Dr Jack Barrett, of the Scientific Alliance wrote the paper entitled ‘Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere,’ to explain the properties of radiatively active molecules and how they affect the Earth’s atmosphere.
The spectroscopic properties of the molecules are incorporated into general circulation models (GCMs) and are used to indicate various degrees of enhancement of global warming caused by increases in their concentrations. Some climate sceptics hold the opinion that greenhouse gases have very little effect on the temperature of the atmosphere and the main body of climatologists, represented by the IPCC, state that they have a considerable effect, leading to a temperature rise of between 3 and 11 degrees C for a doubling of carbon dioxide. In my opinion, and in those of many climate sceptics, such results represent an exaggeration of the phenomenon and that a doubling of carbon dioxide should produce about 1 degree C rise in atmospheric temperature. One of the main positive feedbacks used by the IPCC to obtain their results is that of the spectroscopic effect of additional water vapour resulting from the rise of temperature following an increase in CO2. They seem not to allow for the extra water vapour contributing to greater cloud coverage, which is a negative feedback effect dependent upon the non-spectroscopic properties of water. Until such effects are properly incorporated into GCMs their results will not be acceptable to climate sceptics.
Warwick, it has been understood since the late ’90s that clouds are not a substantial net negative feedback. Different types of clouds under different circumstances have varying feedbacks. See pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1999/YaoDelGenio.html, plus there’s a thorough discussion at www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/delgenio_03/. Having read the paper, I must say I’m a bit confused. From the paragraph you wrote I was expecting a critique of climate sensitivity, but instead it just describes the physics of greenhouse gases (all of which was completely worked out years ago) and after analyzing *nothing* states this conclusion: "In addition to the properties of the GHGs, those of clouds, other aerosols and particulate matter are built into model programmes with a considerable degree of parametric uncertainty. The GCMs take feedbacks into account, such as the supposed positive feedback from extra warming caused by the absorption of radiation by extra water vapour. Such feedbacks have to be parameterised and although they may contribute a greater reality to the models, they also introduce extra uncertainties." Well, OK, all the modelers agree that the models contain uncertainties and that how the models handle them is important. Other than the use of the loaded word "supposed" this paper seems not to contain any critical discussion of the GCMs or of greenhouse theory in general. What’s the point?
Well, a little googling finds that ten years ago Jack Barrett sought to promote the view that CO2 sensitivity is… zero. He didn’t have great success: rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/esef_thread.txt.
Steve, you characterize the cloud feedback issue as settled, but that’s hardly the case. Clouds remain a problem for GCMs and any predictions they produce. Global albedo trends imply that there are substantial trends in net cloud reflectively, implying climate forcing far in excess of those claimed for GHGs. Further, this is directly tied to proposed sun-climate links, an issue faithfully ignored by the IPCC.
William, one problem with the role you propose for the sun is that the recent insolation record doesn’t seem to stack up; i.e., the sun’s output has been pretty flat during the last twenty years or so of the recent sharp warming. Clouds are certainly still a problem for GCMs, but the question is whether there is any reason to expect the net forcing to be substantial. So far, not. I’ve seen the albedo material, and while it is interesting it’s very recent and requires further work (which I’m confident is being done). The main thing to bear in mind about the albedo changes, assuming they’re real and assuming they’re related to an increase in cloud cover, is that (as the paper discusses) clouds are a mixed bag in terms of forcing (due to the balancing of reflective and insulative properties). Your conclusion that more clouds would necessarily equal a substantial net positive forcing is unsupported by the science.
I should clarify that the conclusion that clouds wom’t result in a substantial net forcing globally is far from saying that cloud feedback is settled for the models. The models need to be able to replicate observed cloud behavior. Once this is done, some of the uncertainty in the models will go away and (more importantly) the models will become much more useful in terms of regional climate predictions. Bear in mind also that the cloud issue is closely tied to aerosols (both as part of the general problem of modeling the atmosphere and due to their role in cloud behavior). There was an important paper in Nature last month showing that aerosol forcing has been underestimated by something like 1.5C; i.e., aerosols, which are in the process of being reduced for good public health reasons, are currently keeping the climate 1.5C cooler than it would otherwise be.
The whole "debate" Steve has been conducted in a manner guaranteed to antagonize rather than inform. For example, the typical debate tactic of climate alarmists like yourself, is to make categoric statements with out reference to any facts but which are found upon investigation to be the assumptions made on climate models which assign low sensitivity to solar variation and high sensitivity to trace gases like carbon dioxide. Then, as an added bonus, "aerosol forcing" is added as if anyone had any clue about how to measure aerosols in the atmosphere, let alone be able to assign a sign to the forcing, rather than an invented parameter created by modellers to prevent their climate models from heating up to the level of Venus..
