Don't blame the sun for recent climate change, says expert
(Credit: NASA JSC)
Caspar Ammann: The question is if the sun or greenhouse gases are the primary driver of the trends over the last few decades.
We’re speaking with Caspar Ammann, climate scientist at NCAR – the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder.
Caspar Ammann: The naturally driven world that seemed to have, in our understanding, when we try to model it, or try to understand it in reconstructions, it seems to work with solar variability, volcanoes that go off. It seems to work quite well. But when we come to the last 30, 50 years, something else is going on.
Like most climate scientists, Ammann believes that ‘something’ is not the sun.
Caspar Ammann: And when we look at the sun, if the sun could be increasing, well, there’s not a single measure of solar variability, be it sunspots, be it flares, be it cosmic rays. There is no trend whatsoever over the last 50 years. Yet it is this period that we identify as having the fingerprint of greenhouse gas changes._
He said a warmer sun would cause warming high in Earth’s stratosphere. But this isn’t happening, according to Ammann.
Caspar Ammann: What our satellites and radiosondes and rockets are telling us is that above the tropopause, temperatures are dropping, and a drop in temperatures, that does not fit with a change in solar radiation. But it fits very nicely with an increase in greenhouse gases.
We will blame anything for climate change to avoid implicating ourselves. I have a teenage daughter. I see this all the time. It’s human nature.
This is a huge load of rot!! Caspar Ammann is propagating a lie, just like all the other global warming alarmists. There is now more proof than ever that this global warming con is a lie, built on flawed and false science with a one world Marxist agenda, and NO PROOF!!! whatsoever that man, CO2 or any other gases are causing the Earth to warm to catastrophic levels! There has been no warming since 1998. Ammann would do well to contact the University of New England in Australia to research the activity of the Sun in relation to the temperature of the Earth. Then maybe he wouldn’t shoot his mouth off so readily. Hungary’s biggest supporter of the Kyoto Propaganda just this week released corrected equations which completely refute data processed to reach the conclusions which lead to the IPCC regulations. Ammann, they reveal a major fault in the interaction of the atmosphere, which seems to be the basis for your argument. I don’t expect you to research any of this, because you are obviously too busy promoting the agenda of failed Marxist ideals.
I hope that all the people in the world thing about this problem, thing about our future, the Earth future.
Thanks so much for this study, which underscores more proof of manmade climate change from CO2, released since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Sadly, however, this issue’s been politicized, and the propaganda against this science is coming from the industries which have caused the problem. Their influence is so strong that no science or study such as this will ever change their minds. The only hope we have is to promote the truth and promote solutions. Once such solution to climate change & energy independence may be the Water Fuel Cell.
We are miss using our planet and putting too much CO2 gas in the air.
I see here we have a global warming advocate saying that industries are politicizing the debate as to whether the “increase” in planetary temperatures has been caused CO2 emissions! That is the most ridiculous and dishonest incidence of the pot calling the kettle black I have ever seen.
ScienceDaily reports (Mar. 21, 2003) — Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
“This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University’s Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
Even if global warming is caused by increased solar output, it is made worse by man made CO2. And there is really nothing that can be done to stop it.
None of us, whether in the older industrialized nations of Europe and the Americas, the newly emerging industrialized nations of Asia, or the third world countries, are going to stop burning fuel. There are too many mouths to feed and people to employ to really think governments are going to do anything.
The only realistic option is a major switch to nuclear energy. And the environmentalists killed nuclear energy in the past and will not allow it’s development now. In the U.S., if we are going to make any real reduction in CO2 output, we need to build at least 100 nuclear generators in the next 10 years. It’s not going to happen.
This is a global tragedy, and people like Perry (commenter above) are in denial. Yes, there is some slight miscalculations in some of the estimates, but these variances are infinetismal compared to what we (i.e., humans on Earth) are doing.
Think about it: Every day, we make heat. When we cook, drive and manufacture. When we cool our homes. When we barbecue. Now we also make carbon dioxide by breathing, and every act of combustion (except hydrogen) makes carbon dioxide and several other greenhouse gasses.
Are these not facts?
Now, lets multiply this by six billion people breathing, cooking, transporting… OK, now multiply that by the annual output of six billion people, and its a wonder we have not fried the planet already!
So, when you hear ignorance and apathy from people like Perry, you can bet they are either ignorant, uncaring or own a lot of stock in companies that benefit from the status quo.
In a capatilist society, the ultimate vote is where you spend your money. You, as a consumer, make companies rich. These rich companies use some of their wealth to affect public policy. These companies want to be unregulated so they can be most profitable. So, these companies fund the campaigns of those candidates who promise to ignore the public good. When elected, these candidates are obligated to protect the industries.
There is a constant force in all capitalistic societies: to make more profit. This force is what leads to abuses of capitalism: dangerous workplaces, employee abuse, child labor, dumping of poisons, polution of your land, sea and air, and even slavery and murder. All of these things have happened all over the world when capitalism rules unchecked by regulation.
The great Theodore Roosevelt fought against the concentration of power that immense wealth always spawns. He favored taxes that increased as income increased beyond the simple needs of life. He specifically promoted the taxation of large fortunes. He also thought that if a company was making a profit off of the people of a country, that the country could justly tax those profits for the greater good. He created graduated income taxes, estate taxes and in particular the capital gains taxes. He did this because he saw firsthand the dangers of concentrated wealth affecting public policy for private gain.
Organized business has fought these great advances in managing the wealth of a nation. The rich and powerful feel that it is not the wealth of the nation, but their personal peoperty. Yet it is always the resources of the nation, and the labour of our people, that creates that wealth in the first place.
So, the good of the people will always be at odds with the good of the business community, and because of this, capitalists will always seek out the shrill voice of the naysayer to promote their cause.
Here, Perry is telling us several lies at once, in the modern fashion of political propagandists of the recent past. He is throwing several logic “darts” against the wall of our minds, hoping that one or two might stick, and become a bit of doubt in our minds.
