Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

K, I admire your ability to engage trolls, though I wonder what reward you get from doing it.

Cycloptichorn

I'll take your so called "proofs" one at a time, Mr. Kuvasz. You may think that only "scientists" can read but you are mistaken. If you don't think the left wing powers a great deal of the research money that goes into so-called enviromental research, you know NOTHING about the subject. I am willing to admit that right-wing money goes into the people who do research to point out that "global warming" has been overhyped.

You talk about "intellectual Honesty"???? You are the scientist. There are many points I have raised that you NEVER ADDRESSED. What about your intellectual honesty. I will list them for you since you may have overlooked them.

Now, on to your so called proofs--


quote
The observed increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 280 ppm in the preindustrial era to about 364 ppm in 1997 (Figure 1) [Friedli et al., 1986; Hansen et al., 1998; Keeling and Whorf, 1998] has come largely from fossil fuel combustion and cement production

end of quote--THIS IS FROM THE PAPER YOU URGED ME TO READ. HOW DID THEY COME UP WITH THE FINDING THAT THE CO2 INCREASE HAS COME LARGELY FROM FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION AND CEMENT PRODUCTION?

TEACH ME, SCIENTIST.

The principal greenhouse gas concentrations that have increased over the industrial period are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons CFC-11 (CCl3F) and CFC-12 (CCl2F2) [Hansen et al., 1998; Schimel et al., 1996]. The observed increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 280 ppm in the preindustrial era to about 364 ppm in 1997 (Figure 1) [Friedli et al., 1986; Hansen et al., 1998; Keeling and Whorf, 1998] has come largely from fossil fuel combustion and cement production.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means "same type") but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio - about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn't to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere - as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn't change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase -- around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges -- whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry -- show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere -- which took many thousand years -- was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.

For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 1731-1748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170-193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79

In 2000, researchers based at Imperial College London examined satellite data covering almost three decades to plot changes in the amount of infrared radiation escaping from the atmosphere into space - an indirect measure of how much heat is being trapped. In the part of the infrared spectrum trapped by CO2 - wavelengths between 13 and 19 micrometres - they found that between 1970 and 1997 less and less radiation was escaping. They concluded that the increasing quantity of atmospheric CO2 was trapping energy that used to escape, and storing it in the atmosphere as heat. The results for the other greenhouse gases were similar.
These uncontested facts are enough to establish that "anthropogenic" greenhouse gas emissions are tending to make the atmosphere warmer. What's more, there is little doubt that the climate is changing right now. Temperature records from around the world going back 150 years suggest that 19 of the 20 warmest years - measured in terms of average global temperature, which takes account of all available thermometer data - have occurred since 1980, and that four of these occurred in the past seven years (see Graph).

There is also room for uncertainty in inferences drawn from the rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The warming itself is real enough, but that doesn't necessarily mean that human activity is to blame. Sceptics say that the warming could be natural, and again they have a point. It is now recognised that up to 40 per cent of the climatic variation since 1890 is probably due to two natural phenomena. The first is solar cycles, which influence the amount of radiation reaching the Earth, and some scientist have argued that increased solar activity can account for most of the warming of the past 150 years. The second is the changing frequency of volcanic eruptions, which produce airborne particles that can shade and hence cool the planet for a year or more. This does not mean, however, that the sceptics can claim victory, as no known natural effects can explain the 0.5 °C warming seen in the past 30 years. In fact, natural changes alone would have caused a marginal global cooling (see Graph).

In the face of such evidence, the vast majority of scientists, even sceptical ones, now agree that our activities are making the planet warmer, and that we can expect more warming as we release more CO2 into the atmosphere. This leaves two critical questions. How much warming can we expect? And how much should we care about it? Here the uncertainties begin in earnest.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere now stands at around 375 parts per million. A doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels of 280 parts per million, which could happen as early as 2050, will add only about 1 °C (actually best figures are 0.7-1.8 degrees centigrade) to average global temperatures, other things being equal. But if there's one thing we can count on, it is that other things will not be equal; some important things will change.

All experts agree that the planet is likely to respond in a variety of ways, some of which will dampen down the warming (negative feedback) while others will amplify it (positive feedback). Assessing the impacts of these feedbacks has been a central task of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a co-operative agency set up 17 years ago that has harnessed the work of thousands of scientists. Having spent countless hours of supercomputer time creating and refining models to simulate the planet's climate system, the IPCC concludes that the feedbacks will be overwhelmingly positive. The only question, it says, is just how big this positive feedback will be.

The latest IPCC assessment is that doubling CO2 levels will warm the world by anything from 1.4 to 5.8 °C. In other words, this predicts a rise in global temperature from pre-industrial levels of around 14.8 °C to between 16.2 and 20.6 °C. Even at the low end, this is probably the biggest fluctuation in temperature that has occurred in the history of human civilisation. But uncertainties within the IPCC models remain, and the sceptics charge that they are so great that this conclusion is not worth the paper it is written on. So what are the positive feedbacks and how much uncertainty surrounds them?

Melting of polar ice is almost certainly one. Where the ice melts, the new, darker surface absorbs more heat from the sun, and so warms the planet. This is already happening. The second major source of positive feedback is water vapour. As this is responsible for a bigger slice of today's greenhouse effect than any other gas, including CO2, any change in the amount of moisture in the atmosphere is critical. A warmer world will evaporate more water from the oceans, giving an extra push to warming. But there is a complication. Some of the water vapour will turn to cloud, and the net effect of cloudier skies on heat coming in and going out is far from clear. Clouds reflect energy from the sun back into space, but they also trap heat radiated from the surface, especially at night. Whether warming or cooling predominates depends on the type and height of clouds. The IPCC calculates that the combined effect of extra water vapour and clouds will increase warming, but accepts that clouds are the biggest source of uncertainty in the models.

