<div>Paul et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am not sure what you are confused about. Perhaps if you read this post in full (it is long for Vision2020), and respond to or at least carefully consider these references to published scientific work on solar forcing and climate change, we can clear up any misunderstandings. We may still disagree, but we can better understand where each other is coming from... However, this will be my last response to your posts on solar forcing of current climate change, unless there is compelling new data on this issue. I will attentively read any response you offer.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I posted info, under the subject heading "La Nina?...," that suggested that La Nina might have been an influence on the cooler winter and spring we just experienced in the Northwest. I did not mention global warming, or solar forcing of climate, in that post. My post was not addressing those issues. ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation, a coupled ocean/atmospheric circulation model, which includes La Nina) existed before the dramatic rise in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. You appear to think that my post about La Nina was aimed at addressing either global warming or solar forcing of climate? It was not.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The content in your response to the "La Nina?..." post near the bottom here, regarding contemporary global warming, and its relation to solar climate forcing, more properly fits in the thread "Solar Energy As Climate Variable," from this months posts:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-June/054333.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-June/054333.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>I raised a question in the post at the URL above, that you did not specifically address, that I have read. Maybe I missed it. I will address the point of my question in detail below. Given this post is mainly about solar forcing of climate, or rather the lack thereof, I am posting this response under that subject heading.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is territory that has been addressed on Vision2020 in recent months in detail. I presented references to some of the most well respected climate scientists in the world, who have concluded, in peer reviewed articles and other commentary, that solar forcing of climate, to explain the past 30 years of increasing rate of global warming, is not supported by the evidence, as the IPCC has concluded Of course there is disagreement on this issue. But the consensus in the climate science community is clear that the primary driver of climate change is anthropogenic, at this time in history.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your responses appear to indicate you either did not read my former posts and the evidence presented on this issue, or...? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Reasonable fact based disagreement is one thing. But not acknowledging substantive evidence, such as the satellite data presented contradicting the claim that solar forcing is a significant influence on the past 30 years of global warming, is another. Maybe you responded to this, and I missed it. Months ago you raised the issue of solar forcing of climate, referencing the Maunder Minimum, sun spot cycles, the Little Ice Age, etc. and applied these issues to current climate change. I responded to similar claims made on local blog <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://right-mind.us/" target="_blank">right-mind.us</a> regarding the same issue. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Here again is one of the sources I presented, as I mentioned, regarding the past 30 years of satellite data on solar energy input. The general conclusions of this article are accepted by the climate science community. You may disagree with these findings. And I recognize it's possible the climate science community may be making a mistake. But the satellite data of the past 30 years is rather compelling evidence, if it is not being misinterpreted:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><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></div>
<div>
<p id="cite"><i>Nature</i> <b>443</b>, 161-166 (14 September 2006) | <abbr title="Digital Object Identifier">doi</abbr>:10.1038/nature05072</p>
<h2 id="atl">Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate</h2></div>
<div>
<p id="aug">P. Foukal<sup><a title="affiliated with " href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html#a1">1</a></sup>, C. Fröhlich<sup><a title="affiliated with " href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html#a2">2</a></sup>, H. Spruit<sup><a title="affiliated with " href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html#a3">3</a></sup> and T. M. L. Wigley<sup><a title="affiliated with " href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html#a4">4</a></sup></p>
<div id="abs"><a class="backtotop hidden" href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html#top">Top<span class="hidden"> of page</span></a>
<h3 class="hidden">Abstract</h3>
<p class="lead">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. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.</p>
</div></div>
<div>------------------------------- </div>
<div>Sometimes repeating arguments is a must, given critical issues demanding action, that are still not well understood or sufficiently emphasized, in the public mind. Witness the current redundant discussions on Vision2020, regarding human rights and habeas corpus, in reference to Gitmo and the recent US Supreme Court decision. This issue has been previously argued to death on Vision2020; and may continue to be argued to death, hopefully to good effect, till people stop defending the alarming and dangerous erosion of our civil rights! </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Similarly, the necessity to take immediate substantive action to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, appears to also require endless redundant argumentation, given that so many actually believe the global scientific community is engaged in a conspiracy to construct a hoax regarding the problem of anthropogenic global warming, or are taken in by junk science on climate change being peddled in the media.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am not sure we substantially disagree, unless you are claiming that solar forcing is the primary driver of current global temperature increases, rather than climate forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases and other human impacts, being the primary driver; a primary driver that is increasing in power as greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase in our atmosphere. Emissions that will reach levels that will induce massive and destructive climate change, given the potential for CO2 loading of the atmosphere, and the resultant climate feedback effects, if coal, oil and natural gas continues to increase in use as primary energy sources for human civilization (without CO2 sequestration), clearly the current global trend. And this is not including the potential development of methane hydrates as an energy source, which contain double the stored carbon of all traditional fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas. Thankfully, methane hydrates may remain too impractical for large scale energy use.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Paul wrote:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Isn't it possible that the Sun is having a warming effect that is <br>exacerbated or amplified by the CO2 we've been dumping into the air? Does it have to anthropogenic-only or nothing?"<br> </div>