See how that works? The say a bunch of silly lies, you mind fends off the first few as obvioulsy false or contrived, but then one of the later points seems so much more credible than the first lie that your mind thinks it might have some merit. And so the seed of doubt is planted, and now you have to always have that bit of confusion at the core of your feelings about the issue! The propagandists render your thoughts and judgements by confusing you, obfuscating facts by creating falsehoods that engender fear, uncertainity and doubt.
Those of us who have little experience or cunning in regards to mental trickery are easily ensnared by these devices of logic. Spinmasters now use these tricks daily on talk radio to lie to their followers. Worse for the cause of truth, the opinion mongers on TV blind thousands with subtle and blatant propagandas, told over and over again until the masses believe the lies.
So Perry is probably not an original thinker, people like him rarely are. The get thier “talking points” from the dittohead brain police and somehow believe they are thinking for themselves. Perry is therefore the victim of the capitalist propaganda. He, and thousands like him, does not see that he and his children are just as victimized as the rest of us. His air, land and water are doomed by the people who are giving him his voting orders and political idealogies.
In the end, I believe it is already too late. Our Earth was a garden, the only one like it that we can get to, and now that we have ruined it. Life on Earth will suffer greatly, very soon. I imagine few species will survive the forces we have unleased to date, and I greatly fear the forces that will be unleashed in the next fifty years as starving nations all eye their neighbor’s food and water resources.
The Global Warming will lead to global wars, and much worse than carbon dioxide will be dumped in our air before the end of the present century.
The climate was like Humpty Dumpty, and now all the world can not repair it. Sorry for the bad news, but all the things we do to try to fix this can only compound the problem. Ethanol is worse than the problem is is said to solve. Nuclear proliferation is ultimately the factor that will doom the Earth, as your children will soon see.
The only chance we have is going to be resisted by every company and lobbyist in the world. We must lower human polulation, stop using oil and coal entirely. No government will be able to do these things, so it will take every citizen in the world to make this better.
As a technophile, it saddens me to think that the Luddites were right, but it is true: fossil fuels and unregulated capitalism are dangerous for all life on earth.
What kind of statement is this. The sun effects are climate. Are you saying it was something else that caused in what you believe to be the ice ages? Are yo saying that mammoths farted and thus released a gas that made the Earth cooler. You are just making people the scapegoats of this to make them listen to you and believe you. Today power isnt money it is how much affect you got on people. If you think this is a problem find a way to fix it without peoples way o life. You say well it is impossible if people dont stop polluting the atmosphere. Thats what people would tell you if you asked midevil age people to put a man on the moon. Were not causing global warming because there is no proof of this. The sun doesnt efect our climate what a stupid idea and how did it come to a person who people consider an expert.
John is correct-
Still so many who are in denial even though the data keeps piling up.
Hopefully this response to “Perry” (above) is simple enough for him to understand:
Frozen water turns to liquid when temperatures rise above freezing.
For that, sir, there is plenty of “proof”.
Now…travel to the arctic and open your eyes.
The change since 1970 is shocking.
Happy to ignite such a spirited debate. I’m a very proud capitalist, it works. Gone are the days when greedy money horders raped whatever fueled their money-grubbing exploits. Capitalism is a firm proponent of the goose that lays golden eggs. You who have criticised my post are still devoid of proof that the topic of these posts is true. It is you who have been conned. John Rosengarten, I am not a liar, nor am I uninformed. There is more proof that global warming is a Marxist lie than there is proof that it is truth. Marge, I don’t know if you have been to the Arctic recently, but this Northern winter saw 60% of the landmass under snow and ice. Global warming I suppose. Australia saw its coolest summer in 40-50 years. Global warming again. There needs to be a two sided approach to this debate and I fail to see the proof from the “ Man Is Responsible” side. Please view the posts on the Polar Bear topics. Also John Rosengarten, talk radio is not the vicious animal you believe just because you don’t agree with many of the hosts. Could it be that you are willing to surrender your freedom and individuality to one world body and submit to their edicts on the grounds of the common good? This has been tried and in all cases has been a dismal failure through history. Marxism sounds great until the human factor is inserted into the equation. I prefer to think for myself, obtain as much info on the subject, study, compare and then offer an opinion, which may still be incorrect. I doubt very strongly that it is in this case. My side of the argument has more proof every day, while the warmers argument has still to prove any of their theories. I hope this stirs the pot and the minds of all the E&S Community.
Some suggested scientific reading, which disputes this report:
Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E., Danish National Space Center, Scientific Report, March 2007)
A Critique on the Lockwood/Frochlich Paper in the Royal Society Proceedings (by Ken Gregory, August 2007), which can be found on the Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI) website.
The “Unruly Sunne” cannot be ruled out as a Cause of Recent Climate Variation (by SPPI, August 2007)
Some suggested scientific reading, which disputes this report:
Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E., Danish National Space Center, Scientific Report, March 2007)
A Critique on the Lockwood/Frochlich Paper in the Royal Society Proceedings (by Ken Gregory, August 2007), which can be found on the Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI) website.
The “Unruly Sunne” cannot be ruled out as a Cause of Recent Climate Variation (by SPPI, August 2007)
It is amazing that you political science majors cannot spell and have no grasp of the English language. I hope that when you launch your space probe to the sun that it is well manned and ready to explore the true temperature variances being argued here.
I for one would not be amazed to learn that the sun has no effect on the world’s temperature, it being the closest star. That would be “the sun” for the people on this site.
Obviously, we need to dump evil capitalism and all of us live just like Al Gore. Uh oh…if we all live like him, and I have seen his house in Nashville, the planet should run out of oil by Thursday and the global temperature would be hotter than Karl Marx in hell.
Beam all of you up Scotty….please!
Mr. Caspar Ammann implies that if the Sun were to suddenly go out that it would cause no effect on Earth’s environment. I suggest that Mr. Caspar Ammann take a refresher course in Physics as well as Biology. He sould pay close attention on how plants transfer energy of the Sun to fulfil their life requirements. I also question the scientific background of the authors for believing such nonsense and forgetting almost every thing they learned in college pretaining to Physics and science.
To a p garcia, Earth Dog & others:
Casper Ammann is in no way suggesting “that if the sun were to suddenly go out that it would cause no effect on the Earth’s environment.” I beg of you to reread or to more carefully listen to the program.