Thus we have categoric dismissal of solar variation based on the proposition whose result is already assumed to be wrong because that’s how the climate models are programmed. Not so much a circular argument as a Moebius argument – an argument constructed with a half twist so that there is only one side.
Anyone who points out these dishonest rhetorical devices gets labelled a "contrarian" or because alarmists have no shame, a "denier".
Douglas Hoyt is a solar scientist. He might have something to say about solar variation being "pretty flat in the last 20 years". Something like "a travesty" might come from his keyboard. Warwick might have something to say about the ability of climate models to predict anything at all even a few months in advance, with some pretty pictures.
Also, if you’re going to trash the scientific credentials of a scientist who you disagree with, then googling to a 11 year old e-mail conversation where a speculation is discussed isn’t quite the same as having your favorite multiproxy study debunked repeatedly in the very same scientific publication as the original and questions asked in Congress. In fact, its not even close.
But of course for Steve Bloom, never let consideration of what people say get in the way of blatent character assassination. Was Dr Jack Barrett wrong in the article mentioned in the original post? Is Jack Barrett’s scientific credibility hinge upon an 11-year-old e-mail conversation or on something more substantive that Steve Bloom could not possibly hope to achieve?
Here’s your solar facts, John A. (ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103):
“In 2003, the NASA Living With a Star Program commissioned an interdisciplinary Task Group, which I chaired, to consider what is now known or suspected of the effects of solar variations on terrestrial climate; to frame the outstanding questions that currently limit progress; and to define current needs in Sun-Climate research. The full text of our report, which is also available in printed form and on the web at lws.gsfc.nasa.gov is included here.
“(…)
“For a system in thermal equilibrium, the theoretical sensitivity of the mean temperature of the surface of the Earth to direct solar irradiance forcing can be approximated using a simple Stefan-Boltzmann radiation model. On this basis, and in the absence of any feedbacks, a 0.1% increase in TSI (the measured peak-to-peak change over an eleven-year solar cycle) would be expected to raise the mean surface temperature of the Earth by about 0.05oC.
“It is of course more meaningful to determine the parameter empirically, as has recently been done, using sophisticated analyses of globally-complete meteorological data sets for the twenty-five year period for which direct
measurements of TSI are available. When the known effects of the other dominant forcing mechanisms are subtracted—including El Niño/La Niña, volcanic eruptions, and the documented increases in greenhouse gases and
atmospheric aerosols—a clear eleven-year modulation remains, in phase with the solar activity cycle. If one assumes that variations in solar irradiance are the cause, the amplitude of the apparently solar-driven modulation in surface temperature is about two times greater, as noted earlier, than simple theory would predict.”
So, according to this large group of leading US solar scientists, this gets us a *peak* solar effect of .1oC, with no reason to expect it to increase in the future. Note especially that this latter, higher calculation is the one not involving a model.
Regarding Jack Barrett:
The only thing I found even faintly objectionable on the linked article was his use of the adjective “supposed” in his concluding paragraph. My main point was that after an exposition about the physical chemistry of GHGs (wholly accurate so far as I know, albeit having been settled science for many years) , he stuck on a wholly unrelated paragraph asserting that models have uncertainties. Um, OK, but why bother disseminating an article that except for that one adjective says things about which there is no disagreement from anyone? Well, whatever, it’s Warwick’s blog and he can fill it up as he chooses.
Just so we’re clear, that second longer paragraph in the post was written by Warwick and mostly contains material that wasn’t in the referenced article. It led me to believe that the article would have *something* about CO2 climate sensitivity, but it didn’t. Warwick’s last point about clouds necessarily being a negative feedback is simply wrong, and I did link to a paper stating that.
Having never heard of Jack Barrett, I googled him. Other than the article Warwick linked to, there was very little. He’s a chemistry professor, I would assume perfectly well-qualified in his field, who has been not especially active as a climate skeptic for a dozen years or so. I thought his “speculation” (published in the New Scientist, meaning that he went to some effort to develop and promote the idea) was one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard, although probably it sounded better in 1995 when people knew less. In any case, the idea is close enough to his field of expertise that it seemed like something of a fraud to me. It sounds as if the scientific reaction to that article caused him to pull his head in for a while.
Steve Bloom:
Bullshit. It was character assassination by google. I’ve no idea what you think are "the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever heard", but the idea that carbon dioxide has negligable effect on temperature is the least ridiculous, particularly considering that all high resolution ice core records show carbon dioxide rise to FOLLOW temperature rise by between 6 and ten centuries. There are no exceptions.
