2 and spreading warmth to the NH. The warmth seems to reach some maximum in the interglacial periods despite what CO2 does. The last interglacial was warmer with similar CO2. Now that we are adding CO2 the amplifier analogy can be tossed, along with the knob analogy. The only pertinent question is weather feedback, sometimes called water vapor feedback [water vapor distribution is controlled by weather and the distribution is all that matters. More concentration of water vapor (dry areas, wet areas) means cooling. More diffuse water vapor (everywhere gets a little more moist) means warming]

The solar contribution was to enhance AGW in the 80's and 90's and retard AGW very recently. The atmospheric temperature response to solar lags the solar just like atmospheric temperature lags CO2. Solar rose up through the mid 80's (using an 11 year average of TSI). That accounts for some of the enhanced warming in the 80's and 90's. There also should be some future cooling (or reduction in warming) from the late 00's solar minimum. But I do not believe the solar contribution is very strong compared to ongoing AGW.

Solar also affects weather, low solar -> more GCR -> more clouds -> ??? and low solar UV -> more blocking -> ??? Those do not have much if any short term effect on atmospheric temperature. But that weather effect is an important consideration in weather feedback because the distribution matters.

[Snow_Miser]

This assertion simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny. TSI/GCR changes should exert a relatively uniform change, but that's not what we observe. Instead, we see an increase in tropospheric temperature, a decrease in stratospheric temperature

The sun can cause stratospheric cooling, because solar storms deplete ozone. This is because during large solar proton storms asssociated with CMEs, the particles interact with the atmosphere to produce chemicals that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, creating stratospheric cooling.

Source: Rodger 2008

During the great geomagnetic storm of 1989, there was a large amount of NOx produced in the stratosphere, and ozone depletion corresponded relatively well to the NOx produced during the solar geomagnetic storm.

Source: http://www.sotere.un...eldreversal.pdf

Winkler et. al 2007

“With decreasing magnetic field strength the impacts on the ozone are found to significantly increase especially in the Southern Hemisphere”

The quote from Winkler et. al 2007 suggests that the Earth's Magnetic Field also modulates the amount of solar protons in addition to the level of solar activity. If there is a profound impact being observed on ozone with the Earth's Magnetic Field decreasing, it indicates that the sun's protons have a major role to play in the depletion of ozone, and stratospheric cooling, since the Earth's magnetic field is modulating them, and a major impact is found between the intensity of the magnetic field and ozone depletion.

The AP Index correlates to the amount of NOx produced, and this relationship is quite strong. As shown above, NOx has a very nice correlation to ozone depletion, suggesting a solar mechanism for ozone depletion and stratospheric cooling, not anthropogenic.

Source: http://www.atmosp.ph...l/day3_Hood.pdf

http://www.scienceda...10802080620.htm

"Solar proton events help us test our models," Jackman said. "This is an instance where we have a huge natural variance. You have to first be able to separate the natural effects on ozone, before you can tease out human-kind's impacts."

http://www.nature.co...ll/449382a.html

The rapid photolysis of Cl₂O₂ is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago² (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.

http://www.cosis.net...U05-A-07446.pdf

A large solar disturbance like a flare or a coronal mass ejection can result in emission of high-energy protons and other ions from the Sun. If these particles reach the Earth they set off a Solar Proton Event (SPE) during which the charged particles precipitate into the Earth’s atmosphere causing ionization in the middle atmosphere. The effect of the SPEs is confined to the polar cap regions, where the particles are guided by the magnetic field. Ion chemistry leads to increased production of odd nitrogen (NOx = N + NO + NO2) and odd hydrogen (HOx = H + OH + HO2) which participate in catalytic reaction cycles that decrease the amount of ozone in middle atmosphere. HOx gases have a short chemical lifetime but the NOx gases are mainly destroyed by photodissociation. Hence during winter, when little or no sunlight is available in the polar atmosphere, the effect of the NOx cycles can be long-lasting. We have used the nighttime observations of mesospheric and stratospheric O3 and NO2 made by the stellar occultation instrument GOMOS on board the European Space Agency’s Envisat satellite to monitor the increase of NO2 and depletion of ozone due to the SPEs of October-November 2003. The results show NO2 enhancement of several hundred per cent and tens of per cent ozone depletion in the stratopause region, an effect which lasts several months after the events.

It should also be noted that anthropogenic CFCs also play a major role in Ozone Depletion as well.

Ozone is a known cause of stratospheric cooling. When ozone declines (due to whatever source) less UVA/UVB rays are absorbed in the stratosphere, and therefore stratospheric cooling occurs.

And of course, if the stratospheric cooling were simply due to GHGs, we would not be observing a recent increase in stratospheric temperatures, propably in response to increasing ozone concentrations due to fewer concentrations of CFCs, and a quieter sun overall.

preferential warming in the Arctic and at the margins.

This is known as Arctic Amplification, and can be expected with any change in temperatures, regardless of cause, and regardless if the temperatures go up or down.

In addition, we have not seen a long term change or trend in GCRs.

That is a blantently false statement.

