TCS Daily


Alarmist Tsunami

By Alan Oxley - August 11, 2006 12:00 AM

Across Asia Pacific his week, there was a surge of global warming hype. The novelty for new alarmism goes to the English-language Viet Nam News which prominently carried a feature by a Reuters writer in Oslo about Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a Canadian Inuit campaigner, who has claimed that air conditioners are being installed in the tiny Inuit town of Kuujjuaq in Quebec's icy North because of global warming.

According to Watt-Clousier: "Our Artic homes are made airtight for the cold and do not 'breathe' well in the heat with this warming trend".

Mulling over the wider implications, the Reuters writer speculated that this trend suggests manufacturers of air conditioners and brewers seem obvious winners. Before you call your broker to get onto Anheuser-Busch and Nippon Denso stock before prices spike, check the rest of the story.

There is an afterthought from the mayor of Kuujjuaq. The air conditioners were being installed because windows had to be closed in summer to keep computers dust free. It seems the Information Age might the driver rather than global warming.

And the grand total of computers being installed is ten.

At least this was a new twist in climate change alarmism. Asia also got a dose of "Golden Oldie" catastrophism in the same week.

First there was the publicity of the release of "Time and Tide" a documentary made in New Zealand, by American documentary makers, Julie Bayer and Josh Salzman. They filmed the return of a group of expatriates to Tuvalu, an atoll in the Pacific with a population of 12,000.

Bayer says Tuvalu first attracted them because this enterprising mini state had sold their internet domain name rights (dot.tv) for US $ 50 million. Instead, she and Salzman got swept up (excuse the pun) with the story of the imminent submerging of this atoll state (average elevation above sea level is 12 inches, highest point 12 feet) and filming the world's first global warming refugees.

If anyone told Bayer and Salzman there was no news here -- Greenpeace declared twenty years ago that global warming was about to submerge Tuvalu -- maybe they weren't listening. They certainly weren't interested in the facts. A quick search on the web suggests such an inconvenient truth.

A nearby atoll hosts a Scandinavian oceanology institute which has reported consistently that sea levels in the immediate region have not risen in any significant way. The Australian Tidal Facility, a research Centre in South Australia which monitors sea levels in the Pacific, has research which corroborates this.

As any geologist or oceanologist will also tell you, there is no consistent pattern of sea levels in the world's oceans. In many areas they are simultaneously rising and falling as the seabed flexes and bulges in response to long term seismic events in the Earth's magma.

Not wanting to waste the wonderful image of expatriate Tuvaluans standing ankle deep in seawater washing over parts of the atoll, Bayer and Salzman kept the cameras rolling, no doubt encouraged by the buzz in documentary movie circles about Al Gore's new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth".

It was also released last week and given full front page treatment by Bangkok's "Nation" English-language newspaper. The local Greenpeace campaigner told readers there would be an exclusive pre-release screening and used the occasion to take a gratuitous crack at Thailand's leading power generator for investigating clean coal technologies to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide instead of giving up coal altogether.

Greenpeace evidently reckons Thais should read with candles and cook with portable gas camp stoves. It also rails against generation of electricity from (mostly carbon-neutral) hydropower, one of the best sources of renewable energy and major untapped source of electricity in mainland Southeast Asia, because this requires dams to be built.

That rural villagers in Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia continue to endure shorter life spans because of the long term effects of ingesting smoke trapped inside their houses from cooking on open wooden fires would not interest Greenpeace.

The swell also reached California. In the same week, Tony Blair visited The Golden State to bear hug California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for deciding to require business in California to buy permits to emit carbon dioxide. Blair must have considered this a success in an odd program of British global warming diplomacy.

The British Government has invested as lot of time and money trying to persuade State Governments in the US and Australia to adopt carbon emissions trading schemes in the face of refusal by their national governments to establish federal schemes.

British officials even suggest, as Blair reportedly did to Schwarzenegger, that these states could participate in the EU and British emissions trading schemes. Given how disastrously the EU program has begun, it would be more valuable to invite them to take shares in Eurotunnel. The Governor's response is not reported.

And let's hope someone explains to the Governor that is it is not a good time to raise energy costs in California, not just because the oil price is so high, but because there are many lower energy-cost locations for companies in States bordering California.

For the record, the global warming tide ebbed a little in Australia. Prime Minister John Howard recently announced that the ambition to make Australia a global energy superpower. It has vast reserves of coal and uranium and good reserves of gas. This was distinctly greenhouse politically incorrect and caused the Governments of Australia's six States to back away from costly and pointless plans (developed with British encouragement) to introduce their own system of trading permits to emit carbon. China's demand for energy continues to fuel prosperity in Australia.

Occasionally a glimmer of reality breaks though the gloom of the relentless campaign of global warming alarmism.

Alan Oxley is the Chairman of World Growth.

Categories:

36 Comments

Whow now your a climate expert Alan
Hell first you wouldn't name and shame your yanking friends on free trade now your fronting up on something you know nothing about is the money that good? Next you'll be pushing ID and gun rights. LOL at you Alan

Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean
CLIMATE MODELS IN TROUBLE AS UPPER OCEAN COOLS SIGNIFICANTLY

Roger Pielke Sr., 10 August 2006

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/08/10/new-geophyical-research-letters-paper-accepted-recent-cooling-of-the-upper-ocean-by-jm-lyman-jk-willis-and-g-c-johnson/

New Geophyical Research Letters Paper Accepted - "Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean" by J.M. Lyman, J.K. Willis, and G. C. Johnson

A very important new Geophysical Research Letters Paper has been accepted for publication. It is entitled "Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean" by J.M. Lyman, J.K. Willis, and G. C. Johnson.

A preprint version of the paper is available from the first author (see). The paper can be viewed on this site: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/~lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf.

The Climate Science weblog will discuss the importance of this paper in more detail in a later weblog. However, the reported over 20% loss of upper ocean heat content between 2003 and 2005, which had accumulated between 1955 and 2003, is a very important observational finding. According to the paper, this cooling corresponds to -1.0 (+/- 0.3) W/meter squared global radiative imbalance over this time period.

This is a significant observation, which has important climate science implications as has been discussed in the Climate Science weblog of August 8, 2006. None of the multi-decadal global climate models predicted such a cooling.

The explanation of the cooling will be the focus intense research (and speculation) in the coming months.