Let me give a simple illustration. Let’s say an outdoor thermometer reads 40 degrees and an indoor thermometer reads 70 degrees. If the thermostat is set at 70, the 30-degree differential between the outdoor and indoor temperature may very well indicate a functioning furnance.
That is not to say, however, that the indoor and outdoor temperatures wouldn’t plunge dramatically if the sun were to suddenly go out!
Bruce
Casper Ammann makes the statement that there is no solar variability. This flies in the face of well established climatic research.
The most significant and long-lasting natural process that affects our climatic cycles is the change in total solar irradiance (TSI) from the sun. Global warming increased significantly from 1910 to 1950 and can be directly correlated to a well documented increase in the TSI. Despite the fact that CO2 levels were on a sharp increase, there was a cooling period from 1950 through the 1970s, again directly proportional to the TSI. From the 1970s through the 1990s, temperatures increased do to another increase in the TSI. Presently we are in a cooling period that started in 2002 – again because of a decrease in the current TSI.
There is an overwhelming body of evidence that the TSI is variable to a significant degree and that it follows major and minor cycles. Global warming is real. It’s been happening for the past 14,000 years as we are near the climax of an interglacial epoch. However, global warming is not “man made.” That is not to say that man doesn’t contribute to climatic change.
Based on the latest climatological studies, man’s offset to the earth’s normal temperature extents amounts to no more than 10% of the natural variability observed between glacial and interglacial periods in the past 350,000 years. Our present global temperature is between 2.8 and 6.4 deg. F cooler (depending on the region)than the highest temperatures of past interglacial periods according to the NOAA paleoclimatic database. Assuming that our global temperatures were to rise to past interglacial highs, man’s affect on the increase would be somewhere between .6 and 1.2 degrees F. (again depending on the region).
Refer to the following:
[Scafetta, N. and West, B. J., “Is Climate Sensitive to Solar Variability?” Physics Today 61 no. 3 (2008)]
For those who don’t recognize the name, Scafetta’s earlier research was central to the IPCC’s predictions of a sea level rise of 1 ft. by 2011. Scafetta and West have since revised their numbers (in the above mentioned study) to the extent that man-made CO2 has less effect on global temperatures than previously thought. Since the release of Scafetta’s latest research, the IPCC has backed away from its predictions of sea level rise (hold that thought).
My objective understanding of what more recent research and paleoclimatic data is telling us convinces me that we are indeed experiencing global warming – that is undeniable. However, man’s contribution to it is far less than previously understood. If we were to stop all industry now and adopt a life of the Flintstones, we could reduce our global temperatures as much as .6 degrees based on present research. Of course, the trade off would be the ruin of every major economy in the world.
As an environmentalist, I cringe when I hear yet another alarmist play Chicken Little and predict doom and disaster that frankly isn’t going to happen. Such sensationalism creates distrust and distracts from worthwhile and objective environmental endeavors. We need to stop polluting our air and water but we need to hold out to the public the right reasons so they can get behind it.
Casper Ammann’s statements that there is no solar variability when it has been proven through numerous peer reviewed studies that TSI and associated land mass reflectivity play a significant role in global temperatures is the kind of junk science that the media throws out to the public as “scientific dispute”. Is is any wonder why there are so many skeptics now willing to vote against all environmental funding when there is so much junk science and alarmist bellowing based on it?
Hank,
Appreciate you bringing up the fascinating subject of total solar irradiance (TSI). It’s my understanding that TSI can only be measured in outer space, and has only been measured since 1979. According to this site (though the contents look like they were written before 2003) scientists “are unable to predict fluctuations in TSI due to 11-year and long-term solar cycles, and scientists do not yet have accurate enough measurements to determine the trend from one cycle to the next with sufficient precision. In fact, the TSI is currently known to an accuracy of a few Watts per square meter, which is greater than the entire flucuation the TSI over one 11-year cycle. Additionally, scientists haven’t pinned down what proportion of solar energy is absorbed by the land or atmosphere, They also do not have complete measurements of the energy variation for the distinct wavelegths of incoming solar radiation. These different wavelengths affect various components of the Earth’s atmosphere, land and ocean in different ways.”
We needn’t be alarmist or to keep our heads in the sand. On the other hand, honest inquiry sounds good to me!
Bruce
wow that is something you don’t here on the news this really helped me out for a homework assignment
did my comment from the 21 st of aug.make it to get read?
did my comment from the 21 st of aug.make it to get read?
Bruce,
The article that you cited does appear to be dated. Scafetta’s study, which I cited, was published in 2008 and perhaps builds on the events of 2003 (the beginning of the reversal of the TSI 11 year peak) mentioned in the earlier study which you linked to.
Over the past five or so years there has been a significant increase in our understanding total solar irradiance (TSI) and consensus on objective means to more accurately measure its influence on global temperatures and, more importantly, correlate its general contribution to global temperatures to periods predating modern measurements – going as far back as 350,000 years. This allows us to gain a better understanding of the TSI over the longer term as an input to the climatic system.
With the above said, the most current and reliable method of measuring TSI is through measurements of the 10.7 cm solar radio flux. The Solar Radio Monitoring Program, which is owned and operated by the National Research Council and the Canadian Space Agency, has recently released their latest measurements on the sun’s radio flux. The findings are rather interesting.
The IPS Solar Geophysical Summary’s theory holds that the lowest 10.7 cm solar radio flux the sun can hit is 67. That value would represent a dead calm on the sun – the lowest output of solar energy. Flux readings taken in July, 2008 indicate that the sun is in a deep slumber, or minimum, with recorded values of 67 – the lowest they can go. The last time that the observed 10.7 cm flux was this low was in July of 1964 which also coincides with lower global temperatures at that time. Thus, we understand that the sunspot cycle is a short term variable in the TSI cycles. The earth’s axis and orbital path around the sun is a longer term variable that affects the TSI and governs our longer term glacial and interglacial cycles.