I’ve no idea what Jack Barrett thought best, but the hothouse political atmosphere of smear, innuendo and character assassination of scientists by green ideologues would make any scientist reluctant to stick his head above the parapet.
Can’t resist inserting your spin into the text can you? There is no reference to future expectations of solar behavior. And furthermore you ignore the massive simplification used:
The Earth’s ocean/atmosphere system is NOT in thermal equilibrium. Which is fortunate because we’d all be dead. As other studies have shown, the mean temperature (whatever that means) of the Earth is very closely correlated not simply to the peak-to-peak solar irradiance, but also to the length of the solar cycle, and has been for several hundred years at least.
On the aerosols, it appears that somebody thinks a sign can be assigned: www.met-office.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2005/pr20051221.html. Actually I don’t think the idea that aerosols are a definite negative forcing is even faintly controversial. Also see the interesting note at the bottom: “Aerosols also have an indirect effect on climate through their interaction with clouds, which is not included in this study. This additional effect complicates the relationship between aerosol cooling and future climate warming.” Hey, wait, didn’t I say that?
Finally, John A., you’ll be thrilled to know I’ve got a brand-new favorite multi-proxy study: www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5757/63. It’s got everything anyone could want in a paleo paper, including PCs and a graph resembling a certain sporting implement dear to Canadians. (Yeah, a curling broom. :)) Feel free to have at it! Man(n) are you guys going to have your hands full when the AR4 comes out.
John A.: “all high resolution ice core records show carbon dioxide rise to FOLLOW temperature rise by between 6 and ten centuries. There are no exceptions.” Here’s an exception, and kind of a prominent one: www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/lea/pdfs/Lea%20JCLI%202004.pdf. See figure 3.
On the solar climate sensitivity stuff, please pay attention. As was stated very clearly in the quoted passage, the analysis relying on the model gave a result of .05oC, whereas the empiracally-derived one (look, mom, no model!) gave the larger .1oC result. As for my comment on the future, here’s the quote from the document:
“A number of studies have postulated the existence of solar irradiance changes, acting over time scales of decades, which are from two to four times greater in amplitude than the 0.1% eleven-year change that has thus far been observed. An initial reason for suspecting that such variations might exist came from early
interpretations of observations of a limited number of Sun-like stars. But as explained in Section IV, the reality of this initial interpretation has since been called in question by other and more extensive stellar data.
“Other reasons for suspecting the existence of possible larger-amplitude, longer term activity-related changes in TSI include an apparent correlation between the Spörer and Maunder minima of solar activity in the 15th through the early 18th centuries and particularly cold epochs of the contemporaneous Little Ice Age, and the close correspondence between features in the paleoclimate record of the Holocene with what is known of the behavior of solar activity from proxy data during the same epochs. But these apparent associations are with indices of solar activity and not necessarily solar irradiance. While irradiance changes are arguably the most likely solar cause, they are but one of several activity-related variations in the output of the star.”
In other words, there’s no reason to expect an increase in the future.
(BTW, the link I gave was incomplete; the correct one is ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf.)
Steve Bloom clearly has a comprehension problem.
Erm. I said "high resolution ice core studies". Not just "ice core studies". The graph you show doesn’t resolve which comes first, the temperature or the carbon dioxide rise. I repeat for the terminally dim: "…all high resolution ice core records show carbon dioxide rise to FOLLOW temperature rise by between 6 and ten centuries. There are no exceptions." So unless you’d like to explain how carbon dioxide forcing can travel back in time eight hundred years to cause warming, then I’d suggest you stop blitzing the comments on this blog with studies you fail to comprehend. Similarly:
Here’s what it says:
The Stefan-Boltzmann radiation model is for "black bodies" and is E = sigma x Temp ^4 where sigma is Stefan’s constant. It’s not exactly the model you were thinking of, was it? Perhaps you’re just not bright enough to work out the difference between a theortetic model of a blackbody in thermal equlibrium, and the Earth which, erm, isn’t. As for your fascination with multiproxy studies, try www.bu.edu/cees/people/faculty/kaufmann/documents/Model-temporal-relation.pdf where all multiproxy studies are demolished for poor statistical analyses, in particular failure to deal with autocorrelation and other types of persistence.
Try Steve McIntyre’s analysis of tree ring sensitivities, which are used universally in multiproxy studies, despite not one of them having done the spadework of suggesting how tree-rings actually vary with temperature.
I note that you don’t try to defend the Mann Hockey Stick any more. I wonder if google your name, I might find the evolution of your belief in its utility might have changed (and rather quicker than 11 years)
Steve, I did not write the intro. Jack Barrett did.