Sceptics who pounce on such uncertainties should remember, however, that they cut both ways. Indeed, new research based on thousands of different climate simulation models run using the spare computing capacity of idling PCs, suggest that doubling CO2 levels could increase temperatures by as much as 11 °C (Nature, vol 434, p 403).[/i]

Recent analysis suggests that clouds could have a more powerful warming effect than once thought - possibly much more powerful (New Scientist, 24 July 2004, p 44). And there could be other surprise positive feedbacks that do not yet feature in the climate models. For instance, a release of some of the huge quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, that are frozen into the Siberian permafrost and the ocean floor could have a catastrophic warming effect. And an end to ice formation in the Arctic could upset ocean currents and even shut down the Gulf Stream - the starting point for the blockbuster movie The Day After Tomorrow.

There are counterbalancing negative feedbacks, some of which are already in the models. These include the ability of the oceans to absorb heat from the atmosphere, and of some pollutants - such as the sulphate particles that make acid rain - to shade the planet. But both are double-edged. The models predict that the ocean's ability to absorb heat will decline as the surface warms, as mixing between less dense, warm surface waters and the denser cold depths becomes more difficult. Meanwhile, sulphate and other aerosols could already be masking far stronger underlying warming effects than are apparent from measured temperatures. Aerosols last only a few weeks in the atmosphere, while greenhouse gases last for decades. So efforts to cut pollution by using technologies such as scrubbers to remove sulphur dioxide from power station stacks could trigger a surge in temperatures.

Sceptics also like to point out that most models do not yet include negative feedback from vegetation, which is already growing faster in a warmer world, and soaking up more CO2. But here they may be onto a loser, as the few climate models so far to include plants show that continued climate change is likely to damage their ability to absorb CO2, potentially turning a negative feedback into a positive one.

Yes, Mr. Kuvasz- I read your posts and respond to your links but you seem to be actually frightened to respond to my evidence. Because of that, I will repost my evidence. Would you be so good as to attempt to rebut it?

Now-from your link_ You see I do read them--

The most commonly considered indicator of climate change is the surface air temperature. Extensive efforts have been made to examine the trends in global and regional mean temperatures over time [Ghil and Vautard, 1991; Hasselmann, 1993; North and Kim, 1995; North et al., 1995; Schlesinger and Ramankutty, 1994] and in the global patterns of temperature change [Hegerl et al., 1997; Hegerl et al., 1996; Jones and Hegerl, 1998; Santer et al., 1995

I do hope that you read my post and Okie's post. I will reitrerate.

Global temperature measurements remote from human habitation and activity show no evidence of a warming during the last century. Such sites include "proxy" measurements such as tree rings, marine sediments and ice cores, weather balloons and satellite measurements in the lower atmosphere, and many surface sites where human influence is minimal. The small average and highly irregular individual warming displayed by surface measurements is therefore caused by changes in the thermal environment of individual measurement stations over long periods of time, and not by changes in the background climate.

Since the proxy measurements were all from remote areas and most of the surface measurements were close to buildings, this comparison confirms the likelihood that the increase in the amalgamated surface readings is due to their proximity to human habitation. The statistical comparison is somewhat dubious however, since the proxy measurements do not appear to take proper account of the well established Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age which are featured in other studies.

The conclusion that the rise in the amalgamated surface measurements is caused by proximity to human habitation is confirmed if the proxy measurements are continued to the present day

IF the most commonly considered indicator of climate change is the surface air temperature( I ALREADY STATED THIS BUT YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE IT--WHY????)

then there is a huge problem--As Okie pointed out in his link, the surface temperatures can be misleading and the satellite temperatures do not, as far as I am aware, show any rise.

The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1856 to 2005. The year 2005 was the second warmest on record, exceeded by 1998. This time series is being compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre. The record is being continually up-dated and improved. The principal reason is to detect climate change due to global warming through an increase in temperature in the instrumental record. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century.

The key references for this time series are:

Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999:
Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years.
Reviews of Geophysics, 37, 173-199.
Jones, P.D. and Moberg, A., 2003:
Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001.
Journal of Climate, 16, 206-223.

The 1990s were the warmest decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.58°C above the 1961-90 mean. Nine of the ten warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past ten years (1995-2004). The only year in the last ten not among the warmest ten is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990).

Analyses of over 400 proxy climate series (from trees, corals, ice cores and historical records) show that the 1990s is the warmest decade of the millennium and the 20th century the warmest century. The warmest year of the millennium was 1998, and the coldest was probably 1601.

The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) in its most recent report stated:

'most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.'
There is also a long record of temperature for Central England. This is based on a paper by Gordon Manley:

Manley, G., 1974:
Central England temperatures: monthly means 1659 to 1973.
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 100, 389-405.
This series is being continually up-dated. It shows that 1990 and 1999 have been jointly the warmest years recorded in 341 years over Central England, with temperatures of 10.63°C. Following a warm 2002 (annual mean temperature 10.60°C), 2003 was slightly cooler overall at 10.50°C. The 2004 value was 10.51°C.

The surface temperatures can be affected by the local heating produced by growing, mechanized cities.

