[Vision2020] Correction: Re: PCEI Climate Change Forum Discussion On Local Blog

Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
Sun Mar 30 21:40:58 PDT 2008


All;

The URL to the Nature study on solar climate forcing contained an error that
is corrected below.

Ted Moffett

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:

> Paul et. al.
>
> When I read through the following contribution from climate scientist
> Gavin Schmidt regarding solar forcing of climate, I could not but compare
> his finely parsed analysis of the daunting complexities involved in the
> science and statistics ("sadistics" to some) of the subject, to the graphs
> on right-mind.us apparently offered to inspire awe regarding the "obvious"
> correlation between changing solar variables and climate temperature, as if
> these graphs (data and statistics can be manipulated to construct graphs to
> demonstrate what is wanted) should lead thousands of scientists worldwide to
> toss the evidence indicating human sourced CO2 emissions are inducing
> climate forcing (warming) into the shredder.
>
> Again, the study from Nature is at the URL below, indicating solar forcing
> of climate is not the cause of the global warming observed in the past 30
> years:
>
> <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072/html>
>

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072/html>

Gavin even corrects himself rather humbly, admitting he made an error, at
> the end of his entry at the URL below.  A scientist of Gavin Schmidt's skill
> and experience is someone following the "religion of the global warmists?"
> Please!:
>
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/
> -------------------
>
> Regarding the .05% percent increase per decade in solar energy you
> reference from the NASA study, if I read the results correctly, this trend
> would be significant over the next century if it continued.  But these
> results are not claiming, as far as I could determine, that the warming over
> the past 30 years can be explained by solar forcing, in contradiction to the
> IPCC's conclusion that this warming is mostly due to human CO2 (and other)
> greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> The climate change skeptics who point to solar climate forcing rather than
> human impacts to explain the warming trend may agree there is a long term
> trend.  Other climate change skeptics deny there is any credible evidence of
> a long term warming trend.  Read at URL below about Don Easterbrook from
> Western Washington University in Bellingham, who was interviewed on national
> cable MSNBC regarding his skepticism:
>
> http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2006/pr/wwu.htm
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some claim the warming over the past 30 years may be more a random
> fluctuation in climate, and thus the next decade or two temperatures may
> level off or decrease.  If believing this there is no requirement to explain
> the past 30 year warming period by any major variable(s), either human or
> natural.  It is not statistically significant.
>
> It will be interesting to find out what really does happen in the next
> couple of decades.
>
> I'd be relieved if there is a leveling or cooling in the average global
> temperature over the next two decades.  Radical climate change is nothing to
> mess around with!
>
> Ted Moffett
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >  Ted Moffett wrote:
> >
> > Paul et. al.
> >
> > The science article from the journal Nature at URL below examines the
> > theory that the observed climate warming of the past 30 years (and even back
> > to the 17th century) is due to solar variability, using satellite data, the
> > "clear readings from space," as you phrase it.  The article can be accessed
> > in full with a subscription.  But this quote from the review is rather
> > easily understood by a layperson, in terms of any definite conclusion that
> > the data supports the theory that the warming of the past 30 years is due to
> > solar variability:
> >
> > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html
> >
> > Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by
> > changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the
> > 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978
> > are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming
> > over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of
> > these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of
> > solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that
> > brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on
> > global warming since the seventeenth century.
> >
> >
> > There seem to be three things going on here that I, at least, seem to be
> > getting confused.  There is 1) the 11-year sunspot cycle, 2) the research
> > indicating that the sun may be brightening by 0.05% per decade, and 3)
> > aberrations in sunspot activity that are also alleged to have a climate
> > impact (such as the "Maunder Minimum").
> >
> > I can't tell by the summary for this article if it's addressing 1, or 1
> > and 2.  The satellite data originally appeared to show that there was no
> > increase between sunspot cycle minimums, due to a gap in coverage between
> > two satellites.  Once data from other satellites that overlapped this gap
> > was taken into account, the research showed a positive trend of 0.05%per decade.  There have been 30 decades between 1700 and present, and
> > 1.0005 ^ 30 == 1.015109 (or a 1.5% increase in total solar irradiance).
> > That's assuming, of course, that it's a continuing trend and not a fluke in
> > these three sunspot cycles that the satellites have data for.  I'll have to
> > find a copy of the article to see if it's talking about a 1.5% increase,
> > or no increase (except between minimums and maximums of the 11-year sunspot
> > cycle).
> >
> > The Maunder Minimum is interesting, because it appears to have coincided
> > with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age.  The wikipedia article on it
> > also states that studies indicate that the sun spends up to a quarter of
> > it's time in one of these minima periods.
> >
> > So, my logic goes like this: minimums in sunspot cycle activity can
> > cause catastrophic climate change (albeit in the opposite direction).  It