Tropical Cyclones
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones?
Christopher W. Landsea1, Bruce A. Harper2, Karl Hoarau3, John A. Knaff4

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5786/452?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=landsea&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Subjective measurements and variable procedures make existing tropical cyclone databases insufficiently reliable to detect trends in the frequency of extreme cyclones.

1C. W. Landsea is at the NOAA National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL 33165, USA.
2B. A. Harper is with Systems Engineering Australia Pty. Ltd., Bridgeman Downs, Queensland 4035, Australia.
3K. Hoarau is at the Cergy-Pontoise University, 95011 Cergy-Pontoise Cedex, France.
4J. A. Knaff is at the NOAA Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.

________________________________________________________

Study questions link between power of hurricanes, global warming
BY MARTIN MERZER, Miami Herald, July 27, 2006

Studies that link global warming to an increase in hurricane ferocity might be full of hot air, according to a research paper that will be published Friday in a major scientific journal.

The paper, co-written by Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center in West Miami-Dade, challenges earlier findings that hurricanes have grown more powerful in the last 30 years. It says those studies failed to account for technological improvements that now produce more accurate -- and often higher -- estimates of a storm's power than were available in the past.

“If you say, `Hey, the number of Category 4 and 5 storms has doubled since 1970,' you have to ask where is that coming from and can we accept that as true,'' said Landsea, one of the nation's leading hurricane researchers, who now serves as science and operations officer at the hurricane center.

His answer: Probably not, because the databases used for historical studies are so skewed.

Set for publication in Friday's edition of the journal Science, the study extends a multifaceted scientific debate that grows more heated every few months.

On one side are scientists who say they have found statistical evidence that the accumulated power of hurricanes around the world has dramatically increased in the past 30 years, largely because of global warming.

On the other side are Landsea and other scientists who say, yes, global warming is real, but its effect on hurricanes is not at all clear. ''It's the data sets that are faulty,'' Landsea said.

This branch of the debate began last August when Kerry Emanuel, a reputable climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, analyzed historical wind-speed reports by the hurricane center and concluded that the accumulated power of hurricanes in the Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico more than doubled since 1970.

A particularly steep increase began in 1995, according to that study.

''The large upswing in the last decade is unprecedented and probably reflects the effect of global warming,'' Emanuel wrote in his report, which was published in the journal Nature.

Several other reports have pointed in the same direction, but it is important to note that all such studies focus on the power of hurricanes.

No connection has been found between global warming and the number of hurricanes. Many scientists believe that the current period of hyperactivity is caused mostly by long-term natural cycles unrelated to global warming.

Landsea agreed that the accumulated power of Atlantic hurricanes has increased, but said that was largely because the natural cycle has produced more storms. He said the accumulated power of hurricanes has remained constant elsewhere in the world, casting doubt on global warming as a cause in the Atlantic.

He and his team also agreed that global warming might be enhancing hurricane winds, but only by 1 or 2 percent, which is nearly impossible to measure and represents a much lower rate than Emanuel suggested.

More to the point, Landsea said, scientists who do not account for vast improvements in technology since the 1970s can produce flawed studies.

One example cited by Landsea focuses on a 1970 storm that killed more than 300,000 people in Bangladesh. Using the technology available at that time and place, forecasters were unable to estimate that storm's intensity. Now, with improved technology, that storm likely would be rated as the equivalent of a Category 4 or 5 hurricane.

''It's not even being counted as a hurricane,'' Landsea said. ``If you miss that one, it shouldn't be shocking if you're missing a whole bunch of others that didn't even hit land.''

In 1975, only two geostationary satellites monitored hurricanes. Now, eight more powerful satellites serve in that capacity, often prompting forecasters to produce higher wind estimates than might have been reported for a similar storm in the past.

'More satellites with improved imagery mean that you get `stronger' hurricanes without the hurricanes changing at all,'' Landsea said.
***********************************************
Several other reports have pointed in the same direction, but it is important to note that all such studies focus on the power of hurricanes.

No connection has been found between global warming and the number of hurricanes. Many scientists believe that the current period of hyperactivity is caused mostly by long-term natural cycles unrelated to global warming.

Landsea agreed that the accumulated power of Atlantic hurricanes has increased, but said that was largely because the natural cycle has produced more storms. He said the accumulated power of hurricanes has remained constant elsewhere in the world, casting doubt on global warming as a cause in the Atlantic.

He and his team also agreed that global warming might be enhancing hurricane winds, but only by 1 or 2 percent, which is nearly impossible to measure and represents a much lower rate than Emanuel suggested.

More to the point, Landsea said, scientists who do not account for vast improvements in technology since the 1970s can produce flawed studies.

One example cited by Landsea focuses on a 1970 storm that killed more than 300,000 people in Bangladesh. Using the technology available at that time and place, forecasters were unable to estimate that storm's intensity. Now, with improved technology, that storm likely would be rated as the equivalent of a Category 4 or 5 hurricane.

''It's not even being counted as a hurricane,'' Landsea said. ``If you miss that one, it shouldn't be shocking if you're missing a whole bunch of others that didn't even hit land.''

In 1975, only two geostationary satellites monitored hurricanes. Now, eight more powerful satellites serve in that capacity, often prompting forecasters to produce higher wind estimates than might have been reported for a similar storm in the past.

'More satellites with improved imagery mean that you get `stronger' hurricanes without the hurricanes changing at all,'' Landsea said.

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

Greenland's Melting Ice Changes Ocean
Greenland's ice loss accelerating rapidly, gravity-measuring satellites reveal
University of Texas at Austin, August 10, 2006

...The loss of ice has been occurring about five times faster from Greenland's southeastern region in the past two years than in the previous year and a half. The dramatic changes were documented during a University of Texas at Austin study of Greenland's mass between 2002 and 2005.

The study was published today in the journal Science. Related results on the significant loss of ice from Antarctica were published in Science in March by other researchers participating in the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission. The GRACE mission is funded by NASA and the German Aerospace Center, and led by Aerospace Engineering Professor Byron Tapley at the university.

"Our latest GRACE findings are the most complete measurement of ice mass loss for Greenland," said Tapley, director of the university's Center for Space Research (CSR) and holder of the Clare Cockrell Williams Centennial Chair in Engineering. "The sobering thing to see is that the whole process of glacial melting is stepping up much more rapidly than before."