What does the current solar minimum that we are in mean in practical terms? It is winter in the Antarctic with the average temperatures dropping to 1.53 C cooler than the seasonal norm – Antarctic’s third coldest winter in 50 years. Portions of the Anarctica south of Australia were as much as 5.5C (9.9 degrees F) colder than seasonal norms. North of the equator, the trend towards cooler has been measured throughout the United States. A weather station in Enterprise, Oregon records this year’s summer temperatures as being 9 F cooler than last year. From the body of climatic data, there is no question that we are in a cooling trend worldwide that is directly attributed to the TSI.
You make a very valid point regarding the fact that scientists haven’t pinned down the extent to which land mass and atmospheric absorption and reflectivity interact with TSI and affect global temperatures. To fully understand how TSI affects global temperatures we need to understand how TSI operates as an input to our complex climate system. TSI alone cannot explain the extent of variability in temperatures between glacial and interglacial periods. In complex systems like our climate system, there are feedback loops which tend to be non-linear and operate on a broad scope. Negative feedback moderates input and positive feedback amplifies input.
Two of the most significant feedback loops built in to our climate system are land mass reflectivity (LMR) and the absorption and reflectivity of atmospheric gasses. In the early 2000’s alarmists focused solely on atmospheric gasses and completely discounted TSI variability and LMR, which were poorly understood at the time and were believed to be constants. Since the only variable in the equation was atmospheric absorption and reflectivity, it is understandable that man made greenhouse gasses were championed as the predominant cause of global warming.
We now know that TSI and LMR are not constants and play more significant roles. As those roles are becoming better understood and quantified, it is becoming clear that man made green house gasses are far less of a contributor to global temperatures than believed in the late 1900’s and early 2000’s when predictions of global catastrophes were being espoused.
It seems to me that Ammann’s assertions that there is no variability is a holdout to what was understood in the late 1900’s. It plays well with the global warming alarmist crowd who are deeply invested in their cause and aren’t willing to consider that there are much larger pieces to the global temperature puzzle than just man made greenhouse gasses. IMHO.
Hank — You’re wrong when you say we are in a cooling trend worldwide. NOAA reported this month that July was the fifth-warmest on record for the globe, and that January-July 2008 ranked as the ninth-warmest seven-month period for combined average global land and ocean surface temperature.
Check it out here: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080815_ncdc.html
A separate NOAA press release noted that U.S. temperature was above normal in July and that five states were much warmer than average: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080808_julystats.html
NOAA got its info from this National Climatic Data Center report, ‘Climate of 2008: July in Historical Perspective.’ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jul/jul08.html
If you look at the global analysis section and the “Temperature Rankings and Graphics” section, for year-to-date, you’ll find graphs for January-July Global Land and Ocean Plot and Global Hemisphere Plot. Both show a warming trend since 1980, with temperature anomolies higher than the mean. I believe NOAA uses the 20th-century mean temperatures as the mean or zero point. See for yourself here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jul/global.html#year-to-date
Also, I had not heard that climate scientists are now attributing climate change to something other than greenhouse gases. Do you have sources for that?
Also, the RealClimate.org site reviewed a 2006 paper by Scafetta and West and concluded that it was not convincing and was sensitive to assumptions. That paper claimed that solar activity accounted for 50 percent of the warming we saw in the 20th century. If the scientists at RealClimate.org panned it, it doesn’t seem that credible to me. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/how-not-to-attribute-climate-change/#more-351
Hank & Dan,
I appreciate Hank responding to my comments and Dan responding to Hank’s. Hank, are you suggesting that TSI (total solar irradiance) studies are putting to rest the concern about human-induced greenhouse gas emissions? According to this article on Solar Irradiance Measurements, “To determine long-term changes in the Sun’s output, which may have time scales extending much longer than the 11-year solar cycle, the TSI climate record requires either very good absolute accuracy or very good instrument stability and continuous measurement. To date, no TSI instrument has achieved the necessary absolute accuracy, and the TSI record relies on measurement continuity from overlapping spacecraft instruments.” Even Scafetta says this about the Sun and Global Warming, “The sun MIGHT (my emphasis) have contributed 75% of the global warming during the first half of the century (1900-1950), but only 30% during the second half of the century (1950-2000) . . . However, anthropogenic-added climatic forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century and, in particular, during the last decades.”
Dan,
I believe you are misunderstanding me to say that greenhouse gasses play no role. I am saying that there is a current short term cooling trend which correlates to the TSI as per multiple recent studies. Take a look at http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Estimates%20of%20recent%20global%20temperature%20change. Looking at the August 2008 RSS, UAH, Hadcrut3, GISS, and NCDC measurements in the chart under the heading “Comparing global temperature estimates,” you can see that average global temperatures began to level off around 2002 where they held fairly stable until 2006. From 2006 forward to the present, average temperatures have dropped some
.3 C (.54F) on a noticeable curve.Now look at the raw “Jan-July Land and Oceanic Service Mean Temperature Anomaly” graphs used as the basis of the NOAA reports that you cited. [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/jul/lo-hem-jan-jul-pg.gif]. It is ninth warmest period compare to what? Look specifically at the time period from around 2002 to the present. While the granularity is somewhat coarse, you will see that the average temperature trend from 2002 through 2006 levels off with a decline in temperature from 2006 to the present. This graph agrees largely with the “August Global Temperature Estimates” chart above and correlates well to measured TSI for the same periods (see the chart below).
The 2002 to present drop in global temperatures corresponds closely with an associated drop in the TSI beginning in 2002 and extending to our present solar minimum [refer to http://lasp.colorado.edu/cgi-bin/ion-p?ION__E1=PLOT%3Aplot_tsi_data.ion&ION__E2=PRINT%3Aprint_tsi_data.ion&ION__E3=BOTH%3Aplot_and_print_tsi_data.ion&START_DATE=1&STOP_DATE=2150&TIME_SPAN=24&PLOT=Plot+Data]. Keep in mind that the earth’s temperatures lag TSI somewhat because the oceans are a huge heat sink. If the correlation is as closely linked to TSI as Scafetta and other scientists believe, then we should see a reversing trend within the next 10 years. If Scafetta’s models hold true, we should see a trend towards warmer temperatures with an increase of around +.3 F to +.6 F on average across the globe.
