Link to 400 kb pdf file of David’s provocative and original updated (May 2007) paper which says we are coming into a weaker solar cycle and that a cooler climate is likely in decades ahead. David also explains that the Greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide is miniscule, as does the 1998 paper by Sherwood Idso.
See, How MINISCULE is the Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect ? an html version of a 1998 paper by Sherwood B Idso in Vol 10: 69-82 of Climate Research, “CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate”.
See also Jack Barrett’s paper: Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere
Global cooling is going to shock and awe the world. Personally, I am preparing for the worst.
Warwick,
To be honest, I found David Archibald’s presentation to be long on histrionics and short on facts. There are no references, for example, to the claim
…in fact no references at all other than to titles or meetings.
I would appreciate it if you could ask David to provide proper citations (especially to the one above). I think I agree with Steve McIntyre that it is better to restrict oneself to a single subject (the solar effect on climate) rather than go for a scattergun approach with references to “evil”.
I have a blog on solar science solarscience.auditblogs.com
I received a paper via Doug Hoyt which claimed a reduction in the “great conveyor” in the Sun pointing to a reduced solar cycle but I’m afraid I don’t believe the analysis to be valid. I would appreciate it if people could send citations to me via my email (climateaudit AT gmail DOT com) or via comments in the weblog.
Thanks for dropping in, I got over outrage years ago Luke, its just amazement with such a mega pair of orgs.
I do not run a “narrow church” here, many diverse views are presented and while for example David’s comment re Churchill seemed not needed to me, I thought his exposition on solar science and cycle 24 is worthy.
I notice there is little comnment on that.
Warwick thankyou for hosting my presentation, which is based on a paper in press. I think it gives me the street cred to be a registered denier. I have applied to be included on de smog blog’s denier database as follows:
Dear Smog Blog,
Please include me in your denier database. I have done plenty of denying. See my recent presentation on Warwick Hughes’ blog at: www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=102
Please also include my friend Warwick Hughes. We are both geologists.
Yours sincerely,
David Archibald
Luke, you are continually finding fault with my published works. Can’t you find at least one redeeming fact about any of them? May I suggest that you start off by mentioning a good point, such as them being mercifully short, before launching into your predictable outrage. To get any traction from here, I also suggest that you start publishing original research, as I have done. It is going to be hard to get AGW tracts published as the world gets colder, so sooner will be better than later. I just watched an episode of “Medium” and I want to tell you that I, too, get visions. One recurring one is that your current constant frothing at the mouth will become, in the harsh winters ahead, an intermittent dribble of spittle, diluted by tears.
The GCR-low level cloud link is powerful enough to do everthing required of it. Amazon has told me that my copy of “The Chilling Stars” has shipped. Oh frabdous day!
RE: “We are both geologists.”
A true black mark. LOL!!!
Luke, this is your lucky day too. CO2-driven global warming in not totally wrong, but nearly so. It is only good for 0.3 degrees from here to eternity. Emissions to date are worth 0.1 degrees, there will be another 0.2 degrees to 620 ppm and then only a further 0.1 degrees to when the effect peters out due to the logarithmic effect you dread so much. Despite your bluster, you come across as a very sensitive soul who is bearing the troubles of the world, so sensitive in fact that you might be able to tell the difference between having your car’s air conditioner set a 21 degrees and having it at 22 degrees. But I very much doubt that you could detect a 0.4 degree difference. So there you are. CO2 is one less thing for you to worry about, because the effect is so miniscule.
Global Warming is a reversion to animism, but without the fertility rites. It is a tedious, killjoy religion.
My theory on Solar Cycle 24 will be proved correct in about three years. Until then, no amount of theorising will prove or disprove it. In the meantime, every day that passes without a sunspot from Solar Cycle 24 makes it more likely to be correct and increases the size of the temperature drop.
It is wonderful to be alive and in the middle of this vast experiment.
Luke, your april 10 post is used as a strawman argument. Solar luminescence is not claimed to be the unknown forcing to any appreciable extent, but the Solar Magnetic cycles.
This is largly unquantified but the amount of research proposals submitted to NASA indicate a great interest in finding out. Estimates for input at the poles are in the hundreds of Terawatts at the height of auroras. Planets and moons in the solar system have shown great increases in polar auroral activity over the past cycle in particular, and a corresponding temperature increase or proxy atmospheric activity.
There are measuments indicating direct warming of the Earth’s atmosphere from the magnetosphere too.
Excluding unmeasurables, evaporation, cloud type and formation, precipitation or using a nil sum for these in modeling, and then ascribing the remaining anomalous heating, however small,(considering the large natural and observed swings,) is totally misleading, and deserves some of the epithets thrown at it.
If you want to skip the ‘rantings’ as you call them, and see some of the alignments of temperature and Solar Magnetic cycles see ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070330_carter.pdf and read the last 10 pages of the 39 page PDF
RE: “It is wonderful to be alive and in the middle of this vast experiment.”
