Paul et. al.<br><br>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 <a href="http://right-mind.us">right-mind.us</a> 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. <br>
<br>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:<br><br><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072/html">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072/html</a><br>
<br>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!:<br>
<br><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/</a><br>-------------------<br><br>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.<br>
<br>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:<br>
<br><a href="http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2006/pr/wwu.htm">http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2006/pr/wwu.htm</a> <br>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>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. <br>
<br>It will be interesting to find out what really does happen in the next couple of decades.<br><br>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!<br>
<br>Ted Moffett<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div class="Ih2E3d">
Ted Moffett wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Paul et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html" target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
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").<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Nasa Study:
<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html" target="_blank">http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html</a><br>
Wikipedia page on the Maunder Minimum:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum</a><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>-------------</div>
<div>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 <a href="http://realclimate.org" target="_blank">realclimate.org</a>. 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.</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
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.<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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. <br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I hadn't seen much about global dimming. This is interesting. I'll do
some reading on it.<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div>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:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimm-nf.html" target="_blank">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimm-nf.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/global-dimming-and-climate-models/" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/global-dimming-and-climate-models/</a></div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Interesting stuff. I'm glad somebody's working on it.<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div>--------------------</div>
<div>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.</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Skepticism is a good thing. It keeps us from running amok when someone
tells us something.<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div>Note to Chas, in case you are reading:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I'd also like to say that I agree with Chas that I appreciate your
posts, even if we don't always agree.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br>