Warwick, my apologies for that incorrect assumption (based on the paragraph not being part of the paper). I do think you should have noticed that the paragraph really had very little to do with the contents of the paper, though. Maybe you could ask Jack to submit something that relates the two.
John A., it is utterly pointless for you and I to debate anything related to the hockey team.
Regarding solar sensitivity, as I noted (and you ignored), the linked document discusses two completely separate approaches. The first one (giving the .05oC result) uses a model. The second one (giving the .1oC result) does not. Putting it another way, the .1oC sensitivity result has *nothing* to do with any model. One begins to get the impression that you understand this perfectly but just refuse to admit it because your debate style involves never conceding a single point on anything.
Regarding Kaufman, I’m sure the AR4 will fully reflect the value of his contribution. Does he really have precognition with respect to multi-proxy studies he hasn’t even seen? Very impressive, if so.
Finally, I suspect anyone reading this will find it a bit strange that John A(nonymous) threatens to dig up dirt on others by googling them. One has to go all the back to Norse mythology to find a fitting term for that sort of behavior.
Oh, and on the ice core business: John A., you’re right that Figure 3 shows CO2 leading the temp changes but does not relate that back to the ice cores. You would see that connection made if you were to take the time to read the whole study. (And you might as well start now given the prominence this material will have in the AR4.) From the conclusion:
“Tropical SST variations spanning the last half million years are dominated by the 100 000-yr cycle. A proposed
hypothesis to explain this observation is that varying atmospheric carbon dioxide abundances, which are a likely source of 100-kyr variability in paleoclimate records (Shackleton 2000), are directly forcing tropical climate on long orbital time scales. This hypothesis is tested by comparing a 360-kyr tropical SST record from the Cocos Ridge, north of the Galapagos Islands, with the Vostok atmospheric CO2 record. The comparison indicates that the two records have a strong overall correspondence (r 5 0.84) and are highly coherent with no phase offset at 100 and 41 kyr, supporting a greenhouse gas mechanism as the dominant control of tropical climate change. The phasing provides an explanation for the observed lead of tropical SST relative to ice volume (Lea et al. 2000), because atmospheric CO2 changes early in the climate cycle (Petit et al. 1999; Shackleton 2000). Integrating the available observations suggests that atmospheric CO2, Antarctic temperature, and tropical temperature all changed early in the climate cycle relative to ice volume.”
So, broadly speaking, orbital changes => CO2 changes => tropical SST changes => ice volume changes. Let me know if there’s anything else you need clarified.
Steve B,
I would like to read the Task Force Report referred to by you, as part of the LWS program, but I cannot locate it in the reference given. Is it possible to be more specific. I can get the file dealing with the Sun Earth Connection with its very impressive material, but not a document that looks like a task force report.
Malcolm Hill
Apart from theoretical considerations, is there any laboratory data supporting the global warming hypothesis?
Still unable to summarize correctly, Steve?
Do you just require remedial English comprehension or is it all down to stupidity and a blindness to reality?
The quote says that “atmospheric CO2, Antarctic temperature, and tropical temperature all changed early in the climate cycle relative to ice volume”, it does not say in which order.
The high resolution ice cores show that CO2 rise happens some 800 years after the temperature starts rising (probably as a result of orbital changes) and continue rising for 800 years after the temperature has stopped rising or begun to fall. All of them. Every single one. Which indicates that carbon dioxide is a delayed response to climatic warming and not the dread forcing of climate warming that some climate modellers and other fantasists would have us believe.
See for example, ‘Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination’ by Monnin et al (Science, vol.291, p.112, 5 Jan 2001)
Why is it that it takes you three long comments to foul up and three sentences for me to point out the simple foul-ups?
Of course not Steve. The model referred to was a simple relation between energy and temperature for a blackbody which any physics undergrad would have recognized. The second was an empirical model which some account of the fact that the Earth is not a blackbody at equilibrium.
Stop whining. Your arse is being kicked because you spout nonsense which you expect other people to believe without any evidence.
Unless of course, it happens to be Dr Jack Barrett, and you don’t like his conclusions, in which case you’re all for it. Interesting isn’t it, that I threaten to google your name to find out what other crap you’ve spouted, and you suddenly come up with brazen hypocricy like this? Yes my last name is anonymous and that’s to protect against psychopaths who can’t distinguish between reality and propaganda.
It’s revealing that your knowledge is based on mythology. How very appropriate.
Louis – “Apart from theoretical considerations, is there any laboratory data supporting the global warming hypothesis?”
No someone just made it all up. What do you think??????????
Ender,
correct – anthrpogenic global warming was invented.