From a standpoint of curiosity, I agree. From a more down to earth standpoint, considering effects on the human condition, I’m not so sure. It’s funny how the masses are all wound up with their fears about AGW or any sort of GW, when in fact, that’s not what they ought to fear. I know what to fear. I fear GC.
Julian
Solar Magnetic Cycles means solar electrical cycles – Magnetic fields CANNOT exist in the absence of electrical currents.
It might be useful to pint out here that black body radiation etc assumes objects in thermal equilibrium. The earth and sun are not, and therefore cannot be subject to that analysis. Hence the inferred radiative forcings from CO2 etc, are, well, …….
Agreed Louis, one of my favourite sites is thunderbolts.info/ . Remember when astronaughts tried to send out a long conductor from the space station and it fried!
thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050302electric-earth.htm This explains electrical energy surrounding us for those who still think space is electrically neutral.
Julian,
Splendid – Wal Thornhill and I are colloborators re geological aspects between times when I can’t locate petroglyphts for Peratt.
Hello David,
I found your paper to be very interesting, and it corroborated a number of papers that I have read elsewhere.
Could I strongly suggest that to increase your cred, you should label and title your graphs, provide legends to clarify which is which when there are multiple curves in the one graphic, and include references.
I appreciate that this will take some of your time, but unless you do, you are, correctly, vulnerable to accusations of unfounded claims.
Dan
Dan, David has been working on an updated paper and it is posted now.
Thanks for your comments.
A NASA panel has come out with predictions of Solar Cycle 24 amplitude – 140 and 90, which are 30 more and 30 less than the amplitude of solar cycle 23. It is interesting that the panel notes that there is no sign of solar minimum yet. They are going for solar minimum in March 2008 which would make Solar Cycle 23 12 years long. When I plot solar cycle length against amplitude of the following cycle, 12 years equates to an amplitude of 90. But we haven’t seen any sign of solar minimum yet and so Solar Cycle 23 could go on for 13 years or more. The longer 23 is, the weaker 24 will be, and the colder things will get.
Following up on the NASA prediction for the start of Solar Cycle 14 I came across this article,
www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=49757 ‘Global Warming hits Mars too’
The question in it ‘exactly what triggers the planet’s so called Global Dust Storms remains a mystery’ prompts the suggestion that it is the increased Solar Electrical activity.
Electricity has been shown to be involved in ‘twisters’ both as cause and effect. If there is no known cause in the dry rarified atmosphere for storms and twisters, how about an outside cause?
There is a discussion of recent solar news at Free Republic
Is there anything new to report on the end of the last sunspot cycle and the beginning of the new? I have seen nothing in the media or reports of the monitoring agencies.
I am not aware of anything Mike.
I think NASA/NOAA would report on the demise of 23, when it takes place.
Here are a couple of websites with relevant info.
Jan Janssen
members.chello.be/j.janssens/Engwelcome.html
Solar Cycle 24
www.solarcycle24.com/index.htm
Demise of 23 is getting very, very late, is it not?
David, I have read your presentation you gave in Melbourne a few weeks ago. Very good stuff. In particular I find the logarithmic decay of CO2 forcing to essentially be the silver bullet to the man-induce global warming nonsense. That combined with Kevin Trenberts admission that IPCC models do not in any way work should end the debate for most rational people.
Can you explain further how you generated the data for that graph? I understand it just fine, but some non-scientific friends of mine don’t get it and refuse to believe it. They seem to think that according to the graph 100ppm is less effective than 20ppm. I keep telling them its the additional effect that is decreasing but it just goes over their head. Help me explian it to them.
Thanks!
Matt says:
>That combined with Kevin Trenberts admission that IPCC models do not in any way work should >end the debate for most rational people.
When I can read this admission?
Here you go: www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,21977114-27197,00.html
“GCMs “assume linearity” which “works for global forced variations, but it cannot work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle . . . the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate”.
Simone82, there is a closer posting on the candid Trenberth statements.
Sensational statements by Dr Kevin Trenberth, IPCC supporter
June 23rd, 2007 by Warwick Hughes
From: blog.petedecarlo.com/
Well, a recent study in the Proceedings of the Royal Academy appears to destroy the claims that the sun is responsible for the recent climatic warming. Excerpts from a editorial on these findings from Nature.
Solar activity peaked between 1985 and 1987. Since then, trends in solar irradiance, sunspot number and cosmic-ray intensity have all been in the opposite direction to that required to explain global warming.
A second quote, puts it into a little more perspective
[Solar effects] might have acted to cool the climate in recent decades, but been overwhelmed. If so, the climate could be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than is generally thought, and future temperature increases might be greater than expected if a countervailing solar effect comes to an end.
arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf
On the logarithmic issue I think you’ll find the logarithmic radiative forcing of CO2 has been incorporated in every climate model since the time of Arrhenius. if you think it’s a silver bullet you’re sadly mistaken. At least give the phyicists a bit a intelligence.
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/broadly-misleading/
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/
As for Trenberth’s “shocking” admissions – I think you’ll find he’s till a fervent believer in the climate change research program, is a user of models, and a believer in anthropogenic global warming.