YOU DID NOT RESPOND TO THIS POINT..WHY?

You also did not respond to the problem pointed out by both Okie and myself that your own data show a rise in the surface warming between 1890 and 1940 which was followed by a pronounced cooling followed by warnings from scientists as recently as 1975( I ALSO POSTED THIS EVIDENCE AND YOU DID NOT RESPOND TO IT--WHY?) that we were headed for a mini-Ice Age.

Now, I will give you a quote- I CHALLENGE YOU TO RESPOND TO IT.

You spoke about Intellectual Honesty. Well, I will question yours unless you respond to this very very important finding from the most auspicious( I am sure you will agree) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENTISTS.

Here it is:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global warming in the last 50 years is likely the result of increases in greenhouse gases, which accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community, the committee said. However, it also cautioned that uncertainties about this conclusion remain because of the level of natural variability inherent in the climate on time scales from decades to centuries, the questionable ability of models to simulate natural variability on such long time scales, and the degree of confidence that can be placed on estimates of temperatures going back thousands of years based on evidence from tree rings or ice cores.


I am certain that you will not miss the line which says that the IPCC( THE BODY YOU CITED SEVERAL TIMES AS A RELIABLE SOURCE) that UNCERTAINTIES about this conclusion(global warming in the last 50 years is LIKELY the result of increases in greenhouse gases but IT IS ALSO CAUTIONED THAT U N C E R T A I N T I E S ABOUT THIS CONCLUSION REMAIN BECAUSE OF THE L E V E L O F N A T U R A L V A R I A B I L I T Y INHERENT IN THE CLIMATE ON TIME SCALES FROM DECADES TO CENTURIES------THE QUESTIONABLE ABILITIES OF MODELS TO SIMULATE NATURAL VARIABLITY, AND THE DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE THAT CAN BE PLACED ON THE ESTIMATES OF TEMPERATURES GOING BACK THOUSANDS OF YEARS BASED ON EVIDENCE FROM TREE RINGS AND ICE CORES>

Would you please, sir, utilize the Intellectual Honesty you mentioned and respond to this directly??????

If you read my posts you noted that I frequently referred to the problem of natural variablity, or to put that another way, just how much "global warming is due to natural causes and how much to man made causes.
YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO THAT DIRECTLY BUT INSTEAD GAVE STUDIES WHICH PURPORTED THAT THE CO2 INDEED CAME FROM MAN MADE SOURCES---This is held in doubt by the paragraph above from the IPCC.

Then , it is very clear that you studiously avoided my reference to the inability of computer models to simulate the climate- YOU DID NOT RESPOND TO MY POST ON THAT. Yet, that problem is highlighted by the IPCC quote above--

"The questionable abilities of models to simulate natural variablity"

When reference is made by the IPCC in their paragraph above to "The degree of confidence that can be placed on estimates of temperatures going back thousands of years", "lack of confidence" is what emerges when we view the latest findings about the Arctic.

quote- Chicago Tribune--p. 3--ANCIENT ARCTIC HAD WARM SPELL-

"The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined--a Floridian year round average of 74 degrees...PREVIOUS COMPUTER SIMULATIONS DID NOT SUGGEST AN ANCIENT ARCTIC THAT WAS NEARLY SO WARM"

Imagine--the COMPUTER SIMULATIONS WERE NOT CORRECT--NOT BY A LONG SHOT---How interesting!!!

Imagine--All of that elevated Temperature and not an SUV or a smokestack in sight. I would think one could call the causes NATURAL!

Please, Mr. Kuvasz-Utilize some of that Intellectual Honesty you mentioned and speak directly to my post.

Please- no red herrings!!!

I accessed another of the "proofs" concening "Global warming"

Here it is:

Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years
Thomas J. Crowley

Recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and climate forcing over the past 1000 years allow the warming of the 20th century to be placed within a historical context and various mechanisms of climate change to be tested. Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to those of control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ~1000-year time series results in a residual with a very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. A 21st-century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the past 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.

Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
**********************************************************

All of this "reconstruction" referred to in the article is, of course, based on "Computer modeling", which means, that data is fed into the computer and then, as the article says--"A 21st century global warming projection FAR EXCEEDS( IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT FAR EXCEEDS MEANS) the natural variability of the past 1000 years.

well let me explain it to you then since you appear unable to wrap your tiny little mind around it: it means that humans have affected the environment at such a level that natural affects are negligible

that is by the way what a graph I posted showed

***********************************************************

I already pointed out to Mr.Kuvasz( COMPLETELY NEGLECTED BY HIM, OF COURSE) that the National Academy of Scientists have noted that:

A trifle, but that would be "The National Academy of Sciences" would it not?
quote:

"Climate models are imperfect, Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited size of their calculations and the difficulty in interpreting their answers that exhibit almost as much complexity as in nature"

The remark is meaningless without context. You will have to show how they are imperfect, and most important, how the imperfections generate predictions that are quantitatively inaccurate. Since I am getting ready to go to Mass, I don't have the time to teach you statistics right now. You will have to learn that on your own.

*********************************************************

In the latest findings concerning the Arctic( which found that the Arctic was much warmer 55 Million years ago than Scientists had imagined( and all from NATURAL SOURCES MIND YOU)THE COMMENT WAS MADE IN THE ARTICLE----p r e v i o u s c o m p u t e r s i m u l a t i o n s d i d
n o t s u g g e s t a n a n c i e n t A r c t i c t h a t w a s s o w a r m.