Oh, here you are ‘John A’.
I see you’re still inventing complaints about the tactics of those you disagree with and then using that invention as an excuse to busily insult, (it’s ‘stupidy’, ‘blindness’ and ‘kicking their arses’ atm I see…), them for all your worth. I think Steve Bloom can look after himself – he’s certainly more than a match for you.
Besides, aren’t you a bit far from hom? Steve let you off the lease did he?
Ah yes, Peter Hearnden, farmer and self-styled climate expert, whose sole job it appears (in between milking the cows) is to make stupid ad hominem attacks on people he doesn’t like and hypocritical attacks when they reply in kind.
Louis – and of course all the worlds climate scientists are just misguided blind fools who do not have the benefit of your intelligence and wisdom to realise this.
It was -6C in Delhi today, the lakes partially froze and some natives saw frost on the grass for the first time.
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25689-1976818,00.html
Of course, this is all caused by global warming.
Very ‘John A’ ish. If you READ the article it say’s:
“Officials in Delhi ordered schools to shut for three days as the temperature fell to -2C (28.4F), the lowest in the city since 1935, when -6 (21.2C) was reached. The Indian Meteorological Department said: “The normal temperature at this time is 7C. We predicted it would drop to 2C to 3C, not three times as much, as has happened.”
Supriya Singh, a fashion designer from Noida, on the outskirts of Delhi, said: “I was born here and this is the first time I have seen ice on grass.”
See how an actual reading of -2C becomes a record breaking -6C and that a lake in Srinagar, Indian Kashmir miles away becomes part of Delhi. I guess that’s what you wanted to see…
Gidday Peter Hearnden, Maaate, I think you owe me some examples of where I see comspiracies. Remember your comment on my "BoM moves the goal posts". I sincerely hope you are learning something over here Peter.
The web site provided by Steve Bloom for the Living with a Star program shows that the whole program is being mounted precisely because the earths weather/climate is affected by the sun. To quote the programs own material.
1)” Solar variability can affect where we live”,2) “Solar Variability can affect Terrestial Climate”, 3) “the Sun’s finger prints are showing up all over the climate records.The 11 year and 22 year sunspot cylces have turned up in other analyses of ocean temperatures, and in ice cores.”.
This is according to the Goddard Space Flight Centre,the Goddard Lab for Atmosphere, Data Assimiliation Office.
It is pretty clear to me that one way or other, the sun is a primary driver of climate.
Continuing from Malcolm Hill’s comment, the solar input to climate is now also being recognised as electrical too, an hitherto unsuspected source of energy. There is even now a suspicion that earthquakes are possibly subterrean electric discharges. As these are also associated with transient surface thermal anomalies, these sources of energy must also affect the earth’s weather and thus climate.
Malcolm – yes you have it in a nutshell. The sun IS the primary driver of climate and when you trap more of it’s heat with more and more greenhouse gases, guess what, the climate may change.
Well – bugger me- who would have thought that. And if the Primary drive has various effects that are themselves variable it cant all be just Co2, now can it.?
And indeed it is not all just CO2. Nobody ever said it was. CO2 gets such a focus because a) high levels of it are known to have unfortunate consequences for climate (which is not to say that other things can’t), b) CO2 levels are rising fast and c) we can do something about it. There are a number of other problematic human-caused forcings that we cam also do something about, but CO2 remains the big one. In sharp contrast, things like changes in solar radiance, orbital wobbles and volcanos are rather less within our control.
Malcolm, sorry I missed your prior question on the solar report. The linked document includes the task force report; the link is apparently an artifact from when the summary was circulated as a print document.
Ah, John A., I guess you’ve extracted one last response out of me: Why do you keep referring to a calculation made without benefit of a model as a model? And lest I not mention the context for this, recall that the point of the .1oC irradiance peak figure is that solar changes have amounted to very little during the period of direct observations. Earlier you wrote ‘the quote says that “atmospheric CO2, Antarctic temperature, and tropical temperature all changed early in the climate cycle relative to ice volume”, it does not say in which order.’ Well, at some point I expected that you would follow the link and actually look at the quoted paper. I could have just cut and pasted the whole thing, but Warwick wouldn’t have liked that and you wouldn’t have read it. Anyway, starting with the very first sentence of the paper: "The similarity of Antarctic proxy air temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) records from the Vostok ice core is striking (Petit et al. 1999; Cuffey and Vimeux 2001) and suggests that CO2 is playing a direct role in forcing the observed climate variations over the ice sheet." Later: "The Cocos Ridge SST record bears a strong resemblance in both form and timing to the Vostok ice deuterium/hydrogen (D/H) record, which is a proxy of air temperature over Antarctica (Petit et al. 1999; Lea et al. 2000). This broad similarity suggests a common climate forcing, with the most likely candidate being atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is well mixed throughout the atmosphere and has the potential to link climate change in regions as remote as the Tropics and poles (Genthon et al. 1987; Lorius et al. 1990)." The paper goes on to discuss this relationship in some detail. So there you are: CO2 forces SSTs along with Antarctic air temps, and all of this is related to the Vostok cores.