...That ocean temperature change would occur because the current might not move northward past Norway before returning to more southerly latitudes. Warmer, southerly waters would be stalled from moving northward if that happened, resulting in chillier winters in parts of Western Europe.

"If enough fresh water enters the Norwegian Current," Tapley said, "and you interrupt return flow, then there could be climate effects in Europe."

http://www.eurekalert.org/bysubject/atmospheric.php

GRACE is managed for NASA by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and is in its fifth year of a 10-year mission. The University of Texas Center for Space Research in the College of Engineering has overall mission responsibility, and GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam (GFZ) in Potsdam, Germany, handles German mission elements. Science data processing, distribution, archiving and product verification are managed jointly by JPL, The University of Texas at Austin, and GFZ.

Red Flag Ice Cores
Ancient Arctic water cycles are red flags to future global warming
Yale University & Purdue University, August 11, 2006

The Arctic Ocean drilling expedition in 2004 allowed scientists to directly measure samples of biological and geological material from the beginning of the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum (PETM), a period of rapid, extreme global warming about 55 million years ago. It has given researchers a direct resource of measurable information on global warming — from a time when the overall global temperature was higher and more uniform from the subtropics to the arctic.

The researchers measured carbon and hydrogen isotopes in fossil plants remains and reconstructed the pattern of precipitation and characteristics of the ancient arctic water. "Our results told us a lot about the way that the large-scale water cycle is affected during global warming," said Mark Pagani, professor of geology and geophysics at Yale and principal author of the study.

..."It is important to realize that the impact of global warming is not just about searing hot summers -- IT ALSO CONCERNS THE WATER CYCLE. We need to anticipate big changes in patterns of precipitation as temperatures rise -- where and when it will rain and whether or not water resources are available," said Pagani. "This work is potentially a red flag for things to come."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-08/yu-aaw081106.php

The expedition was an operation of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP), an international marine research program primarily funded by the National Science Foundation, and Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. The Arctic Coring Expedition was led by the European Consortium on Ocean Research Drilling (ECORD), an IODP contributing member that represents 17 nations. ECORD is responsible for managing all IODP mission-specific operations, i.e. scientific expeditions conducted in unusual or demanding environments in which specific platform requirements must be used to meet specific science objectives. In all, 21 countries participate in IODP.

The paper discusses global ocean heat loss - local effects around Greenland do not explain this.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/~lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean

John M. Lyman1,2,3, Josh K. Willis4, and Gregory C. Johnson1

Submitted 26 May 2006 to
Geophysical Research Letters
Accepted 31 July 2006

Abstract. We observe a net loss of 3.2 (± 1.1) x 10^22 J of heat from the upper ocean between 2003 and 2005. Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present
annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 through 2005.

Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is 0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (per unit area of the Earth’s surface). A new estimate of sampling error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significant and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling.

But for GRACE go I
Draft -- Do Not Distribute

Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean
by John M. Lyman, Josh K. Willis, and Gregory C. Johnson
Submitted 26 May 2006
to Geophysical Research Letters
Accepted 31 July 2006

...The recent cooling of the upper ocean implies a decrease in the thermosteric component of sea level. Estimates of total sea level [Leuliette et al., 2004; http://sealevel.colorado.edu], however, show continued sea-level rise during the past 3 years. This suggests that other contributions to sea-level rise, such as MELTING OF LAND-BOUND ICE, HAVE ACCELERATED. This inference is consistent with recent estimates of ice mass loss in Antarctica [Velicogna and Wahr, 2006] and accelerating ice mass loss on Greenland [Rignot et al., 2006] but closure of the global sea level budget cannot yet be achieved.

New satellite observations from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE; launched in March, 2002 and administered by NASA and Deutsches Zentrum für Luft-und Raumfahrt, GRACE will map Earth's gravity field approximately once every 30 days during its lifetime) should SOON PROVIDE SUFFICIENT OBSERVATIONS OF THE REDISTRIBUTION OF WATER MASS mass to more fully describe the causes of recent sea-level change.

[See my post -- It's the GRACE study mentioned above.]

Finally, the estimates presented here are made possible only by recent improvements in the global ocean observing system. The sharp decrease in error since 2002 is due to the dramatic improvement of in situ sampling provided by the Argo array of autonomous profiling CTD floats, and the real-time reporting of Argo data made it possible to extend the estimate through 2005. Characterization of the error budget, which is of paramount importance in the estimate of such globally averaged quantities, was made feasible by the long-term maintenance of high quality altimeter missions such as TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason.

The issues relating to sea level rise and the global water budget CAN ONLY BE ADDESSED WHEN THE RECORD OF SATELLITE GRAVITY MEASUREMENT FROM GRACE ACHEIVES ADEQUATE DURATION. GRACE, Argo, and satellite altimetry are core components of the global ocean observing system. Failure to maintain any one of these observing systems would seriously impair our ability to monitor the World Ocean and to unravel its importance to the climate system.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/~lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

Rhampton - please see p.5-6
Rhampton - please see p.5-6 of the report I cited above.

The text you cited refers to the mass balance, not the temperature balance. The following text from p. 5-6 discusses the temperature balance:

Assuming that the 3.2 (± 1.1) x 10^22 J was not transported to the deep ocean, previous work suggests that the scale of the heat loss is too large to be stored in any single component of the Earth’s climate system [Levitus et al., 2005]. A likely source of the cooling is a small net imbalance in the 340 W/m2 of radiation that the Earth exchanges with space. Imbalances in the radiation budget of order 1 W/m2 have been shown to occur on these time scales and have been related to changes in upper OHCA [Wong et al., 2006]. These findings suggest that the observed decrease in upper ocean heat content from 2003 to 2005 could be the result of a net loss of heat from the Earth to space. Nevertheless, further work will be necessary to determine the exact cause of the
cooling.

Extraordinary Evidence
Yes, but melting ice effects local waters temperatures that in turn effect global circulation patterns.

Also, the mass balance confirms that ice is melting at an extraordinary rate.

Your statement re melting is too strong, based on the quoted evidence.
With respect Rhampton, this is not my understanding of what the authors Lyman et al) are saying in this paper.

Rather than ice melting on a continental scale, I read that the authors favor another explanation as the probable dominant driving force for ocean cooling - loss of heat to space.