> > would seem likely that maximums in sunspot cycle activity can cause
> > catastrophic climate change, too.  Increases in total solar irradiance would
> > also affect the climate.
> >
> > Nasa Study:
> > http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
> > Wikipedia page on the Maunder Minimum:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum
> >
> >  -------------
> > Regarding the magnitude of climate forcing due to anthropogenic CO2 (and
> > other) emissions asserted by the IPCC Fourth Assessment report from 2007,
> > which I assume represents the scientific predictions you doubt, I suggest
> > you take your skepticism to realclimate.org.  I have received personal
> > responses to my humble queries from some of the scientists hosting this
> > website, much to my surprise.  And the discussions on climate science issues
> > are often very enlightening and balanced, with basic assumptions, facts and
> > theories run through the gauntlet of skepticism.
> >
> >
> > I'll do a little more reading there.  If I can get up the courage, and
> > my reading hasn't already convinced me that my question is horribly stupid,
> > I'll post it there and see what happens.
> >
> > Also, the effect of global dimming (which is given scant attention in
> > the media), the climate cooling effect of human sourced pollution, indicates
> > we may be masking a significant amount of the warming effect of greenhouse
> > gas emissions.  Thus when we cease the pollution from coal fired plants, for
> > example, which release sulfate aerosols that cool the climate, the masking
> > effect of global dimming will be removed, and climate warming may increase.
> > Given this potential, the climate may warm significantly when we lower our
> > carbon footprint.  Anyway, no one realistically thinks we are going to
> > dramatically lower our greenhouse gas emissions (which we must) for decades.
> >
> >
> >
> > I hadn't seen much about global dimming.  This is interesting.  I'll do
> > some reading on it.
> >
> >
> > We may need to engineer removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, or block
> > solar radiation.  These extreme engineering proposals are controversial, but
> > under serious discussion given the seriousness of the problem.  Plans
> > to adapt to a warmer climate are prudent, given these efforts may not work.
> > Ironically, there are proposals to deliberately add "pollution" to the upper
> > atmosphere to cool the climate, in a way similar to how coal fired plants
> > can contribute to global dimming due to sulfate aerosols, to ward off the
> > worst effects of the greenhouse gas emissions from coal fired plants:
> >
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimm-nf.html
> >
> >
> > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/global-dimming-and-climate-models/
> >
> >
> > Interesting stuff.  I'm glad somebody's working on it.
> >
> >
> > --------------------
> > You obviously doubt that human sourced climate variables are the main
> > contemporary influence on warming, and have implied this assessment is
> > motivated by intentions other than pure objective scientific research
> > (wording such as "the global warming party line" implies political
> > motivations rather than following the results of objective unbiased
> > scientific research).  Human beings are human beings, and no doubt there are
> > motivations other than the pursuit of objective scientific research to hype
> > the magnitude of anthropogenic climate change, just as there are motivations
> > among some very powerful commercial interests to inject doubt and
> > uncertainty into the scientific findings indicating the severity of the
> > problem.  However, I trust there are a sufficient number of competent and
> > ethical scientists working on the science of climate change to provide a
> > reasonable balance to the conclusions of the IPCC, that is not slanted by
> > those seeking to make a name, achieve fame, pad their wallets,
> > promote political agendas, or promote their career, by either being global
> > warming skeptics or global warming doomsayers.  My "trust" may be misplaced.
> >
> >
> > Maybe it's a limitation in myself, but when you throw too many variables
> > into the pot at the same time, it makes it hard for me not to be somewhat
> > skeptical of conclusions reached using that data.  It's not so much that I
> > doubt the contemporary influences on warming, it's that I'm skeptical of the
> > conclusions reached about their magnitudes.
> >
> > When I talk about the "global warming party line", I'm talking more
> > about the media and casual conversations than I am about a conspiracy among
> > scientists to milk this for all that it's worth.  It's just my opinion that
> > there is a "party line" that, if you veer too far away from it, tends to
> > heap ridicule and/or scorn your way.  It reminds me of the reactions I got
> > directly following 9/11 when I stated my opinions that we should make our
> > response an international one and not a lone wolf aggressive one.  Back
> > then, you were thought to be a terrorist sympathizer hell bent on ruining
> > America.  Here, you tend to be a "global warming denier" even if you're only
> > putting forth a skeptical outlook and not an actual denial of the science
> > involved.  I also get the idea that we're thought to be colluding with air
> > conditioning manufacturers or something.  Like I want the Earth to get too
> > warm to live on comfortably.
> >
> > Skepticism is a good thing.  It keeps us from running amok when someone
> > tells us something.
> >
> >
> > Note to Chas, in case you are reading:
> >
> > You are probably correct I am wasting my "breath" in addressing the
> > science of climate change on Vision2020.  Consider the results of my posts
> > addressing PCEI's Climate Change Forum: not a single Vision2020 comment from
> > anyone involved with PCEI, unless I missed it.  If PCEI is not following and
> > contributing to environmental discussions on Vision2020, then Vision2020
> > must not be viewed as relevant to environmental discussions impacting the
> > public, scientific or otherwise.
> >
> >
> > I'd also like to say that I agree with Chas that I appreciate your
> > posts, even if we don't always agree.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080330/9736ed15/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list