"high levels of it (CO2) are known to have unfortunate consequences for climate" Known? By whom? What is "unfortunate" about slight warming and higher CO2 concentrations? A warmer, wetter, CO2-fertilized planet doesn’t seem all that scary to me, and sounds rather nice with the expanded areas to farm in and the extra plant growth and such. I’d be much more worried about a 2 mile thick ice sheet covering Chicago as happened in the last ice age (before there was a Chicago, of course).
Oh, I don’t know, try ocean acidification and ice sheet melting (= sea level rise) for starters. It also seems to be the case that most of the studies on the effects of *rapid* increases in CO2 and temps on the biosphere show them to be not so good. If it was all much slower, these problems would perhaps not be an issue with the exception of sea level rise. I say "perhaps" because even if they were to happen slowly the combination of temp-driven large-scale regional climate shifts such as the loss of the Tibetan ice cap (already in rapid progress) and the conversion of the Amazon rain forest to savanna might turn out to be a net negative.
Considering that the period in question, the global mean temperature of the Earth (whatever that means) rose by 0.19C, I’d say at least half of the temperature rise was due to direct solar influence. Factor in natural and chaotic variation into the mix, and there’s very little left for a rise in a trace gas to cause anything. The "extraction" is clearly yours. I pointed out that the model used to calculate temperature rise from solar irradiance was the Stefan-Boltzmann relation for blackbodies, and it’s been waffle ever since. As for
I can characterise the entire argument with the phrase "post hoc ergo propter hoc" which is a lovely phrase you should look up occasionally. As I stated, the high-resolution ice core records show that temperature rises first, then carbon dioxide, and never the other way around. The relationship is clearly reversed, but it won’t stop the greenhouse gravy train in its tracks, after all since I am undoubtedly associated with fossil fuel companies. There are lots of occasions in history where stupid ideas achieve great currency, and this is one of them. For example, one of the things done is the standard scare story from ice core research with the headline "Ice Core study shows carbon dioxide at highest level in x thousand years". What is never addressed is why the current temperature is so unremarkable, if carbon dioxide is such a dread greenhouse gas forcing, or why higher levels of carbon dioxide have be found during ice ages, or why the Eemian interglacial (the one before the last Ice Age) was generally 1 to 2 degrees warmer than the current one, and the Holocene so utterly unremarkable.
As you will recall, a .05oC figure was derived using the model. The authors thought that wasn’t a good number, preferring instead the .1oC figure which was not model-derived. You attacked the model and then attacked me for not understanding why the model wasn’t reliable. Whatever. Also, had you read the source document it would have been clear to you that the .1oC is a long-term constant forcing; in other words, you can’t subtract it from the recent warming since it’s part of the pre-existing background temp. Nice try, though.
On the ice core stuff, time will tell. I would point out that the ice core records require a fair amount of tweaking to show that the warming precedes the initial CO2 rise. Lea seems to think he has a more straightforward explanation that derives more directly from a comparison of both sets of paleo records.
Finally, just for my own information, what ice core records (that have anything to do with this stuff) aren’t high resolution?
When are you going to give up trying to claim that the Stefan-Boltzmann relation is a model and the larger figure not? it’s just rather sad trying to get you to accept high school physics as fact.
Look up the citation I provided and stop wasting space on Warwick’s server.
Steve Bloom,
I know I had too much to eat and drink over Xmas, but I cannot find the document you refer to. As far as I can tell there is no document labelled a task force report dated 2003 chaired by you, in the LWS web site.
Can you provide a more specific reference, better than the generic web site.
Malcolm Hill
John A., the report authors didn’t call it a model. You did. You may think that the calculation by which they obtained the .1oC figure is a model, but apparently they didn’t. I guess there’s some reason you know better, even though you can’t quite manage to say why. BTW, I did read the paper you linked, plus some more recent related ones. It remains clear you didn’t return the favor.
Malcolm, I apologize for any confusion, but I certainly never said I was the chair or author of any of that. As to the report, when I click on ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf I get a 53-page pdf which as far as I can tell is the whole thing. I had initially not rendered the link correctly; perhaps you didn’t spot the corrected one I included in a later comment.