I reviewed RealClimate.org’s critique of Scafetta and West’s 2006 abstract. The author makes the statement “We said before that peer review is a necessary but not sufficient condition.” As a published researcher and scientist myself, I’m completely taken back by such a statement. The author seems to imply that the review board simply gave Scafetta and West a pass on any objective review. It seems to me that if Scafetta and West’s assertions were bucking well established understandings then the peer reviewers would be very unlikely to give such a pass because of the risk of the board coming under sharp criticism for not reviewing such a controversial paper for technical soundness before publishing it. At that point, the author lost credibility with me. The balance of the critique was unprofessional and unconvincing as it reeked of sour grapes and brought no new information to the table.
Bruce,
Thank you for your comments. Scafetta and West asserted in their abstract that 76% of the rise in global temperature between 1900 and 1950 is attributable to the sun. They estimate that from 1980 to the present, TSI accounts for only 35% of the temperature. Since we are talking about the temperature delta rather than extent, the math works out to +.6 F averaged over the century (using those percentages) which is attributable to anthropogenic forcing. This agrees with my earlier statements and I believe is close enough to the stated percentages in Scafetta’s academic resume that you referenced to be acceptable.
Indeed anthropogenic forcing plays an increasingly significant role per Scafetta and West’s studies. Nonetheless, that role has been greatly overestimated in earlier climate models because the TSI was discounted as a constant and other natural feedbacks weren’t well understood. According to non-equilibrium thermodynamic models, if input to the system remains a constant then changes in temperature can only be accounted for by changes in equilibrium that must be occurring in the feedback loops (which tend to be rather non-linear). This means that the early climate models were very sensitive to anthropogenic changes. However, if the energy input is variable, then the climate model becomes less dependent on feedbacks to account for temperature variability and thus less sensitive to anthropogenic forcing.
The NOAA SIS prehistoric paleoclimatic database does a reasonably good job at accurately accounting for climatic changes going as far back as roughly 350,000 years. [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/images/data2-dome-fuji-lg.gif ] The most comprehensive repository of paleoclimatic data is the VOSTOK core site in Antarctica, which bases its data on deuterium proxy found in ice cores. When you look at the past three glacial/interglacial periods and their July insolation, atmospheric CO2 levels and temperatures, one can see a direct correlation between solar irradiance and corresponding CO2 levels and temperature. Prior to 2000 years, anthropogenic forcing played no significant role. What remains driving global temperature are TSI and natural feedbacks. What is also evident is that global changes in temperature are sudden which underscores the non-linearity of the feedbacks and the impact changes in TSI can place on them.
This all brings me full circle to my original statement that I believe Ammann is overlooking a key piece of the puzzle when he dismisses TSI as a significant input variable in the climate model. Well documented temperature anomalies correlate well to the 11 and 22 year TSI cycles. Correlation to the more erratic multi-century cycle and a 140,000 year cycle seems plausible and would neatly explain major and minor glacial cycles.
Dan,
Sorry, the reference links in my reply to you didn’t seem to format correctly. Here are working links to the charts in my reply:
Comparing Global Temperature Estimates
NOAA Jan-July Land and Oceanic Surface Mean Temperature Anomaly
TSI Measurements Interactive Database
Hank,
I can see how scientists can use ice core studies to link atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature for the last several hundred thousand years. But TSI (total solar irradiance)? It’s my understanding that TSI can only be measured from outer space, and has only been measured since 1979. Perhaps you’re inferring that these cycles are directly related to TSI?
What especially impresses me about these ice core studies is that we’re in unprecedented territory as far as atmospheric CO2 levels are concerned. Throughout modern geological history, atmospheric CO2 has cycled from roughly 180 to 280 parts per billion. To date, CO2 levels have risen to around 400 ppb, and are expected to keep rising!
Bruce,
Much of the data that is used in climate models, particularly when we’re looking backwards to grasp baselines and extents is reconstructed or error compensated data. In fact, most current data is error compensated and normalized to remove error and biasing factors. Given your intelligent replies, I am certain that you understand that the scientific community accepts such data as being fairly accurate and the methodologies sound in its reconstruction or compensation.
To the best of my knowledge, all climate models rely on reconstructed or compensated data for reference and validation. I don’t see how measuring insolation from outer space disqualifies its use. Likewise I don’t see why using reconstructed data predating 1979 should be discounted as unaccepted methodology when such methodology is a community accepted practice in all areas of climate research today.
It is well understood that the sun’s irradiance does change measurably in cycles. Likewise, the earth’s orbit and axis affect its uptake of solar energy. Since the sun is the primary energy input into our climate system, it makes perfect sense to me that cyclic changes in TSI should affect the climate. Many other climate scientists agree. Ammann apparently doesn’t. TSI is a relatively new focus in climate research and it does challenge previous assumptions. However, it is not purely speculative.
In answer to your question “Perhaps you’re inferring that these cycles are directly related to TSI?” My answer is absolutely. When looking at NOAA’s reconstructed metadata on abrupt paleo climate changes it is impossible to not notice the direct correlation between insolation, atmospheric CO2 levels, and temperature change. Please offer another explanation for the marked variations in the minor glacial cycles and why the tightly correlated insolation cycles cannot be a primary contributing source. If insolation is not involved then what are the feedbacks driving these minor cycles and what is forcing the feedbacks?
Hank,
I hardly know what factors or combination of factors are responsible for glacial cycles, but I wish to quote from this report on ice core studies, “It’s also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs (greenhouse trace gases), and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation.”
One thing that really appears to be beyond all dispute from these ice core studies and other studies as well: we’re now in unprecedented territory as far as greenhouse gas emissions are concerned. Ice core studies show that throughout modern geological history, atmospheric CO2 levels have bounced from about 180 to 280 parts per billion. That cycle appears to have been broken. To date, atmospheric CO2 has climbed to about 400 ppm and is undoubtedly still climbing – a fact that seems to relate to theme of this program: “Don’t blame the sun for RECENT climate change.”
Even Scafetta, one of your favorite sources of information, says, “However, anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in the climatic change during the last century and, in particular, the last decades.