I further read that there is much more work to be done.

Earlier NOAA report on hurricane frequency and intensity.
Regarding allegations that hurricanes are getting stronger and more frequent due to humanmade global warming:

The US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is an authority on this subject.

From page 11 of the NOAA report, "THE DEADLIEST, COSTLIEST, AND MOST INTENSE UNITED STATES TROPICAL CYCLONES FROM 1851 TO 2004":
"Table 6, which lists hurricanes by decades since 1851, shows that during the forty year period 1961-2000 both the number and intensity of landfalling U.S. hurricanes decreased sharply!"

The report is at: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/NWS-TPC-4.pdf

Estimate: 20th Century Warming is ~80-85% natural.
How much AGW in 20th century?

Based on information that indicated a solar activity-induced increase in radiative forcing of 1.3 Wm-2 over the 20th century (by way of cosmic-ray flux reduction), plus the work of others that indicated a globally-averaged solar luminosity increase of approximately 0.4 Wm-2 over the same period, Shaviv calculated an overall and ultimately solar activity-induced warming of 0.47C (1.7 Wm-2 x 0.28C per Wm-2) over the 20th century.

Added to the 0.14C of anthropogenic-induced warming, the calculated total warming of the 20th century thus came to 0.61C, which was noted by Shaviv to be very close to the 0.57C temperature increase that was said by the IPCC to have been observed over the past century.

Consequently, both Shaviv's and Idso's analyses, which mesh well with real-world data of both the recent and distant past, suggest that only 15-20% (0.10C/0.57C) of the observed warming of the 20th-century can be attributed to the concomitant rise in the air's CO2 content.
--CO2 Science Magazine, 19 July 2006

More snow in South Africa.
Another major snowfall in South Africa...

All together now:
I BLAME GLOBAL WARMING!

Here is a technical summary, direct from the over-funded office of your favorite climate alarmists:
1. Warming causes warming - but warming also causes cooling.
2. Warming causes more frequent, more severe hurricanes as in 2005 - and also fewer, as in 2006.
3. This year there has been severe cold in the Southern Hemisphere, and major snowfalls in South Africa - all caused by humanmade CO2 emissions and our reliable old friend, global warming.
4. Acidic ocean water dissolving corals, phytoplankton unable to reproduce, Biblical plagues of locusts - all due to global warming.
5. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes. The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria...
... you got it - all from global warming.

We are trying to reach leading scientist Dr. Piltdown Mann, for more scary scenarios - please stay tuned...

Find the human footprint!
From your post:

... from the beginning of the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum (PETM), a period of rapid, extreme global warming about 55 million years ago. It has given researchers a direct resource of measurable information on global warming — from a time when the overall global temperature was higher and more uniform from the subtropics to the arctic. [end]


Clearly, humankind caused this warming too - undoubtedly some time-traveller shot back 55 million years and started a dinosaur hunting colony, disrupting the delicate ecosystem and initiating a bout of humanmade global warming.

Or do you think it might be natural?

:-)

Rhampton slapped down again...
Nice one Allan. You would think Rhampton would get tired of cutting and pasting so much when most times he is just showing his ignorance.

Geologic Time Scale
The human footprint is clearly evident by dramatic changes in less than two centuries, corresponding exactly with the increase in man-made CO2.

In comparison, natural events occur over thousands to tens of thousands of years -- what science refers to as the Geologic Time Scale -- without the help of man-made CO2.

Off by 40 Million Years
Unlike the others, at least you posted a scientific reasoning for your opinion. For that, I congratulate you. Unfortunately, the reasoning itself is fatally flawed.

Response of Shaviv and Veizer
PIK, 2004

Drs. Shaviv and Veizer have now responded to the statement of the 14 scientists on their GSA Today paper. Their responses are reproduced below, with our comments added.

...Your estimate of the effect of doubling CO2 is in fact the main point of critique in our statement, since THE METHOD BY WHICH YOU ARRIVED AT IT IS FLAWED. You arrive at this by a regression analysis of temperature and CO2 time series.

Climatologists have long known that this is not feasible, which is why they have not applied this simple analysis to the existing other, more reliable time series of temperature and CO2, such as those from Antarctic ice cores. One reason is that other forcing factors vary in a statistically not independent manner with temperature and CO2, so that the basic precondition for a meaningful regression is not fulfilled...

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/pik_web/news/news/html/discussion.html

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

Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition
RealClimate, January 20, 2005

Shaviv and Veizer (2003) published a paper in the journal GSA Today, where the authors claimed to establish a correlation between cosmic ray flux (CRF) and temperature evolution over hundreds of millions of years, concluding that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide was much smaller than currently accepted. The paper was accompanied by a press release entitled
"Global Warming not a Man-made Phenomenon", in which Shaviv was quoted as stating, "The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man".

However, in the paper the authors actually stated that "our conclusion about the dominance of the CRF over climate variability is VALID ONLY ON MULTI-MILLION-YEAR TIME SCALES". Unsurprisingly, there was a public relations offensive using the seriously flawed conclusions expressed in the press release to once again try to cast doubt on the scientific consensus that humans are influencing climate.

These claims were subsequently disputed in an article in Eos (Rahmstorf et al, 2004) by an international team of scientists and geologists (including some of us here at RealClimate), who suggested that Shaviv and Veizer's analyses were based on unreliable and poorly replicated estimates, selective adjustments of the data (SHIFTING THE DATA, IN ONE CASE BY 40 MILLION YEARS) and drew untenable conclusions, particularly with regard to the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations on recent warming (see for example the exchange between the two sets of authors). However, by the time this came out the misleading conclusions had already been publicized widely.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=109&lp_lang_view=en as

Sorry to be unscientific, but the EOS article/rebuttal was quatsch (rubbish).
Hi Rhampton,

I wrote an article (included below) mentioning this particular hatchet job, which EOS seemed to specialize in at the time.

Frankly I do not have the time to dissect the EOS article in its entirety for you - I will simply say that it was a sleazy piece of backstabbing.

Richard Lindzen at MIT has also written to protest this backstabbing practise, which has become more and more commonplace as global warming alarmists try to intimidate and silence the much-needed climate science debate.