"In 2003, the NASA Living With a Star Program commissioned an interdisciplinary Task Group, which I chaired, to consider what is now known or suspected of the effects of solar variations on terrestrial climate; to frame the outstanding questions that currently limit progress; and to define current needs in Sun-Climate research." Dear Steve Bloom, I know I admitted to over imbibng over Xmas but I didnt think I was seeing things. Above is a copy of your Jan 7 th Post which clearly says .."which I chaired". I reckon it must be you who has had too much Xmas Pud and Turps if you cant remember what you wrote four days ago. Hope your science is better than your memory. Malcolm Hill
Malcolm, if you look carefully you’ll see that paragraph in question was in quotes and followed a citation to the document from which it was quoted. It’s reproduced exactly below. I don’t understand why this was confusing. Even if I had inadvertently failed to include the opening quotation mark, the link followed by the colon should still have made things clear enough. ———————————- Here’s your solar facts, John A. (ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103): “In 2003, the NASA Living With a Star Program commissioned an interdisciplinary Task Group, which I chaired, to consider what is now known or suspected of the effects of solar variations on terrestrial climate; to frame the outstanding questions that currently limit progress; and to define current needs in Sun-Climate research. The full text of our report, which is also available in printed form and on the web at lws.gsfc.nasa.gov is included here. "(…)
Steve B,
Sorry.That is just not good enough. Nowhere do you identify who the “I” person is, and one is left with the quite logical deduction that it is you,who is the “I”. Very sloppy.
It wouldnt concern me if it was you, I just wanted to identify the document.
I am working my way through the document and as usual the story lines are not quite what the commentariat say they are. For example page 29 sets out the Four High Priority Questions in Sun-Climate research. The first being .”The paradox of greater than expected climactic sensitivity: why is the surface temperature of the earth, in both the air and the oceans more sensitive to eleven year, cyclic changes in solar activity than simple radiative theory would predict?”.Dont hear too many talking about this paradox at all do we?.
These interesting papers how empircal measurements of the radiative forcing with pyrnaometers and comparing results to model expectations. Good agreement. Also relevant to Louis’s question about direct measurement.
Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the
increasing greenhouse effect
Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨rr,1 Christoph Marty,1 Atsumu Ohmura,2 and Martin Wild2
Received 3 October 2003; revised 3 December 2003; accepted 23 December 2003; published 6 February 2004.
[1] The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change
(IPCC) confirmed concentrations of atmospheric
greenhouse gases and radiative forcing to increase as a
result of human activities. Nevertheless, changes in
radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations could not be experimentally detected at
Earth’s surface so far. Here we show that atmospheric
longwave downward radiation significantly increased
(+5.2(2.2) Wm2) partly due to increased cloud amount
(+1.0(2.8) Wm2) over eight years of measurements at eight
radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model
calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase
(+4.2(1.9) Wm2) to be in due proportion with temperature
(+0.82(0.41) C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m3)
increases, but three times larger than expected from
anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after
subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity
rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward
radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm2) remains statistically
significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an
enhanced greenhouse effect. INDEX TERMS: 0325
Atmospheric Composition and Structure: Evolution of the
atmosphere; 1610 Global Change: Atmosphere (0315, 0325);
1620 Global Change: Climate dynamics (3309); 1640 Global
Change: Remote sensing; 3359 Meteorology and Atmospheric
Dynamics: Radiative processes. Citation: Philipona, R., B. Du¨rr,
C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild (2004), Radiative forcing –
measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing
greenhouse effect, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/
2003GL018765.
ALSO
Greenhouse forcing outweighs decreasing solar radiation driving rapid
temperature rise over land
Rolf Philipona and Bruno Du¨rr
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Received 6 July 2004; revised 1 September 2004; accepted 25 October 2004; published 25 November 2004.
[1] Since 1988, surface temperature over land in Europe
increased three times faster than the northern hemisphere
average. Here we contrast surface climatic and radiative
parameters measured in central Europe over different time
periods, including the extreme summer 2003, to pinpoint
the role of individual radiative forcings in temperature
increases. Interestingly, surface solar radiation rather
decreases since 1981. Also, on an annual basis no net
radiative cooling or warming is observed under changing
cloud amounts. However, high correlation (rT = 0.86) to
increasing temperature is found with total heating radiation
at the surface, and very high correlation (rT = 0.98) with
cloud-free longwave downward radiation. Preponderance of
longwave downward radiative forcing suggests rapidly
increasing greenhouse warming, which outweighs the
decreasing solar radiation measured at the surface and
drives rapid temperature increases over land. INDEX
TERMS: 0325 Atmospheric Composition and Structure:
Evolution of the atmosphere; 1610 Global Change: Atmosphere
(0315, 0325); 1620 Global Change: Climate dynamics (3309);
1640 Global Change: Remote sensing. Citation: Philipona, R.,
and B. Du¨rr (2004), Greenhouse forcing outweighs decreasing
solar radiation driving rapid temperature rise over land, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 31, L22208, doi:10.1029/2004GL020937.