Bruce,
Your last reply, I believe, makes a case for why solar radiation should not be so quickly discounted. The line you quote makes the point that the ratio of contribution of three forcings – GTGs, solar radiation, and ocean circulation is not well quantified. If insolation were constant, as per Amman’s position, it need not be mentioned as one of three linked variables.
Other scientists like West, Crowley, T. J., and Kim, K.-Y, Cliver, E. W., Boriakoff, V., and Feynman, J., Foukal, P., Usoskin, I. G., Schüssler, M, Solanki, S. K., and Mursula, K., Lean, J., Rian, Pasotti, J., to name a few, have published papers that agree to varying degrees with Scafetta and West’s conclusions. Even the paper that you cite in your last reply references the FUMAGES workshop from which I quote “Since the publication of the Hays, Imbrie and Shackleton Science paper in 1976 a significant amount of evidence has accumulated showing that changes in the distribution of solar radiation because of changes in the Earth’s orbit plays an important role in climate change.”
Scafetta is not my “favorite source of information.” He is one abstract that I cited then later defended. I don’t feel such sarcasm is warranted. You seem to take a position that I fail to acknowledge his statements regarding anthropogenic forcing’s role. I feel I have been clear in acknowledging its increasing role in the climate model. However, I have also been clear in my position that the models used in the late 1990’s overestimated its contribution because they failed to take into account solar variability – the whole point of this discussion. They also used assumptions that have since been found to be off by a ratio of 2:1, thus failing to take into proper account the contributions of other natural forcings and whether such forcings are contributory or reactionary. While noteworthy, it is irrelevant to the topic.
Now, allow me to quote from the Sept. 26, 2006 edition of the Science Daily: “Researchers found the average temperature of the upper ocean rose by 0.16 degrees Fahrenheit from 1993 to 2003, and then fell 0.055 degrees Fahrenheit from 2003 to 2005. The recent decrease is a dip equal to about one-fifth of the heat gained by the ocean between 1955 and 2003. They analyzed data from a broad array of ocean moorings, floats and shipboard sensors, and supported their results with data from NASA’s Jason and Topex/Poseidon satellites…” “…Lyman said the cause of the recent cooling is not yet clear. Research suggests it may be due to a net loss of heat from the Earth. “Further work will be necessary to solve this cooling mystery,” he said.”
If anthropogenic forcing were the primary feedback affecting global temperature as you seem to maintain, the well documented global cooling of the oceans should not be happening. It so happens that the cooling trend of the oceans coincides with our present solar minimum. While the jury is still out on how and why, I don’t believe it is prudent in the quest of scientific understanding to so readily discount solar variability as this site seems to want to do. There is a growing and convincing body of evidence that solar variability is a significant variable in emerging climate models. It is a role that needs to be better understood and not just swept under the carpet because it threatens to change previously held understandings and agendas.
I believe I should leave this debate rest with stating that Amman offers an opinion that is being challenged by newer research. Amman’s academic focus and all of his published abstracts have been on volcanoes and their impact on climate. He is only a minor subject matter contributor to only one study conducted by Dr. T. M. Wigley that addresses tropospheric temperature changes. I don’t see where his opinions on solar variability have been qualified by any real research on his part which focuses on the question. While his opinion may be considered, I personally don’t see Ammon as an academically authorative source on the question.
Hi all. Interesting discussion. But let’s not forget – in all these details – that the warming of Earth due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases is an accepted fact by the majority of scientists. And please don’t tell me that ‘science isn’t conducted by majority’ because, in fact, with respect to policy, it is. And how could it be otherwise?
Even the oil companies are coming around to the fact of human-caused global warming. Please hear this amazing podcast by Jan van der Eijk of Shell.
Hank, we’d love to hear more about your background. Are you a scientist? A professional writer? You are an excellent writer and extremely versed on this subject, so I’m just wondering.
Thanks everybody!
Deborah
Hank,
I’d like to revisit the graph you sent. Can you tell me what “July insolation at 65 degrees N” means? Is this term synonymous with total solar irradiance – also known as the solar constant?
If I understand the term correctly, total solar irradiance (solar constant) refers to the sun’s energy OUTSIDE the Earth’s atmosphere where the sun’s rays hit vertically. The figure often given for total solar irradiance (the so-called solar constant) is 1,367 Watts per square meter, with a variation of about 0.1% with each 11-year cycle.
By insolation, are we referring to the solar energy input outside the Earth’s atmosphere or on Earth itself? With the graph showing the variation at roughly 400 to 500 W/m2, I suspect it refers to the Earth’s surface at 65 degrees latitude in July (or summer).
Bruce
Deborah,
Thank you for your kind words. I am not a professional writer nor am I a climatologist. I am a researcher / scientist with four peer reviewed published abstracts and posters on my resume. My professional and academic background is in information theory and systems engineering. Over the past few years, I’ve been working with a group of scientists (formerly leading scientists in NOAA) in adapting existing weather system and wind force models to integrate with emergent GIS technologies.
Allow me to say that my well intended opposing opinion on Ammonn’s assertions may have branded me as “one of those” deniers who will argue against climate change in the face of all the facts. I am not in that camp at all. It is my personal belief that man made green house gasses do contribute to climate change. I don’t dispute the facts that industrialization has pushed CO2 levels to unprecedented levels. However, there is too much that is not understood about the climate system to be closing the book on new understandings. I am convinced by the body of research and evidence that there many pieces of the puzzle that are coming to light in recent years that deserve scientific debate and consensus. Solar variability is one of them.
I agree with you that science seeks consensus by the majority. However, most meaningful discoveries are made by just one person. The debate on the causes and extent of global warming is so politically charged and with such high professional stakes that this fact is sometimes overlooked.
Bruce,
Yes you would be correct – 65 degrees North latitude in July. 65 N is a standard reference.
To better understand the gist of the graph, here is a short abstract by Junfeng Ji published by the American Geophysics Union which discusses how the rate of solar insolation affects glacial/interglacial transition and ties it to 65 N reconstructions.
Perhaps if you are a member of the AGU, you can pull the full article.
Hank and Bruce, thank you for keeping the voices of inquiry and debate alive at EarthSky’s website!