Regards, Allan

_____________________________________________
Published in the Sunday, September 10, 2005 Calgary Sun in edited form.

One-time publication rights, exclusive to your publication area, 836 words

Drive-by shootings in Kyotoville

The global warming debate heats up

By Allan M.R. MacRae

Drive-by shootings have moved from the slums of our cities to the realms of academia. Any scientist who dares challenge the Kyoto Protocol faces a vicious assault, a turf war launched by the pro-Kyoto gang.

These pro-Kyoto attacks are not merely unprofessional - of no scientific merit, they are intended to intimidate real academic debate on the Kyoto Protocol, a global treaty to limit production of greenhouse gases like CO2 that allegedly cause catastrophic global warming.

Witness the attack on Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist". While Lomborg did not challenge the flawed science of Kyoto, he said that Kyoto was a huge misallocation of funds that should be used for more pressing needs - such as cleaning up dirty drinking water that kills millions of children every year.

In January 2003, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) declared that Lomborg's book fell within the concept of "objective scientific dishonesty". The DCSD announced its ruling at a press conference and published it on the Internet, without giving Lomborg any opportunity to respond prior to publication.

Almost one year later, in December 2003 the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation completely repudiated the DCSD's findings.

But such bullying is not unique, as other researchers who challenged the scientific basis of Kyoto have learned.

Of particular sensitivity to the pro-Kyoto gang is the "hockey stick" temperature curve of 1000 to 2000 AD, proposed by Michael Mann of University of Virginia.

Mann's hockey stick indicates that temperatures fell only slightly from 1000 to 1900 AD, after which temperatures increased sharply as a result of humanmade increases in CO2. Mann concluded: "Our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence."

Mann's conclusion was the cornerstone supporting Kyoto. However, Mann has been proven entirely incorrect.

Mann eliminated from the climate record both the Medieval Warm Period, a period from about 900 to 1300 AD when global temperatures were warmer than today, and also the Little Ice Age from about 1300 to 1800 AD, when temperatures were colder.

Mann's conclusion contradicted hundreds of previous studies, but was adopted without question by Kyoto supporters and was the centerpiece of the 2001 Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Canada’s climate change policy is still based on that erroneous SPM.

In 2003, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard University wrote a review of over 250 research papers that concluded that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were true climatic anomalies with worldwide imprints - contradicting Mann's hockey stick and undermining the basis of Kyoto. Soon and Baliunas were then attacked in the journal EOS.

Also in 2003, University of Ottawa geology professor Jan Veizer and Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv concluded that even though prehistoric CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were often many times today's levels, CO2 had an insignificant effect on Earth’s temperatures. Veizer and Shaviv also received "special attention" from EOS.

In both cases, the attacks were highly unprofessional - these critiques should have been launched in the journals that published the original papers, not in EOS. Also, the victims of these attacks were not given advanced notice, nor were they were given the opportunity to respond in the same issue. In both cases the victims had to wait months for their rebuttals to be published, while the specious attacks were circulated by the pro-Kyoto gang.

Scientists opposed to Kyoto have now been completely vindicated.

Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph and Steven McIntyre conducted a detailed audit of Mann’s hockey stick, and found fatal errors including severe data selection biases and methodological mistakes. McIntyre and McKitrick even showed that hockey stick graphs could be produced over 90% of the time by loading any set of random numbers into Mann’s computer code. Just call it "Mann-made global warming".

Few scientists now accept Mann’s hockey stick. Climate researcher Hans von Storch further criticized it in Science Express in 2004, calling it "rubbish".

Meanwhile, our Ottawa brain trust has just announced that CO2 will be declared a toxic substance under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Is their next move a tax on cow and sheep flatulence, as was tried in New Zealand?

Or will it be a new National Energy Program, another pillaging of Alberta?

The United States House Energy & Commerce Committee has launched a full investigation into the IPCC’s bias and incompetence, and the entire Mann hockey stick fiasco:

The truth is there never has been any solid scientific evidence in favor of Kyoto. From the beginning, Kyoto has been politically driven, replete with flawed science and scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.

The pro-Kyoto gang should finally admit that their pet project actually hurts the environment - Kyoto is a massive waste of scarce global resources that should be used to alleviate real problems, not squandered on fictitious ones.

Allan M. R. MacRae is a professional engineer and investment banker based in Calgary.

So Sorry Shaviv
You're entitled to your opinion, but Science has different standards.

On the periodic clustering of cosmic ray exposure ages of iron meteorites
Astrophysics, 2005

Two recent papers claimed to have found a periodic variation of the galactic cosmic ray (CR) flux over the last 1-2 Gyr, using the CR exposure ages of iron meteorites. This was attributed to higher CR flux during the passage of the Earth through the spiral arms of the Milky Way, as suggested by models. The derived period was 143+-10 Myrs. We perform a more detailed analysis of the CR exposure ages on the same data set, using extensive simulation to estimate the influence of different error sources on the significance of the periodicity signal.

We find no evidence for significant clustering of the CR exposure ages at a 143 Myr period nor for any other period between 100 and 250 Myrs. Rather, we find the data to be consistent with being drawn from a uniform distribution of CR exposure ages. The different conclusion of the original studies is due to their neglecting the influence of (i) data treatment on the statistics, (ii) several error sources, and (iii) number statistics.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005astro.ph..4155J

Hold on, Rhampton.
Thank you for your interesting post Rhampton. I note you are now citing a different paper from the one you previously quoted.

I found the full draft text of this new Jahnke paper at:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0504/0504155.pdf

I did a search in the journal "Astronomy and Astrophysics" and could not find the Jahnke paper in the published archives - so perhaps it is not yet published and is still under review.

I also could not find any evidence of Nir Shaviv's response to it.

Please note, however, the last line in Acknowledgements in the Jahnke paper: "I am grateful to Nir
Shaviv for providing background information on his methodology."

It seems Shaviv also provided his raw data to Jahnke without attempting to frustrate or obfuscate - in direct contrast to the actions of one Mann that I've heard far too much about.

Rhamption, I suggest that you wait awhile before counting your chickens on this question - Shaviv has to analyze and respond to the Jahnke criticism - that criticism may or may not be correct, and may or may not be material to the larger conclusions of Veizer and Shaviv.

Regards, Allan

Cosmic Material Witness
"Shaviv has to analyze and respond to the Jahnke criticism -- that criticism may or may not be correct, and may or may not be material to the larger conclusions of Veizer and Shaviv."