He’s simply stating the obvious about the modelling in thsi context and hosing down the policy expectations. Well what should be obvious. The scenarios aren’t bounded by initial conditions. They could be but they’re not. They’re not attempting a forecast. If you find this strange start again I’m afraid. Anyway the IPCC certainly does need to communicate more clearly but it also behoves you guys to be fair and clear on what is being said also.
If a lead advisor on computer modeling to the IPCC says their models are not trustworthy, then why should we believe the first graph you posted from the IPCC 2007 report is trustworthy?
Just asking….
“On the logarithmic issue I think you’ll find the logarithmic radiative forcing of CO2 has been incorporated in every climate model since the time of Arrhenius. if you think it’s a silver bullet you’re sadly mistaken.”
So then you agree that the limit of CO2-induced warming is .4 degrees? If not, please provide research that disproves it.
Re 20, Matt, you will have to resort to the venetian blinds analogy. The more lots of venetian blinds you put in front of the first one, the less the decrease in the amount of light that gets through per addition of new set of blinds.
Re 19, Steve, yes it is getting late. I am inclined to dig out the monthly sunspot data for Solar Cycle 4 and see how that plots up.
Matt – it’s a standard ruse to estimate climate sensitivity by dividing the change in temperature due to the greenhouse effect by the downwelling longwave radiation. The answer is nowhere near correct and the approach fundamentally wrong. A doubling of CO2 will deliver another 4 watts /m2. There is a direct linear connection between additional radiative forcing and the resulting temperature change if you see how radiation budgets are calculated.
See www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/learning-from-a-simple-model/
Takes a while to work through the equations but well worth it for fundamental understanding.
On Trenberth – where did he say “not trustworthy”. He did say they aren’t intialised as forecasts and lack things like El Nino or PDO behaviour. (Well that is changing slowly for El Nino). He also warned that regional scale modelling is still not possible. He was most precise in his comments. They have been widely misinterpreted IMO. Trenberth has not changed his research position or concern for global warming. He’s simply hosing down policy expectations for more detail than is possible.
Also do you find it strange that the Archibald paper makes a trend assertions on a mere 5 handpicked stations?
Later this week Proc. R. Soc. A; doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880 will argue most conclusively that although solar influences have undoubtedly played an historical influence on the Earth’s climate, the sharp global warming we have experienced since the 1980s cannot be explained by any solar phenomena and that greenhouse warming is underway. Promises to create a furore.
Following from Warwick’s more complete link in #23, the central point Trenberth makes about GCM predictive reliability is this one, “The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity.”
What he’s saying is that one can reliably project future forced global temperature _differences_ because in subtracting forced GCM runs from control GCM runs all the errors subtract away, leaving a reliable trend in anomalies.
But this is assuming much more than mere “linearity.” It assumes the GCMs procduce global climate projections with completely accurate slopes. Trenberth is claiming that GCM runs are only linearly offset by some standard vertical magnitude from being fully correct — and the same standard vertical magnitude is present in both control runs and forcing runs. Therefore, subtracting the latter from the former produces accurate anomalies.
But this is very different from assuming mere linearity. It supposes that the physical representation of the global climate itself — the physical theory in the GCMs — is complete and accurate. The errors are merely from imperfect measurements and a too-coarse resolution because of computer limitations. This assumption — assertion, really — is entirely unjustifiable.
For example, all GCMs include a hyperviscosity because the Navier-Stokes equations can’t be solved at all the necessary levels of resolution. The hyperviscosity, which is completely unphysical, is the only thing that makes the GCMs integrable — they would catastrophically diverge otherwise. Because there is an unphysical hyperviscosity, the parameterizations in GCMs must also be unphysical in order to compensate. Consequently, GCMs inherently cannot be physically correct. Trenberth’s claim includes an implicit but absolutely central assertion that cannot be true. The physical theory in GCMs is neither correct nor complete. Trenberth is wrong, the reliability of temperature predictions can not be claimed accurate through taking differences, and the whole of AGW so-called science is powered by this sort of tendentious delusionalism.
David Archibald Says: April 12th, 2007 at 2:46 am
“My theory on Solar Cycle 24 will be proved correct in about three years.”
That was a year ago now.
David, please show me this “proof”.
Andrew, thanks for providing the opportunity to show how good that prediction of mine was. I predicted, amongst a number of things, that Solar Cycle 23 would be long and that would mean that Solar Cycle 24 would be weak. It has come to pass. Have a look at the difference between 24 and the biggy, 19: www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
For the last five years, I have had a better track record at predicting solar activity than NASA. They started out at 190 and I believe that are now down to about 70.
I should out right ask Dr. Archibald, where is your citations and references. Any educated scientist knows that any paper written should be a professional written piece to include citations, references and footnotes. Where is the actual research and testing data that has been reproduced. If I were to submit this paper to a college as a student, I would fail.
Gidday Joshua – Dr Archibald’s 2010 book “The Past and Future of Climate” has several pages of “citations, references and footnotes” – the book is for sale online.
However – the subject of this post is the shorter 2007 version – which is downloadable in the article – there is a page of attributions etc.
WSH