AND
Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback
increase temperature in Europe
Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨rr,2 Atsumu Ohmura,3 and Christian Ruckstuhl3
Received 25 May 2005; revised 8 July 2005; accepted 17 August 2005; published 8 October 2005.
[1] Europe’s temperature increases considerably faster
than the northern hemisphere average. Detailed month-bymonth
analyses show temperature and humidity changes for
individual months that are similar for all Europe, indicating
large-scale weather patterns uniformly influencing
temperature. However, superimposed to these changes a
strong west-east gradient is observed for all months. The
gradual temperature and humidity increases from west to
east are not related to circulation but must be due to
non-uniform water vapour feedback. Surface radiation
measurements in central Europe manifest anthropogenic
greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback,
enhancing the forcing and temperature rise by about a
factor of three. Solar radiation decreases and changing cloud
amounts show small net radiative effects. However, high
correlation of increasing cloud-free longwave downward
radiation with temperature (r = 0.99) and absolute humidity
(r = 0.89), and high correlation between ERA-40 integrated
water vapor and CRU surface temperature changes (r =
0.84), demonstrates greenhouse forcing with strong water
vapor feedback. Citation: Philipona, R., B. Durr, A. Ohmura,
and C. Ruckstuhl (2005), Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and
strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L19809, doi:10.1029/2005GL023624.
Well, Malcolm, I suppose you could conclude that (or at least not exclude me as the “I”) if you imagined that a very senior climate scientist would be seen here. Such people are not generally seen commenting on even pro-AGW blogs, although a couple of them do have their own blogs. But in any case, I’ll take your interpretation as a compliment since apparently I’m able to at least sound like a climate scientist.
As to the paradox, that’s because the scale of the difference is relatively small and unchanging (other than within the eleven year cycle), and pre-existed the recent sharp warming. This is the .05oC vs. .1oC difference I was discussing with John A. You may want to check Google Scholar for more research on that point since it’s been three years. The fact that it’s identified as a question in this report means that research grants to resolve it were forthcoming.
(Big news! Over on CA John A. just admitted to having made a trivial factual error. It’s a season of miracles…)
Interesting,
“Since 1988, surface temperature over land in Europe increased three times faster than the northern hemisphere average.”
“Europe’s temperature increases considerably faster than the northern hemisphere average.”
Is there a CO2 blanket over Europe that’s causing this localised warming? Or am I correct in thinking it’s probably more directly related to increased water vapour, due to increased evaporation, for some reason I’m not aware of?
All those studies mention “greenhouse gasses”, and as we should all be aware, water vapour is by far the most effective of the greenhouse gasses. So, how do we tell if this effect is due to CO2, water vapour, methane, something else, or some combination? Are the absorption/emission spectra of these compounts different enough to allow the radiation to be analyzed for a fingerprint?
Regardless… how is it explained that the effect is especially strong in Europe, but not the rest of the northern hemisphere?
“Here we show that atmospheric longwave downward radiation significantly increased (+5.2(2.2) Wm2) partly due to increased cloud amount (+1.0(2.8) Wm2)…”
Does anybody know why the cloud amount increased? Perhaps, as I am thinking about, increased atmospheric water vapour? Or else, the theoretical solar wind-related reasons I’ve read about elsewhere?
“…but three times larger than expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm2) rremains statistically significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.”
I find this a bit odd, but perhaps I’m not understanding. They found an increase they can’t seem to explain using their anthropogenic-only theory (which suggests to me that perhaps some, maybe even the majority of the change is external – if so, whence?). However, they decide to ignore this by subtracting the two-thirds of it they can’t explain? What’s the logic in that?
It seems to me they’re saying “we found an increase much larger than we can explain, therefore our theory is probably correct, since the actual increase is probably our theorised increase plus something else we can’t explain”. That doesn’t instill a great deal of confidence in me.
Nicholas, I thjink the last abstract made it very clear that it is water vapor feedback. Of course you’ll have to read the papers themselves to get all the details. Failing access to those, I believe there was a RealClimate post on all of this that included some back-and-forth with Philipona. That’s probably the best place to start regardless.
This line of argument would require water vapour distribution maps, over time, for the earth.
Any such things exist?