Here's the PDF version:

On the periodic clustering of cosmic ray exposure ages of iron meteorites
Knud Jahnke, Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam
Astronomy & Astrophysics, May 15, 2006

...A recent series of publications (Shaviv 2002, 2003; Shaviv & Veizer 2003, henceforth 'S02', 'S03', and 'SV03') presented a model for CR production in the spiral arms of the Milky Way. There the CR diffusion to earth during the passage of the solar system through the spiral arms in the past ~1–2 Gyr was modelled. One of their basic claims was the existence of a periodic modulation of the CR flux, and a temporal correlation between the galactic CR influx to earth from their model predictions and the times of glacial periods on Earth. Now some authors have begun using these results in further research (de la Fuente Marcos & de la Fuente Marcos 2004; Wallmann 2004; Gies & Helsel 2005), while others have challenged the data handling and significance of the results (Rahmstorf et al. 2004).

S02/S03/SV03 based the timing of galactic CR peaks in their model on apparent age clusters of meteorites, found by exposure age dating of iron meteorites in S02 and S03. However, both papers lack a discussion of possible sources of error for the statistical significance of their results. Further, details of the meteorite data treatment are missing at several points. This prompted us to examine in more detail the statistical basis of the claimed periodic clustering of CR exposure ages.

In this article we identify several sources of influence on a signal for a non-uniform distribution of CR exposure ages, and assess their quantitative strenths. We use the original data used by S03, and critically follow the analysis methods described in S02/S03. Our aim is to reevaluate the statistical significance of the S02/S03 results with respect to CR exposure ages without a priori assumptions...

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0504/0504155.pdf

What is your point?
Rh,

I had posted the pdf reference prior to yours, and spent time last night reading this Jahnke article. That is the basis for my comments.

Re-read my post - your last post is simply redundant.

Regards, Allan

Thank you for your opinion.
Rhampton,

I have two engineering degrees in the earth sciences and have worked in this field all my career (~35 years).

Thank you for your comments on geologic time - it is my understanding of Earth's history through geologic time that has enabled me and others to have always known that Mann's work was bogus, and that AGW is more myth than a dangerous reality.

I stated this in writing in 2002, and events (eg the recent Wegman report) have proven me correct.

How is your track record doing?

Regards, Allan

3 Reasons for Shaviv
My point relates to this...

"Shaviv has to analyze and respond to the Jahnke
criticism -- that criticism may or may not be correct,
and may or may not be material to the larger
conclusions of Veizer and Shaviv."

We do know that the criticis is material to the larger conclusions of Veizer and Shaviv. That is made explicit in my last post. So if you in fact read the .pdf PRIOR to my posting, then you missed the obvious...

"One of their [Veizer and Shaviv] basic claims was the
existence of a periodic modulation of the CR flux, and
a temporal correlation between the galactic CR influx
to earth from their model predictions and the times of
glacial periods on Earth."

...because it relates directly to your posted contention...

"Based on information that indicated a solar activity-
induced increase in radiative forcing of 1.3 Wm-2
over the 20th century (by way of cosmic-ray flux
reduction),"

...Jahnke then explains...

"S02/S03/SV03 based the timing of galactic CR peaks
in their model on apparent age clusters of meteorites,
found by exposure age dating of iron meteorites in
S02 and S03. However, both papers lack a discussion
of possible sources of error for the statistical
significance of their results. Further, details of
the meteorite data treatment are missing at several
points. This prompted us to examine in more detail
the statistical basis of the claimed periodic cluster-
ing of CR exposure ages."

...and then Jahnke concludes...

The differences of interpretation in S02/S03 to our
results are due to: (i) the use of an outdated chemical
classification scheme, (ii) the neglection of the
influence of the filtering against real age clusters
on the KS statistics, and (iii) the neglection of error
sources, including number statistics, on the
significance of the results.

Janke speaks only about the meteorite data.
Thank you for your post Rhampton,

I recall that Janke only criticizes the data from the meteorites, which spans hundreds of millions of years. This may or not be material to the big picture of what V&S are concluding.

Your point is covered under Veizer and Shaviv (2003) -
http://www.gsajournals.org/pdfserv/10.1130%2F1052-5173(2003)013%3C0004:CDOPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

"Shaviv (2002a, 2002b) proposed that a particularly large CRF variability should arise from passages of the solar system through the Milky Way’s spiral arms that harbor most of the star formation activity. Such passages recur at ~143 ± 10 m.y. intervals, similar to the 135 ± 9 m.y. recurrence of the paleoclimate data (Veizer et al.,
2000)."

However, look also at Veizer (2005) -
See Figure 2 - and the correlation of low cloud cover and cosmic ray flux from 1983 to 2001 - which has nothing to do with the meteorite data.

The key contention of Veizer (2005) is as follows:
"The postulated causation sequence is therefore:
brighter sun ? enhanced thermal flux + solar wind ? muted CRF ? less low-level clouds ? lower albedo ? warmer climate.
Diminished solar activity results in an opposite effect."

I will leave it to you to figure out why this is so important.

Regards, Allan

CRF & Meteorite Data
"See Figure 2 - and the correlation of low cloud cover and cosmic ray flux from 1983 to 2001 - which has nothing to do with the meteorite data."

Shaviv's determination of Cosmic Ray Flux is itself in serious doubt -- to say nothing of his argument based upon the dubious CRF assumptions.


Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide and Climate
Eos (American Geophysical Union), January 27, 2004

...The starting point of [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003] is a reconstruction of cosmic ray fluxes over the past 1,000 m.y. based on 50 iron meteorites and a simple model estimating cosmic ray flux (CRF) induced by the Earth's passage through Galactic spiral arms ([Shaviv, 2002; Shaviv, 2003]). About 20 of the meteorites, making four clusters, date from the past 520 m.y., the time span analysed in [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003].

The meteorites are dated by analysing isotopic changes in their matter due to cosmic ray exposure (CRE dating [Eugster, 2003]). An apparent age clustering of these meteorites is then INTERPRETED NOT AS A COLLISION-RELATED CLUSTERING IN THEIR REAL AGES BUT AS indication of fluctuations in COSMIC RAY FLUX.