In Figure 2 of Carslaw et. al 2002 it is shown that there is a long term decrease in GCRs over the 20th Century, which would correspond to a more active sun, as this would mean that there would be more solar wind to prevent GCRs from reaching Earth. It is also shown that in 1992, a record low in GCRs was recorded, indicating record high amounts of solar activity occured during the late-20th Century.

This figure from Dorman 2012 above combines the global temperature anomalies to the Cosmic Ray Flux (CRF) from 1937-1994. There is a very good correspondance between the two variables, suggesting that Cosmic Rays (modulated by solar activity) play a large and dominant role in current climate change.

How about the fact that in the late-20th Century, we experienced the least cumulative amount of GCRs during a solar cycle? (Ogurtsov et. al 2002) Does that mean that there has been no real trend in GCRs either?

"In short, while your argument is not impossible, it is very weak."

[Snow_Miser]

I may disagree with CMC, but at least I have enough courtesy to not accuse my opponents of not understanding the basic physics of the climate.

[WxUSAF]

I didn't start the vitrol, the degreed met did. I'm a degreed engineer, do I not get special preference?

Conspiracy theories don't belong on a science forum. I'm sure you can get plenty of that elsewhere. If you have doubts about AGW, come at them with science. Although I disagree with Snowlover and am skeptical about such a significant warming from GCRs and solar effects, what he has posted has come almost entirely from peer-reviewed journals. That's how science works. The idea that CO2 has a very limited effect on the atmosphere and climate is absolutely preposterous. The most basic understanding of radiative transfer and physics shows that. It's almost as bad as JB saying "CO2 is not a well-mixed gas" and can't be causing AGW because of that. It's foolish.

[Snow_Miser]

By convention, climate sensitivity is expressed as a temperature response to a standard forcing.

Such as for instance, 0.75C per 1 watt of forcing. Or 0.75C/1w/m^2

What you are showing here is to say 8.3 watts of forcing is required to bring about a transient temperature response equaling 1.0C. Or 1C/8.3w/m^2

Do I have that correct?

If so, then the feedback response would be less than the Planck response at 1.2C / 3.7w/m^2. That is to say the total response including feedback would be less than the Planck response of 1.2C. This would be a climate dominated by negative feedback.

Is that what you believe?

I usually re-write the sensitivity as w/m^2/K, because it is easier to determine the temperature response to a forcing, and not the other way around IMO, but you are right, climate sensitivity as defined by the IPCC, is how much warming you would get with a doubling of CO2. How much warming, is determined by how much warming you would get for the forcing, that is, what are the feedbacks in response to this forcing?

Net negative feedback has been confirmed by satellite measurements, numerous peer reviewed papers, and the evidence is still mounting for negative feedback.

If we assume a sensitivity of 8.3 w/m^2/K then this would give you a climate sensitivity of only 0.44 Kelvin, and this means that the radiative forcing of CO2 over the 20th Century (CO2 increased by roughly 30% during the 20th Century) would only give a temperature response from Carbon Dioxide of only 0.13 Kelvin from Carbon Dioxide during the 20th Century.

That is not nearly enough to explain the 20th Century Warming.

[Msalgado]

I may disagree with CMC, but at least I have enough courtesy to not accuse my opponents of not understanding the basic physics of the climate.

Its not an issue of respect. Over the past few days that I've read your posts you've made some glaringly poor comments on basic physics such as thermodynamics regarding the climate system. These statements are going to tell people who understand the science that you do not. Its one thing to have a list of scientific papers to fall back on regarding various subjects and its quite another to actually understand where they fit in the actual context of the scientific discussion.

Perhaps this should be viewed upon as an opportunity to be a bit more introspective. If many people on a forum believe that your scientific knowledge is lacking it is an opportunity to fill the gaps as opposed to complaining about lack of respect.

[Snow_Miser]

The solar contribution was to enhance AGW in the 80's and 90's and retard AGW very recently. The atmospheric temperature response to solar lags the solar just like atmospheric temperature lags CO2. Solar rose up through the mid 80's (using an 11 year average of TSI). That accounts for some of the enhanced warming in the 80's and 90's. There also should be some future cooling (or reduction in warming) from the late 00's solar minimum. But I do not believe the solar contribution is very strong compared to ongoing AGW.

Should also be noted that GCRs reached a record low, and magnetic activity reached a record high in 1992, and this year would represent the all time high in solar activity during the 20th Century.

Source: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/geomag/aastar.html

[WeatherRusty]

Snow,

That last post of yours (#50) seems to be quit good and accurate (well sourced?) with the exception of your insistence that Cosmic Rays play a dominant role in climate change.

However, from what I have read, attribution to stratospheric cooling between ozone depletion and increasing stratospheric CO2 is close to 50% for each.

The problem in most of these matters, it seems to me, is not whether or not some mechanism exists but rather the degree of impact things like cosmic rays, solar TSI etc. actually have relative to the more well understood anthropogenic forcing and particularly that of CO2. You are quick to accept that because it can be demonstrated that a given mechanism exists, and some correlation can be found to the temperature record, that this mechanism plays an important or even dominant role in climate change.