That obviously means that the "Previous computer simulations were WRONG!!!

WRONG IN THE CASE OF THE ARCTIC!! but NOT WRONG IN THE CASE OF THE SIMULATIONS OF THE LAST 1000 YEARS AS REPORTED BY CROWLEY????

If you want to use this as an example you will have to illustrate yourself how Crowley used data and techniques that were also used by the studies you state were inaccurate. sometimes a cigar is not just a cigar, but without a comparison of them you cannot declare differnt models equivalent in properties and their predictions equally inaccurate.

it is up to a Brainiac like you to compare the computer models and how they were comparable in technique and data manipulation before you can proclaim them as kindred.

You have not done so, and since it was you who called them equivalent in predictive power, it is up to you to prove how the modeling is equivalent, and therefore equivalently wrong.


*************************************************************

WITHOUT COMPUTER SIMULATIONS THERE WOULD BE VERY INCOMPLETE EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING!!!


And we can see just how accurate Computer Simulations are, can't we?

Actually yes we can, because you conveniently ignore that DOD use such to predict and model the US governmnt's nuclear weapons programs

And we can see just how accurate Computer Simulations are, can't we?

Mr.Kuvasz wrote:

Sure, why not? First noted is your demand for a strict, literal translation when it is not of any value in this discussion or any in science.

Many people want certainties to persuade them, and those science does not to have to offer; science is a human project, not the word of God. But when it comes to the physical world, the uncertainties of scientific consensus have proven consistently more accurate than any source perceived as certain.

And this is a central problem of persuading people to act on scientific evidence. Science can never quite say "we know for sure". But if, for instance, one is calculating the path of a cannonball, physics is what one is to relies on if one wants to know when to duck. And perhaps some new & unexpected thing will happen and the cannonball will miss. But one does not stake one's life on that. But maybe you should.

What do you mean we don't know for sure?

As a scientist, I am certain you are aware that when Albert Einstein proposed that his own equations on gravitational fields MUST BE VERIFIED BY EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION. He said:
"If it were proved that this effect does not exist in nature, then the whole theory will have to be abandoned." In fact, the red shift was confirmed by the Mount Wilson Observatory.

New York City has NOT been flooded!!!!!!!

Strike One, Mr. Kuvasz!

Now. let us go to the next point:

My quote:
All of this "reconstruction" referred to in the article is, of course, based on "Computer modeling", which means, that data is fed into the computer and then, as the article says--"A 21st century global warming projection FAR EXCEEDS( IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT FAR EXCEEDS MEANS) the natural variability of the past 1000 years.

"Climate models are imperfect, Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited size of their calculations and the difficulty in interpreting their answers that exhibit almost as much complexity as in nature"

You know how to read- read this below---and then, REBUT IT AND WHEN I SAY REBUT IT, I MEAN SHOW DECISIVELY WHY IT IS INCORRECT!!!

W I T H O U T C O M P U T E R M O D E L S, THERE WOULD BE NO EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING.

By simulating the climate on giant, ultra-fast comput4ers scholars try to find out how it will react to each new stimulus--like a doubling of CO2. AN IDEAL COMPUTER MODEL WOULD HOWEVER, HAVE TO TRACK FIVE MILLION PARAMETERS, FIVE MILLION PARAMETERS, FIVE MILLION PARAMETERS, OVER THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH AND THROUGH THE ATMOSPHERE, AND INCORPORATE ALL RELEVENT INTERACTIONS AMONG LAND, SEA, AIR, ICE AND VEGETATION, ALL RELEVANT INTERACTIONS AMONG LAND, SEA, AIR, ICE AND VEGETATION.

ACCORDING TO ONE RESEARCHER, SUCH A MODEL WOULD DEMAND TEN MILLION TRILLION DEGREES OF FREEDOM TO SOLVE, TEN MILLION TRILLION DEGREES OF FREEDOM TO SOLVE, A C A M P U T A T I O N A L I M P O S S I B I L I T Y E V E N O N T H E M O S T A D V A N C E D S U P E R C O M P U T E R.

You did not, Mr.Kuvasz, respond to the report from the Chicago Tribune that " P R E V I O U S C L I M A T E S I M U L A T I O N S D I D N O T S U G G E S T A N A N C I E N T A R C T I C T H A T W A S N E A R L Y S O W A R M.

Now, since without computer modeling there would be no evidence of global warming and since the previous climate simulations in the Arctic were so far off, it is not at all out of the question that the SIMULATIONS done by the Scientist about future warming MAY ALSO BE IN ERROR.

Perhaps, the Scientists who are making tons of money out of this wouldn't agree with this but the average person who discovers that computer simulations have been wrong before will reason that they can be wrong again.

STRIKE TWO, MR. KUVASZ

And, now, Mr; Kuvasz--Again, I ask you to present evidence that shows how much of the alleged "global warming" comes from Man-Made sources and how much comes from Natural sources. I need evidence that shows, for example, that " 0.2 to 0.4 F of the global warming since 1960 has come from Man made sources and 0.1 to 0.3 of the global warming since 1960 has come from Natural Sources>" In the light of the enormous changes made by NATURAL sources--quote

"The samples also chronicle the subsequent cooling, WITH MANY U P S AND D O W N S that the researchers say began about 45 Million years ago and led to the C Y C L E S O F I C E A G E S
A N D B R I E F W A R M S P E L L S of the last several million years" are you really asking us to believe that there has been NO natural sources at work in the last century?