One difficulty with this interpretation is that variations in CRF intensity would equally affect all types of meteorites. Instead, the ages of different types of iron meteorites cluster at different times [Wieler, 2002]. Hence, most specialists on meteorite CRE ages interpret the clusters as the result of collision processes of parent bodies, as they do for stony meteorites (ages
...the correlation of cosmic ray flux (CRF) and climate over the past 520 m.y. appears to not hold up under scrutiny. Even if we accept the questionable assumption that meteorite clusters give information on CRF variations, we find that the evidence for a LINK BETWEEN CRF AND CLIMATE AMOUNTS TO LITTLE MORE THAN A SIMILARITY in the average periods of the CRF variations and a heavily smoothed temperature reconstruction.

PHASE AGREEMENT IS POOR. The authors applied several adjustments to the data to artificially enhance the correlation. We thus find that the existence of a correlation has not been convincingly demonstrated...

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/
rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.html

Einstein was a Patent Clerk
I do not have degrees in the earth sciences. But remember, the Scientific Method is not based on our credentials, but our evidence and logic.

For example, natural biological and geological processes can account for the CO2 levels in the atmosphere by themselves. Changes do occur in atmospheric amounts, but on the Geologic Time Scale. But a 100ppm increase in less than two centuries -- without a massive surge in global volcanic activity -- belies any natural phenomenom. Combined with oceanic Carbon 12 / Carbon 13 / Carbon 14 ratios (which I assume you have read about), the evidence is quite clear that the CO2 levels were very recently, and very dramatically, altered by Man.

What's your point #2.
Please try to keep up, Rhampton.

Now your are going back to your earlier EOS reference (which was little more than a hastily-prepared hatchet job).

Re your statement: "Shaviv's determination of Cosmic Ray Flux is itself in serious doubt -- to say nothing of his argument based upon the dubious CRF assumptions."

I have already (hypothetically) accepted your point that the meteorite conclusions may by in question - although I am not in a position to accept Jahnke's conclusion - I suspect that the most Jahnke can say is that Shaviv's conclusion is unproven - not that it is incorrect.

But hypothetically, let's accept that Janke has raised legitimate questions about the statistical handling of Shaviv meteorite data.

The Figure 2 (from Veizer, 2005) that I referred to does not use the meteorite data to measure CRF. The meteorite data may not be material to the big picture, which is the correlation of CRF/solar variation with cloud formation. That is the big issue.

Regards, Allan

Correction to post, and comments.
My above post contained question marks instead of the proper symbol, a right-hand arrow. This is an attempt to correct that post.

The key contention of Veizer (2005) is as follows:
"The postulated causation sequence is therefore:
brighter sun -> enhanced thermal flux + solar wind -> muted CRF -> less low-level clouds -> lower albedo -> warmer climate.
Diminished solar activity results in an opposite effect."

Atmospheric CO2 concentration, which has increased steadily since industrialization began, does not correlate at all well with 20th Century warming. First, much of the warming took place before ~1940, then there was cooling from ~1940-1975, and then there was more warming. Even if we (illogically) assume that all this warming was due to CO2, we cannot logically project future warming that is catastrophic.

In order to model the cooling from ~1940-1975, climate modellers have invented aerosol data to force their models into a cooling mode. They have also assumed unproven CO2 amplifiers will somehow "kick-in" in the future, to force models to predict catastrophic future warming. This is an extremely complicated approach and is unlikely to be true.

There is a simpler explanation, according to Veizer (2005), as above. The reason climate alarmists claim that the Sun cannot be the primary driver of climate is because the Sun's variability is not big enough to account for the magnitude of observed warming. So an amplifier of the Sun's variation is needed. Veizer's work points strongly to the actual existence of that amplifier.

Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate", which translates as "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily". One simpler phrasing goes something like this: "If you have two competing theories, choose the simpler one".

Regards, Allan

Flawed Data (0.28°C per Wm-2)
The point is, Shaviv's understanding of CRF is flawed, thus any extrapolation he makes from that understanding is also flawed.

Did Increasing Solar Activity Drive 20th-Century Global Warming?
CO2 Science, July 19, 2006

...Shaviv next identified six periods of earth's history (the entire Phanerozoic, the Cretaceous, the Eocene, the Last Glacial Maximum, the 20th century, and the eleven-year solar cycle as manifest over the last three centuries) for which he was able to derive reasonably sound estimates of different time-scale changes in radiative forcing, temperature and cosmic ray flux.

[This refers to Shaviv's critically flawed CRF/meterorite analysis]

FROM THESE SETS OF DATA HE DERIVED PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS of whole-earth temperature sensitivity to radiative forcing for each of the six time periods and combined them to OBTAIN A MEAN PLANETARY TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY to radiative forcing of 0.28°C per Wm-2.

[Shaviv's figure of 0.28°C per Wm-2 is derived from flawed data]

Then, noting that the IPCC (2001) suggested that the increase in anthropogenic radiative forcing over the 20th century was about 0.5 Wm-2, Shaviv calculated that the anthropogenic-induced warming of the globe over this period was approximately 0.14°C (0.5 Wm-2 x 0.28°C per Wm-2).

[uses the flawed mean sensitivity figure]

...Next, based on information that indicated a solar activity-induced increase in radiative forcing of 1.3 Wm-2 over the 20th century ... Shaviv calculated an overall and ultimately solar activity-induced warming of 0.47°C (1.7 Wm-2 x 0.28°C per Wm-2) over the 20th century.

[also uses the flawed mean sensitivity figure]

Understand?

Contrails & Ozone Depletion
"First, much of the warming took place before ~1940, then there was cooling from ~1940-1975, and then there was more warming. Even if we (illogically) assume that all this warming was due to CO2, we cannot logically project future warming that is catastrophic."

Do you acknowledge the effect of contrails (a byproduct of JET ENGINES) and ozone depletion (a byproduct of CFCs) on the Earth's climate?

Climate Effects of Contrails Confirmed
Scientific American, August 8, 2002

Scientists have long suspected that contrails, the trails of white exhaust that jets leave in their wake, can affect climate. Quantifying their effects was extremely difficult, however, because the nearly constant air traffic over most of Europe and North America made it impossible to study clear skies for comparison. But the grounding of commercial aircraft IN THE WAKE OF THE SEPTEMBER 11 TERRORIST ATTACKS provided just such an opportunity. Now a report published today in the journal Nature confirms that contrails' affect the range of temperatures recorded on the ground.