[ben4vols]

Conspiracy theories don't belong on a science forum. I'm sure you can get plenty of that elsewhere. If you have doubts about AGW, come at them with science. Although I disagree with Snowlover and am skeptical about such a significant warming from GCRs and solar effects, what he has posted has come almost entirely from peer-reviewed journals. That's how science works. The idea that CO2 has a very limited effect on the atmosphere and climate is absolutely preposterous. The most basic understanding of radiative transfer and physics shows that. It's almost as bad as JB saying "CO2 is not a well-mixed gas" and can't be causing AGW because of that. It's foolish.

I'm not saying CO2 itself has very little impact, I'm saying what we add has very little impact because of observational evidence. Why have the modeled and hindcasting results been so pitiful? Why has the majority of metric's used to try and obtain a climate sensitivity fall on the low side per doubling of CO2?

As for the conspiracy charge, I never used the word conspiracy. I guess you are referring to my questioning of Arctic temperature reconstruction? I have no idea why they did what they did to Arctic temperatures. It could be a conspiracy I guess or it could be any number of other things. Whatever it is, it doesn't make sense. There is no good explanation for why they cooled the past and warmed the present for 20 out of 23 stations, which are used to extrapolate the temperature for the Arctic as a whole. What bearing does that manipulation have on down the line when computing the global warming signal? Is it going to give a false positive signal? Is it going to exaggerate a slightly positive signal?

As I have told WeatherRusty, I don't disagree with the Physics of AGW I disagree with the many obviously incorrect assumptions.

[WeatherRusty]

I'm not saying CO2 itself has very little impact, I'm saying what we add has very little impact because of observational evidence. Why have the modeled and hindcasting results been so pitiful? Why has the majority of metric's used to try and obtain a climate sensitivity fall on the low side per doubling of CO2?

As for the conspiracy charge, I never used the word conspiracy. I guess you are referring to my questioning of Arctic temperature reconstruction? I have no idea why they did what they did to Arctic temperatures. It could be a conspiracy I guess or it could be any number of other things. Whatever it is, it doesn't make sense. There is no good explanation for why they cooled the past and warmed the present for 20 out of 23 stations, which are used to extrapolate the temperature for the Arctic as a whole. What bearing does that manipulation have on down the line when computing the global warming signal? Is it going to give a false positive signal? Is it going to exaggerate a slightly positive signal?

As I have told WeatherRusty, I don't disagree with the Physics of AGW I disagree with the many obviously incorrect assumptions.

The real world observational evidence is that global temperature has risen about 0.8C since the advent of the industrial revolution. This didn't happen for no reason, it was forced.

Some of this can be attributed to an increase in solar TSI. <0.08C (radiative forcing 0.12w/m^2 - 0.24w/m^2)

Some of this can be attributed to an increased anthropogenic radiative forcing. ~0.5C (radiative forcing 1.6w/m^2)

The remainder from everything else plus climate feedback.

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

That would be the end of it except we can expect additional warming ( a few tenths more ) since we observe a positive energy imbalance at the TOA.

Really, how far out of expectation is this transient response from what is expected for a climate sensitivity =0.75C/watt of radiative forcing? (about 3C per doubling of CO2)

Answer: not much

[Snow_Miser]

However, from what I have read, attribution to stratospheric cooling between ozone depletion and increasing stratospheric CO2 is close to 50% for each.

The problem in most of these matters, it seems to me, is not whether or not some mechanism exists but rather the degree of impact things like cosmic rays, solar TSI etc. actually have relative to the more well understood anthropogenic forcing and particularly that of CO2. You are quick to accept that because it can be demonstrated that a given mechanism exists, and some correlation can be found to the temperature record, that this mechanism plays an important or even dominant role in climate change.

If CO2 had about an equal effect as ozone depletion for stratospheric cooling, we would simply observe a flatline in the stratospheric temperatures when ozone levels started to increase in 1995.

Instead we observe an increase.

That is why I maintain that ozone depletion likely is responsible for most of the observed stratospheric cooling since the 1950s.

As for your second point, I have posted paper after paper showing that the sun has an important effect to play in current climate change.

[WeatherRusty]

If CO2 had about an equal effect as ozone depletion for stratospheric cooling, we would simply observe a flatline in the stratospheric temperatures when ozone levels started to increase in 1995.

Instead we observe an increase.

That is why I maintain that ozone depletion likely is responsible for most of the observed stratospheric cooling since the 1950s.

As for your second point, I have posted paper after paper showing that the sun has an important effect to play in current climate change.

My bottom line is this. I am not smart enough (I don't believe anyone is) to assimilate all the material being thrown about in this debate. I depend on the collective scientific consensus as endorsed by organizations such as the National Academy of Science to help me sort all this out.

I understand the physical basis for AGW fairly well and it fits in nicely with my general scientific understanding. I find very little conflict with mainstream scientific principles if any. You can provide studies in support of what you are doing here, all well and good, but if the collective opinion of the scientific community is that those studies fail to convince what is someone like me, who admits to not knowing it all supposed to think? Am I to throw out all that I find very convincing because Snowlover123 is convinced otherwise by studies which have not given rise to mainstream acceptance?