You talk of science but yet you completely disregard the fact that NASA SATELLITES HAVE UNCOVERED THE FACT THAT THE SUN'S CHANGING MECHANISM OVER THE COURSE OF ITS SUNSPOT CYCLE IS ACCOMPANIED BY A CHANGE IN TOTAL ENERGY OUTPUT.

Certainly, as a trained scientist you know that the amount of energy reaching us increases or decreases as the sun brightens or fades, and the change in solar magenetism,or total energy output, is HIGHLY CORRELATED with changes in the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere going back 240 years, THE SUN TODAY IS AS MAGNETICALLY ACTIVE AS IT HAS BEEN IN 400 YEARS OF DIRECT TELESCOPE OBSERVATIONS. If the earth has been warming slightly it may be that the sun is heating the earth.

The sun provides 99.998% of the energy to the Earth's climate (the rest coming from geothermal heat sources). The circulation patterns of the tropical Hadley Cell, the mid latitude storm tracks the polar high and the resulting climate zones are all driven by the gradients of solar heating as a function of latitude. So of course any significant change to solar output is bound to affect the climate, it stands to reason! Since we can see that there are changes in solar activity, it's therefore just a question of finding the link. Researchers for over a century have therefore taken any climate records they can find and searched for correlations to the sunspots, the solar-cycle length, geomagnetic indices, cosmogenic isotopes or smoothed versions thereof (and there are many ways to do the smoothing, and you don't even need to confine yourself to one single method per record). At the same time, estimates of solar output in the past are extremely uncertain, and so there is a great deal of scope in blaming any unexplained phenomena on solar changes without fear of contradiction.


Astute readers will notice that there is a clear problem here. The widespread predisposition to believe that there must be a significant link and a lack of precise knowledge of past changes are two ingredients that can prove, err...., scientifically troublesome. Unfortunately they lead to a tendency to keep looking for the correlation until one finds one. When that occurs (as it will if you look hard enough even in random data) it gets published as one more proof of the significant impact that solar change has on climate. Never do the authors describe how many records and how many different smoothing methods they went through before they found this one case where the significance is greater than 95%. Of course, if they went through more than 20, the chances of randomly stumbling onto this level of significance is quite high.

The proof that this often happens is shown by the number of these published correlations that fall apart once another few years of data are added, cosmic rays (which are modulated by solar activity) and cloudiness for instance.

Sometimes even papers in highly respected journals fall into the same trap. Friis-Christensen and Lassen (Science, 1991) was a notorious paper that purported to link solar-cycle length (i.e. the time between sucessive sunspot maxima or minima) to surface temperatures that is still quoted widely. As discussed at length by Peter Laut and colleagues, the excellent correlation between solar cycle length and hemispheric mean temperature only appeared when the method of smoothing changed as one went along. The only reason for doing that is that it shows the relationship (that they 'knew' must be there) more clearly. And, unsurprisingly, with another cycle of data, the relationship failed to hold up.

The potential for self-delusion is significantly enhanced by the fact that climate data generally does have a lot of signal in the decadal band (say between 9 and 15 years). This variability relates to the incidence of volcanic eruptions, ENSO cycles, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) etc. as well as potentially the solar cycle. So another neat trick to convince yourself that you found a solar-climate link is to use a very narrow band pass filter centered around 11 years, to match the rough periodicity of the sun spot cycle, and then show that your 11 year cycle in the data matches the sun spot cycle. Often these correlations mysteriously change phase with time, which is usually described as evidence of the non-linearity of the climate system, but in fact is the expected behaviour when there is no actual coherence. Even if the phase relationship is stable, the amount of variance explained in the original record is usually extremely small.

This is not to say that there is no solar influence on climate change, only that establishing such a link is more difficult then many assume. What is generally required is a consistent signal over a number of cycles (either the 11 year sunspot cycle or more long term variations), similar effects if the timeseries are split, and sufficient true degrees of freedom that the connection is significant and that it explains a non-negligible fraction of the variance. These are actually quite stiff hurdles and so the number of links that survive this filter are quite small. In some rough order of certainty we can consider that the 11 year solar cycle impacts on the following are well accepted: stratospheric ozone, cosmogenic isotope production, upper atmospheric geopotential heights, stratospheric temperatures and (slightly less certain and with small magnitudes ~0.1 deg C) tropospheric and ocean temperatures. More marginal are impacts on wintertime tropospheric circulation (like the NAO). It is also clear that if there really was a big signal in the data, it would have been found by now. The very fact that we are still arguing about statisitical significance implies that whatever signal there is, is small.

Over the multi-decadal time scales, there is more reasonable evidence for an NAO and surface temperature response to solar changes though the magnitudes are still small. Over even longer time scales (hundreds of years) there are a number of paleo-records that correlate with records of cosmogenic isotopes (particularly 10Be and 14C), however, these records are somewhat modulated by climate processes themselves (the carbon cycle in the case of 14C, aerosol deposition and transport processes for 10Be) and so don't offer an absolutely clean attribution. Nonetheless, by comparing with both isotopes and trying to correct for climate (and geomagnetic) effects, some coherent signals have been seen.

There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic cosmic rays) and recent global warming. Since the paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), there has been an enhanced controversy about the role of solar activity for earth's climate. Svensmark (1998) later proposed that changes in the inter-planetary magnetic fields (IMF) resulting from variations on the sun can affect the climate through galactic cosmic rays (GCR) by modulating earth's cloud cover. Svensmark and others have also argued that recent global warming has been a result of solar activity and reduced cloud cover. Damon and Laut have criticized their hypothesis and argue that the work by both Friis-Christensen and Lassen and Svensmark contain serious flaws. For one thing, it is clear that the GCR does not contain any clear and significant long-term trend (e.g. Fig. 1, but also in papers by Svensmark).