David J. Travis of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and his colleagues collected three decades of temperature data from nearly 4,000 weather stations across North America for the three-day periods before, during and after the air traffic moratorium. By comparing the so-called diurnal temperature range (DTR), which is the difference between daily highs and nightly lows, the team calculated that the range of temperatures was more than one degree Celsius greater in the absence of commercial air traffic. This increase was even more pronounced in regions reported to have the most contrail abundance, such as the midwest, northeast and northwest sections of the country.

Cloud cover (particularly high-level cirrus clouds that are primarily composed of ice crystals) insulates the planet by reflecting incoming radiation from the sun and trapping outgoing infrared radiation. Contrails, the researchers conclude, exacerbate this effect.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=
sa003&articleID=0001762D-755C-1D51-90FB809EC5880000

Waste of time.
I've read your last two posts Rhampton.

Sorry, but this discussion with you is a waste of time.

You cannnot just cut and paste article after bogus article and think that you are proving something.

I have no information on jet contrails, etc. I do know that the climate modelers used phony (invented) aerosol data to cause their models to cool from ~1940-1975 (to force history matching). Later they allowed the aerosols to decline. Direct atmospheric measurements by Hoyt et al show no such trends.

The modellers also used climate sensitivities up to ten times whose observed in nature to force their models to predict catastrophic levels of warming.

The "warmers" scientific house of cards is about to come crashing down. When statisticians like Wegman start examining all their bogus claims, the lies will topple one by one, just like Mann's broken hockey stick.

Over and out, Allan

0.28°C per Wm-2
"You cannnot just cut and paste article after bogus article and think that you are proving something."

But I didn't cut and paste a bogus article -- unless you think CO2 Science is a bogus website. Which is it?

I'm finished with you.
Hi Rhampton,

I came across this today, and it describes your standard bogus debating tactic so well.

"A common debating trick (e.g. used by politicians) is to provide an irrelevance and to assert that it is evidence. The trick is defeated by agreeing the irrelevant fact, saying that it is irrelevant, and saying why it is irrelevant. Debate of the irrelevance loses the argument to the trickster because onlookers assume the debate gives credibilty to the purported 'evidence'."

Absolute Relevance -- 0.28C per Wm-2
If you really do hold degrees in Science, they you should be able to follow this EASY to understand DEBUNKING of Shaviv's "0.28C per Wm-2"

Name: AllanMacRae
Subject: Estimate: 20th Century Warming is ~80-85% natural.
Date/Time: 16 Aug 2006, 8:45 PM

How much AGW in 20th century?

Based on information that indicated a solar activity-induced increase in radiative forcing of 1.3 Wm-2 over the 20th century (by way of cosmic-ray flux reduction), plus the work of others that indicated a globally-averaged solar luminosity increase of approximately 0.4 Wm-2 over the same period, SHAVIV CALCULATED AN OVERALL AND ULTIMATELY SOLAR ACTIVITY INDUCED WARMING OF 0.47C (1.7 Wm-2 x 0.28C per Wm-2) over the 20th century.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/
discussionForum.aspx?fldIdTopic=8432&fldIdMsg=36670


Where did Shaviv get the figure of 0.28C per Wm-2?


Did Increasing Solar Activity Drive 20th-Century Global Warming?
CO2 Science, July 19, 2006

...Shaviv next identified six periods of earth's history (the entire Phanerozoic, the Cretaceous, the Eocene, the Last Glacial Maximum, the 20th century, and the eleven-year solar cycle as manifest over the last three centuries) for which he was able to derive reasonably sound estimates of different time-scale changes in radiative forcing, temperature and cosmic ray flux.

FROM THESE SETS OF DATA HE DERIVED PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS of whole-earth temperature sensitivity to radiative forcing for each of the six time periods and combined them to OBTAIN A MEAN PLANETARY TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY to radiative forcing of 0.28°C per Wm-2.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/
articles/V9/N29/EDIT.jsp


Is Shaviv's figure 0.28°C per Wm-2 reliablly determined?


On the periodic clustering of cosmic ray exposure ages of iron meteorites
Knud Jahnke, Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam
Astronomy & Astrophysics, May 15, 2006

...A recent series of publications (Shaviv 2002, 2003; Shaviv & Veizer 2003, henceforth 'S02', 'S03', and 'SV03') presented a model for CR production in the spiral arms of the Milky Way. There the CR diffusion to earth during the passage of the solar system through the spiral arms in the past ~1–2 Gyr was modelled. One of their basic claims was the existence of a periodic modulation of the CR flux, and a temporal correlation between the galactic CR influx to earth from their model predictions and the times of glacial periods on Earth. Now some authors have begun using these results in further research (de la Fuente Marcos & de la Fuente Marcos 2004; Wallmann 2004; Gies & Helsel 2005), while others have challenged the data handling and significance of the results (Rahmstorf et al. 2004).

S02/S03/SV03 based the timing of galactic CR peaks in their model on apparent age clusters of meteorites, found by exposure age dating of iron meteorites in S02 and S03. However, both papers lack a discussion of possible sources of error for the statistical significance of their results. Further, details of the meteorite data treatment are missing at several points. This prompted us to examine in more detail the statistical basis of the claimed periodic clustering of CR exposure ages.

In this article we identify several sources of influence on a signal for a non-uniform distribution of CR exposure ages, and assess their quantitative strenths. We use the original data used by S03, and critically follow the analysis methods described in S02/S03. Our aim is to reevaluate the statistical significance of the S02/S03 results with respect to CR exposure ages without a priori assumptions...

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0504/0504155.pdf

I knew Albert Einstein, Sir, and you are no Einstein.
For the record Rhampton, you have an amazing inability to stay "on point" and you routinely misrepresent the positions of others in your attempts to support your arguments.

We have not been debating the question of whether humankind has caused the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 - we have both accepted that concept for purposes of this discussion.

We have been debating whether that increase in atmospheric CO2 has or will produce catastrophic global warming. We have, for the purposes of this discussion, accepted that some warming will occur as a result of increased atmospheric CO2. I say any humanmade warming will be minor and harmless - less than 0.5C. You say it will be large enough to be catastrophic. In my years of researching I have found no solid evidence to support your argument and much to support mine.

Regards, Allan

TCS Daily Archives