Deborah
Hank,
Appreciate your reply. Just so we’re clear on this, the graph you sent refers to insolation – solar radiation on the Earth’s surface – not to TSI (total solar irradiance) – solar radiation outside the Earth’s atmosphere. Correct?
Thank you!
Bruce
Bruce,
You are correct. I’ve used both terms because they both involved in the question of solar variability and are interrelated. Regarding TSI, it is commonly held that its variation is no more than 0.1%. However, a recent abstract published by NOAA and funded by NASA finds that TSI has increased by 0.2% since 1675, further indication of less undertstood multi-century cycles. Giving consideration to the fact that the feedbacks in the climate are non-linear and react to small change this can be significant.
It has been theorized that when TSI is lower, the magnetosphere becomes weaker (due to a reduction in solar wind plasma) and allows for an increase in cosmic rays. It is well understood that increases in cosmic rays promote cloud formation resulting in higher reflection of IR radiation back to space, thus adding a further reduction in averaged insolation than could be accounted for in just the measured change in TSI.
Deborah,
I must say that it is refreshing to find a site that is open to the spirit of honest intellecutal debate. Sadly, I fear that many other sites would not tolerate such spirited debate.
My hat is off to you and the rest of the contributors to your site. I realized only recently that Bruce is a contributor to this site. He is a good sport, patient, intelligent, informed, and intellectually honest. I believe that adds up to five stars.
Thanks for such a well done site that encourages dialog in the true spirit of science!
Hank
Thank you Hank. We hope you’ll return.
I second Deborah! Many thanks, Hank, for your gracious words.
Yes, I’m a contributor to Earth & Sky, though my speciality is skywatching. My conversation with you counts as extracurricular activity, but it’s proven to be time well spent. I learned a lot from the dialogue. Thank you for taking the time and energy to express your views and to respond to my queries!
Best wishes,
Bruce
from John Rosengarten:
There is a constant force in all capitalistic societies: to make more profit. This force is what leads to abuses of capitalism: dangerous workplaces, employee abuse, child labor, dumping of poisons, polution of your land, sea and air, and even slavery and murder. All of these things have happened all over the world when capitalism rules unchecked by regulation.
And I say:
So I notice this has happened in the socialist countries too. Russia devasted the environs of Eastern Europe, China has done the same to itself, so has Cuba, and so have the black countries of Africa. Many Asian countries, Korea, Taiwan and China in particular are so devastated environmentally they will never recover. They’re not capitalists.
Perry Bolin, you are so right and so is Hank. Good to see not everyone believes this warming spoof that has no basis in fact.
WATER VAPOR is the main “greenhouse” culprit. Not CO2.
Actually, Joeallen, the planet is warming. Climate scientists from around the world have established this fact. See the four reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that were published last year. (http://www.ipcc.ch/)
The IPCC found that water vapor plays only a tiny role in global warming. The big three causes are carbon dioxide, followed by other greenhouse gases, followed by ground-level ozone.
If you check out the graph titled “Radiative Forcing Components” on page 4 of the Physical Science Basis report, summary for policymakers, you’ll see what scientists have determined regarding all of the factors that contribute to global warming.
CO2 accounts for 24 times the warming that water vapor does. The effect of solar irradiance is also small; CO2 contributes 14 times more to the warming than solar irradiance. That info was published in 2007 given the best available science at that time. The report did note that the level of scientific understanding was low for the effects of water vapor and solar irradiance, but I have not seen any new research to push CO2 and other greenhouse gases out of the top spots.
That’s what we know through scientific inquiry. Scientists are also conducting new research into climate change. You might be interested in this new headline:
Earth Hotter Now Than in Past 2,000 Years, Study Says
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080902-hottest-earth.html
Why is it so hard for some people to accept that we’ve played and continue to play a major role in warming the planet? It’s been well-established that people have altered the earth in many other ways—soil erosion, pollution of the oceans resulting in dead zones, deforestation, affecting mutations in frog, toads and other animals due to chemical runoff from factory farms … So why is it so hard for people to accept that we’ve also had a hand in changing the composition of the atmosphere in such a way as to trap heat and warm the planet? Scientists have been documenting this phenomenon for decades now, amassing reams of carefully tested evidence. And nearly all scientists that have seriously studied global warming come to the same conclusion—global warming is driven at least in part by our actions.
Jeremy, I’m with you! For those of us who have worked as science communicators for the past decades, the situation could not be more clear. Science has shown that Earth is warming, and humans are at least partly to blame.
Deborah
I thought I might make one more commentary on this topic as I noticed my name was mentioned in context to those who believe global warming is a “spoof.” It is unfortunate that when you debate any technical aspect of global warming, you quickly get labeled as a skeptic.
For the record, I am not in the camp of the skeptics who have their heads buried in the sand and it should be obvious I don’t buy into the outrageous vocal claims of many alarmists. I am a scientist and a lay environmentalist who might be better described as being on the jury (as most Americans are) trying to understand the evidence being presented and draw a conclusion that is not spoon fed from either extreme position.
I understand there is scientific consensus on global warming but what does that really mean? Scientific consensus can best be defined as a belief that is a synthesis of the scientific community’s ideas, incorporating their best thinking. You don’t hear that there is a scientific consensus that the Earth orbits the sun. This conclusion no longer requires consensus because sound scientific enquiry starting in the time of Galileo eventually led to it being proven as fact.
Research and spirited debate is part of the sound scientific process which will ultimately lead to a full understanding of the facts wherein scientific consensus will no longer be required. We aren’t there yet so please don’t tell me that scientific consensus proves global warming is entirely anthropogenic in origin and please don’t tell me that our climate is so insensitive to man’s impact that we can just continue to pollute it unabated without long term consequences.
I believe that when the questions are answered, the facts will fall somewhere closer to the center of both extreme views. Until then, we need to identify realistic and sustainable methods to lessen man’s impact on the environment without resorting to the destroying the economies of 1st world countries (which amounts to killing the patient with an overdose of medicine). Politically motivated ideologies championed by many alarmists that seeks to ram aversive and disincentivizing policy down the public throat have never been shown to accomplish anything in history (other than promoting dissent). Scientific research and development of viable green technologies and the promoting community oriented initiatives that create industry and reward the individual who adopts green alternatives in daily living hold the long term solutions.