Svensmark's failure to comment on the lack of a clear and significant long-term downward GCR trend, and how changes in GCR can explain a global warming without containing such a trend, is one major weakness of his argument that GCR is responsible for recent global warming. This issue is discussed in detail in Benestad (2002). Moreover, the lack of trend in GCR is also consistent with little long-term change in other solar proxies, such as sunspot number and the solar cycle length, since the 1960s, when the most recent warming started.

In Geophysical Research Letters, Scafetta & West (S&W) estimate that as much as 25-35% of the global warming in the 1980-2000 period can be attributed changes in the solar output. They used some crude estimates of 'climate sensitivity' and estimates of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) to calculate temperature signal (in form of anomalies). They also argue that their estimate, which is based on statistical models only, has a major advantage over physically based considerations (theoretical models), because the latter would require a perfect knowledge about the underlying physical and chemical mechanisms.

In their paper, they combine Lean et al (1995) proxy data for the TSI with recent satellite TSI composites from either Willson & Mordvinov (2003) [which contains a trend] and of Fröhlich & Lean (1998) [data from the same source, but the analysis doesn't contain a trend, henceforth referred to as 'FL98']. From 1980 and afterwards, they see a warming associated with solar forcing, even when basing their calculations on the FL98 data. The fact that the FL98 data doesn't contain any trend makes this finding seem a bit odd. Several independent indices on solar activity - which are direct modern measurement rather than estimations - indicate that there has been no trend in the level of solar activity since 1950s.

But, S&W have assumed a lagged response (which they state is tS4~4.3 years), so that the increase prior to 1980 seems to have a delayed effect on the temperature. The delayed action is a property of the climate system, which also affects greenhouse gases, and is caused by the oceans which act as a flywheel due to their great heat capacity and thermal inertia. The oceans thus cause a planetary imbalance. When the forcing levels off, the additional response is expected to taper off as a decaying function of time. In contrast, the global mean temperature, however, has increased at a fairly steady rate (Fig. 1). The big problem is to explain a lag of more than 30 years when direct measurements of quantities (galactic cosmic rays, 10.7 cm solar radio, magnetic index, level of sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths) do not indicate any trend in the solar activity since the 1950s.



In order to shed light on these inconsistencies, we need to look more closely at the methods and results in the GRL paper. The S&W temperature signal, when closely scrutinised (their Fig. 3), starts at the 0K anomaly-level in 1900, well above the level of the observed 1900 temperature anomalies, which lie in the range -3K < T < -1K in Fig. 1. In 1940, their temperature [anomaly] reconstruction intercepts the temperature axis near 0.12K, which is slightly higher than the GISS-curve in Fig. 1 suggests. The S&W temperature peaks at 0.3K in 1960, and diverge significantly from the observations. By not plotting the curves on the same graph, the reader may easily get the wrong impression that the construction follows the observations fairly closely. The differences between the curves have not been discussed in the paper, nor the time difference for when the curves indicate maxima (global mean temperature peaks in 1945, while the estimated solar temperature signal peaks in 1960). Hence, the decrease in global temperature in the period 1945 - 1960 is inconsistent with the continued rise in the calculated solar temperature signal.

Another more serious weakness is a flawed approach to obtain their 'climate sensitivity', and especially so for 'Zeq' in their Equation 4. They assume a linear relationship between the response and the forcing Zeq=288K/1365Wm-2. For one thing, the energy balance between radiative forcing and temperature response gives a non-linear relation between the forcing, F, and temperature to the fourth power, T4 (the Stefan-Boltzmann law). This is standard textbook climate physics as well as well-known physics. However, there is an additional shortcoming due to the fact that the equilibrium temperature is also affected by the ratio of the Earth's geometrical cross-section to its surface area as well as how much is reflected, the planetary albedo (A). The textbook formulae for a simple radiative balance model is:

F (1-A)/4 = s T4, where 's' here is the Boltzmann constant (~5.67 x 10-8 J/s m2K4).

('=' moved after Scafetta pointed out this error. )

S&W's sun-climate sensitivity (Zeq =0.21K/Wm-2), on which the given solar influence estimates predominantly depend, is thus based solely on a very crude calculation that contradicts the knowledge of climate physics. The "equilibrium" sensitivity of the global surface temperature to solar irradiance variations, which is calculated simply by dividing the absolute temperature on the earth's surface (288K) by the solar constant (1365Wm-2), is based on the assumption that the climate response is linear in the whole temperature band starting at the zero point. This assumption is far from being true. S&W argue further that this sensitivity does not only represent the direct solar forcing, but includes all the feedback mechanisms. It is well known, that these feedbacks are highly non-linear. Let's just mention the ice-albedo feedback, which is very different at (hypothetically) e.g. 100K surface temperature with probably 'snowball earth' and at 300K with no ice at all. In their formula for the calculation of the sun-related temperature change, the long-term changes are determined by Zeq, while their 'climate transfer sensitivity to slow secular solar variations' (ZS4) is only used to correct for a time-lag. The reason for this remains unclear.