Not everyone who debates the questions is a skeptic. I believe Bruce was most eloquent in saying “We needn’t be alarmist or to keep our heads in the sand. On the other hand, honest inquiry sounds good to me!” I couldn’t have stated it any better.
Hank —
I’m glad you don’t have your head buried in the sand on the global warming issue.
As for ‘scientific consensus’ and what that means regarding global warming, here’s my understanding of it:
Last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued four reports about the aspects of climate change: Physical evidence, impacts, mitigation possibilities, and a synthesis report. (see http://www.ipcc.ch)
The IPCC publishes these reports about every 6 years; this was their fourth set of reports, the others coming in 2001, 1995 and 1990. The IPCC formed in 1988; they’ve studied the issue for 20 years.
The IPCC is a scientific group that analyzes research and data on climate change but does no original research of its own. Hundreds of scientists work on the IPCC, as do government officials from the nations involved.
Over the last 20 years, climate scientists have been able to conduct more climate studies, amass more data and refine their hypotheses about climate change. With each report, the evidence grew to support the existence of global warming. By 2007, the evidence was so convincing that the IPCC declared global warming to be an unequivocal fact. The planet is warming; scientific observation tells us so.
The IPCC also stated that it is very likely, with 90 percent certainty, that most of the warming has been, and is being caused by human activities such as burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests. Not all of the warming, but most of it.
I’ve read the summaries of the four IPCC reports from 2007 and I found them to be very scientific, unbiased and honest. They state what the scientific research tells us and what is unknown. They state a range of probabilities of what could happen as climate change continues.
One graph I particularly like compares the impact of various factors on radiative forcing, or how much warming each causes. For each the report lists a Level of Scientific Understanding; some of the factors, such as cloud albedo and solar irradiance, have a low LOSU. More research needs to be done, and is being done, on those topics.
Last week I heard James J. McCarthy speak as part of a panel on climate change. He is a Harvard professor of biological oceanography and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He noted that there is no competing theory for climate change. “We know there are natural factors and human factors. Add them up and you can reconstruct today’s climate,” he said. Remove any of those factors and you cannot model today’s climate.
I agree that political ideologies can hinder progress by distorting the issue. But it’s clear we must do something. We must take some action to slow down climate change and reduce its possible impacts. Reducing emissions and protecting forests may not happen overnight, but we need to start, even if we begin with baby steps. We know enough about climate change to start acting on it now.
Dan Kulpinski, earthsky.org
Dan,
I have read the IPCC’s 2007 reports. It is in the Synthesis Report (AR4), Topic 1 (page 30), header that the statement “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” is made. Going back to the Introduction on page 26, it states; “Topic 1 summarizes observed changes in climate and their effects on natural and human systems regardless of their causes…” Thus, the context of this statement is to the observation of global warming and not its causes.
AR4 draws far ranging conclusions based on observational and retrospective research data collected by several focused work groups. It offers no statement as to what its inclusion or exclusion criteria is with respect to the data utilized. The chart that you particularly like (figure 2.4 on page 39) is focused almost exclusively on anthropogenic forcings while completely ignoring the role of other significant feedbacks. The only albedo factors presented in the chart are anthropogenic. The presented certainty of albedo factors is far lower – a ratio of almost 10:1 as compared to positive forcings. This strongly biases the conclusion towards anthropogenic greenhouse gasses (GHG) as being the only variable that affects climate change. This makes it difficult to generalize from the findings more widely without a high degree of bias towards this pre-conclusion. From a research perspective, the IPCC reports are biased by their use of presuppositional, inadequately scoped, and poorly operationalized data. Alarmists cherry pick the high ranging numbers in these reports and run off with their irrational conclusions before an increasingly skeptical public. This is the point I made about the IPCC reports earlier in my debate on Ammonn’s assertions.
I remain in complete disagreement with the punitive, disincentivizing, and hypocritical message of alarmists. As a small minority and the focus of media attention, they do more to derail public interest than the entire well informed majority of scientists and researchers and organizations that collectively do offer meaningful solutions. It is evident that the irrational message is having a negative impact. A 2008 Gallup polls show that the public is no more convinced of global warming today than 19 years ago with only 37% of Americans convinced that it is a major concern. This should suggest that the message isn’t working!
While we may debate the numbers and their conclusions (a scientific process I think we both appreciate), I must stop at this juncture, put on my environmentalist hat, and acknowledge the bigger picture. I am in total agreement with your last paragraph and subscribe to it personally. It may surprise you to know that I have reduced the energy requirements of my home to less than 50% of what it was three years ago with a goal of achieving 90% in the next five years. I drive a hybrid vehicle and I am a member of a national organization and president of a local club that works with local and federal agencies in managing human environmental land impact, use, and volunteer clean-up and restoration projects. I believe that disqualifies me as a skeptic and armchair critic.
Allow me to offer this suggestion: I am a commentator who sees a huge disconnect between what science is saying and what the public is hearing. I am not an expert on the matter other than my own personal observations and convictions. Perhaps EarthSky.org might consider finding some subject matter experts and do an objective exposition on why this disconnect widens despite the vast increase in knowledge over the past 19 years. It might help change the message in a way that would engage the public and bring the awareness to a local and personal level where adopting eco-friendly changes in lifestyle need to happen. Unless the public buys in to the message at that level other solutions brought to the table are merely forms of damage control.
Hank
Oh yeah, that big ol’ ball of burning gases CAN’T be affecting us in any way….YEAH RIGHT
Guess the global warming alarmists can make any information fit their agenda. The religion of the left is Global Warming. Why must they continue to propagate the lies?
Cookeville Weather Guy — Actually, you’ve misunderstood what Caspar Ammann said. He noted that according to the latest climate research, the sun is not the main cause of rising temperatures that we’ve seen over the last 50 years. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases appear to be the main cause. The best available science tells us so. He noted that there is no observed increase in solar activity, no upward trends.
We all know the sun warms our planet and keeps it habitable. But as far as we can tell, it has not been the main cause of the rise in temperatures we’ve seen and documented.
-Dan