In order to calculate the terrestrial response to more ephemeral solar variations, S&W introduce another type of 'climate sensitivity' which they calculate separately for each of two components representing frequency ranges 7.3-14.7 and 14.7-29.3 year ranges respectively. They take the ratios of the amplitude of band-passed filtered global temperatures to similarly band-passed filtered solar signal as the estimate for the 'climate sensitivity'. This is a very unusual way of doing it, but S&W argue that similar approach has been used in another study. However, it's not as simple as that calculating the climate senstivity (see here, here, here, and here). Hence, there are serious weaknesses regarding how the 'climate sensitivities' for the 11-year and the 22-year signals were estimated. For linear systems, different frequency bands may be associated with different forcings having different time scales, but chaotic systems and systems with convoluted response are usually characterised with broad power spectra. Furthermore, it's easy to show that band-pass filtering of two unrelated series of random values can produce a range of different values for the ratio of their amplitudes just by chance (Fig. 2). As an aside, it is also easy to get an apparent coherence between two band-pass filtered stochastic series of finite extent which are unrelated by definition - a common weakness in many studies on solar-terrestrial climate connection. There is little doubt that the analysis involved noisy data.

The fact that there is poor correspondence between the individual amplitudes of the band-passed filtered signals (Fig. 4 in Scafetta & West, 2005) is another sign indicating that the fluctuations associated with a frequency band in temperature is not necessarily related to solar variability. In fact, the 7.3-14.7 and 14.7-29.3 frequency bands may contain contributions from El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), although the time scale of ENSO is from 3-8 years. The fact that the amplitude of the events vary from time to time implies slower variations, just like modulations of the sunspot number has led to the proposition of the Gleissberg cycles (80-90 years). There is also volcanic activity, and the last major eruption in 1982 and 1991 are almost 10 years apart, and may contribute to the variance in the 7.3-14.7 year frequency range. S&W argue that their method eliminates influences of ENSO and volcanoes because their calculated sensitivity in the higher frequency band is similar to the one derived by Douglass and Clader (2002) by regression analysis (0.11 K/Wm-2). This conclusion is not valid. Having signals of different frequencies in the 7-15 years band, the amplitude of the signal in the higher band may correspond roughly to the 11-year signal by accident, but that doesn't mean that there are no other influences.

S&W combined two different types of data, and it is well-known that such combinations in themselves may introduces spurious trends. The paper does not address this question.

From regression analysis cited by the authors (Douglass and Clader 2002, White et al. 1997), it seems possible that the sensitivity of global surface temperature to variations of total solar irradiance might be about 0.1K/Wm-2. S&W do not present any convincing result that would point to noticeably higher sensitivities to long-term variations. Their higher values are based on unrealistic assumptions. If they would use a more realistic climate transfer sensitivity of 0.11K/Wm-2, or even somewhat higher (0.12 or 0.13) for the long-term, and use trends instead of smooth curve points, they would end up with solar contributions of 10% or less for 1950-2000 and near 0% and about 10% in 1980-2000 using the PMOD and ACRIM data, respectively.

Now, as a trained scientist, Mr. Kuvasz. It is your job to present articles that say that the contribution of natural causes as opposed to man made causes is in such and such a ratio, or that there is no contribution of natural causes to the warming and that the sun cannot be the cause of any warming. Failure to do that will result in strike three- You will be OUT!!!

12.3 Qualitative Comparison of Observed and Modelled Climate Change
12.3.1 Introduction
This section presents a qualitative assessment of consistencies and inconsistencies between the observed climate changes identified in Chapter 2 and model projections of anthropogenic climate change described in Chapter 9.

Most formal detection and attribution studies concentrate on variables with high climate change signal-to-noise ratios, good observational data coverage, and consistent signals from different model simulations, mainly using mean surface air temperatures or zonal mean upper-air temperatures. To enhance the signal-to-noise ratio, they generally consider variations on large spatial scales and time-scales of several decades or longer.

There are many studies that have identified areas of qualitative consistency and inconsistency between observed and modelled climate change. While the evidence for an anthropogenic influence on climate from such studies is less compelling than from formal attribution studies, a broad range of evidence of qualitative consistency between observed and modelled climate change is also required. In addition, areas of qualitative consistency may suggest the possibility for further formal detection and attribution study.

12.3.2 Thermal Indicators
Surface temperature
Global mean surface air temperature has been used in many climate change detection studies. The warming shown in the instrumental observations over the last 140 years is larger than that over a comparable period in any of the multi-century control simulations carried out to date (e.g., Figure 12.1; Stouffer et al., 2000). If the real world internal variability on this time-scale is no greater than that of the models, then the temperature change over the last 140 years has been unusual and therefore likely to be externally forced. This is supported by palaeo-reconstructions of the last six centuries (Mann et al., 1998) and the last 1,000 years (Briffa et al., 1998; 2000; Jones et al., 1998; Crowley, 2000; Crowley and Lowery, 2000; Mann et al., 2000), which show that the 20th century warming is highly unusual. Three of the five years (1995, 1996 and 1998) added to the instrumental record since the SAR are the warmest globally in the instrumental record, consistent with the expectation that increases in greenhouse gases will lead to sustained long-term warming.

When anthropogenic factors are included, models provide a plausible explanation of the changes in global mean temperature over the last hundred years (Figure 12.7). It is conceivable that this agreement between models and observations is spurious. For example, if a model's response to greenhouse gas increases is too large (small) and the sulphate aerosol forcing too large (small), these errors could compensate. Differences in the spatio-temporal patterns of response to greenhouse gases and sulphate forcing nevertheless allow some discrimination between them, so this compensation is not complete. On the other hand, when forced with known natural forcings, models produce a cooling over the second half of the 20th century (see Figure 12.7) rather than the warming trend shown in the observed record. The discrepancy is too large to be explained through model estimates of internal variability and unlikely to be explained through uncertainty in forcing history (Tett et al., 2000). Schneider and Held (2001) applied a technique to isolate those spatial patterns of decadal climate change in observed surface temperature data over the 20th century which are most distinct from interannual variability. They find a spatial pattern which is similar to model-simulated greenhouse gas and sulphate aerosol fingerprints in both July and December. The time evolution of this pattern shows a strong trend with little influence of interannual variability. (Note that this technique is related to optimal fingerprinting, but does not use prior information on the pattern of expected climate change.)

Other thermal indicators
While most attention in formal detection and attribution studies has been paid to mean surface air temperatures, a number of other thermal indicators of climate variations are also discussed in Chapter 2. Many of these, including warming in sub-surface land temperatures measured in bore holes, warming indicators in ice cores and corresponding bore holes, warming in sub-surface ocean temperatures, retreat of glaciers, and reductions in Arctic sea-ice extent and in snow cover, are consistent with the recent observed warming in surface air temperatures and with model projections of the response to increasing greenhouse gases. Other observed changes in thermal indicators include a reduction in the mean annual cycle (winters warming faster than summers) and in the mean diurnal temperature range (nights warming faster than days) over land (see Chapter 2). While the changes in annual cycle are consistent with most model projections, the observed changes in diurnal temperature range are larger than simulated in most models for forcings due to increasing greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols this century (see Chapters 2 and 8). However, the spatial and temporal coverage of data for changes in observed diurnal temperature range is less than for changes in mean temperatures, leading to greater uncertainty in the observed global changes (Karoly and Braganza, 2001; Schnur, 2001). Also, the observed reductions in diurnal temperature range are associated with increases in cloudiness (see Chapter 2), which are not simulated well by models. Few models include the indirect effects of sulphate aerosols on clouds.

Changes in sea-ice cover and snow cover in the transition seasons in the Northern Hemisphere are consistent with the observed and simulated high latitude warming. The observed trends in Northern Hemisphere sea-ice cover (Parkinson et al., 1999) are consistent with those found in climate model simulations of the last century including anthropogenic forcing (Vinnikov et al., 1999). Sea-ice extent in the Southern Hemisphere does not show any consistent trends.

Compatibility of surface and free atmosphere temperature trends
There is an overall consistency in the patterns of upper air temperature changes with those expected from increasing greenhouse gases and decreasing stratospheric ozone (tropo-spheric warming and stratospheric cooling). It is hard to explain the observed changes in the vertical in terms of natural forcings alone, as discussed in Section 12.2.3.2 (see Figure 12.8). However, there are some inconsistencies between the observed and modelled vertical patterns of temperature change. Observations indicate that, over the last three to four decades, the tropical atmosphere has warmed in the layer up to about 300 hPa and cooled above (Parker et al., 1997; Gaffen et al., 2000). Model simulations of the recent past produce a warming of the tropical atmosphere to about 200 hPa, with a maximum at around 300 hPa not seen in the observations. This discrepancy is less evident when co-located model and radiosonde data are used (Santer et al., 2000), or if volcanic forcing is taken into account, but does not go away entirely (Bengtsson et al., 1999; Brown et al., 2000b). The MSU satellite temperature record is too short and too poorly resolved in the vertical to be of use here.

Comparison of upper air and surface temperature data in Chapter 2 shows that the lower to mid-troposphere has warmed less than the surface since 1979. The satellite-measured temperature over a broad layer in the lower troposphere around 750 hPa since 1979 shows no significant trend, in contrast to the warming trend measured over the same time period at the surface. This disparity has been assessed recently by a panel of experts (National Academy of Sciences, 2000). They concluded that "the troposphere actually may have warmed much less rapidly than the surface from 1979 to the late 1990s, due both to natural causes (e.g., the sequence of volcanic eruptions that occurred within this particular 20-year period) and human activities (e.g., the cooling in the upper troposphere resulting from ozone depletion in the stratosphere)" (see also Santer et al., 2000). They also concluded that "it is not currently possible to determine whether or not there exists a fundamental discrepancy between modelled and observed atmospheric temperature changes since the advent of satellite data in 1979". Over the last 40 years, observed warming trends in the lower troposphere and at the surface are similar, indicating that the lower troposphere warmed faster than the surface for about two decades prior to 1979 (Brown et al., 2000a; Gaffen et al., 2000). However, in the extra-tropical Eurasian winter some additional warming of the surface relative to the lower or mid-troposphere might be expected since 1979. This is due to an overall trend towards an enhanced positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation (Thompson et al., 2000) which has this signature.

Model simulations of large-scale changes in tropospheric and surface temperatures are generally statistically consistent with the observed changes (see Section 12.4). However, models generally predict an enhanced rate of warming in the mid- to upper troposphere over that at the surface (i.e., a negative lapse-rate feedback on the surface temperature change) whereas observations show mid-tropospheric temperatures warming no faster than surface temperatures. It is not clear whether this discrepancy arises because the lapse-rate feedback is consistently over-represented in climate models or because of other factors such as observational error or neglected forcings (Santer et al., 2000). Note that if models do simulate too large a negative lapse-rate feedback, they will tend to underestimate the sensitivity of climate to a global radiative forcing perturbation.