<div>I do not rule out any variable as an influence on contemporary climate change, unless the preponderance of the evidence indicates a variable is not a major influence on climate forcing or feedback. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Let's look closer at the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Published in the journal "Science" December 7, 2001:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/5549/2149">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/5549/2149</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span>Solar</span> <span>Forcing</span> of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum
<p><strong>Drew T. Shindell,<sup>1</sup> Gavin A. <span>Schmidt</span>,<sup>1</sup> Michael E. Mann,<sup>2</sup> David Rind,<sup>1</sup> Anne Waple<sup>3</sup> </strong></p></div>
<div>We examine the climate response to <span>solar</span> irradiance changes between the late 1<span>7</span>th-century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th<sup> </sup>century. Global average temperature changes are small (about 0.3°<sup> </sup>to 0.4°C) in both a climate model and empirical reconstructions.<sup> </sup>However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the<sup> </sup>model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the<sup> </sup>low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation<sup> </sup>as <span>solar</span> irradiance decreases. This leads to colder temperatures<sup> </sup>over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter<sup> </sup>(1° to 2°C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data<sup> </sup>for surface temperatures.</div>
<div>---------------------</div>
<div>Note the discussion of the regional temperature shift compared to the global average temperature during the LIA. I have read other scientific sources that confirm that the Little Ice Age was more a regional than a global climate change. Europe dropped 1-2 degrees C., but globally the average temperature drop was .3-.4 C., according to this article. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>In my post this month on "Solar Energy As Climate Variable" I asked you to provide a reference to a scientific article (in a well regarded journal, not junk science) arguing for a 2 degree C. shift in global average temperatures, in a few decades, at some point in paleoclimate history, solely from solar forcing. This was based on your comment that "small perturbations in the radiation output of this gigantic ball of energy can be enough to have catastrophic effects," a comment emphasizing solar forcing as a profound climate forcing variable, rather than a more stable climate influence The 2 degree C. shift, in a few decades, of global average temperature change parameters are derived from a statement you made that the effects we are talking about regarding global warming are "small ones," "a few degrees over a few decades," which is not necessarily correct (correct me if I misunderstood your meaning), given the IPCC's 2007 report estimate regarding the upper range for potential anthropogenic driven global average temperature increase by the end of this century at 5.8 C. (10.44 degrees F.):</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is an alarming prediction we can hope will never happen. To consider it acceptable to assume even a small risk this might happen, is playing Russian Roulette with our Earth, and all life upon it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyway, The Little Ice Age (a mere .3-.4 C. global average temperature change) does not come close to qualifying as a solar forcing (or reduced forcing, I should say) event of 2 degree C. of average global temperature change. The Maunder Mimimum solar impact on global average temperature reduction, assuming the .3-.4 C. temperature drop of the LIA was mostly due to the Maunder Minimum, which is still constroversial, if duplicated during this next century, could be totally overcome, resulting in major temperature increases, by the climate forcing impacts of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I suppose it is possible that there is a period when the sun either dimmed or brightened enough to change Earth's climate by 2 degree C. global average temperature, solely by solar input (and resultant feedback effects, of course), perhaps as quickly as a few decades. Given your emphasis on the profound impacts of solar climate forcing, I asked for a well documented example of such a profound rapid climate shift, in paloeclimate history, which the LIA and the Medieval Warming Period are not. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Examples of more than 2 degree C. shift in average global temperature from natural atmospheric increases in CO2 and/or CH4 (they are coupled sometimes in climate feedback mechanisms where one drives the other and vice-versa) are well documented in climate history, though for this to happen in a few decades is very fast. This is partly why the potential climate changes from human sourced greenhouse gases, which may increase average global temperatures more than 2 degree C. in a few decades (by the end of this century), are alarming. The explosion of the Yellowstone Caldera, or a large asteroid impact, have or will immediately alter climate quickly and dramatically. But this is not the sort of climate change under discussion. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>What is surprising is the "Faint Young Sun Paradox," as I mentioned (not by this name) in "Solar Energy As Climate Variable," the fact that millions of years ago the sun generally emitted less energy to Earth than now, during some of the warmest periods in Earth's climate history. Explanations for the PETM (Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum), 55.5 million years ago, given the evidence, do not include solar forcing as a major impact. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyway, back to the Science article on solar forcing/Maunder Minimum quoted above. Note the concluding paragraph in the discussion of this article at the URL below (this Science journal article was co-authored by climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, who is one of the regular monitors and contributors to Realclimate.org, who I quoted on Vision2020 previously referencing his article "The Lure Of Solar Forcing," discussing the emphasis to explain current climate change via solar forcing):</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2001/200112065794.html">http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2001/200112065794.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>"The period of low solar activity in the middle ages led to atmospheric changes that seem to have brought on the Little Ice Age. However, we need to keep in mind that variations in solar output have had far less impact on the Earth's recent climate than human actions," Shindell said. "The biggest catalyst for climate change today are greenhouse gases," he added. </div>
<div>-----------------------------------------------------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Here is the URL to the article by climate scientist Gavin Schmidt on "The Lure of Solar Forcing," from Realclimate.org, that I previously presented to Vision2020. The numerous and detailed responses from readers of Realclimate are as illuminating as the article itself:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=171">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=171</a></div>
<div>----------------</div>
<div>Paul wrote:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"As I've tried to make clear, it's complex." </div>
<div> </div>
<div>This goes without saying. Anyone who argues otherwise has not studied climate science.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/14/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Rumelhart</b> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Color me confused, but didn't we just go through a cold, snowy, wet, active winter here in Moscow? I seem to remember the University being closed for a couple of days and having to shovel some snow off the roof of my house for the first time ever. Isn't that expected in a La Nina year?<br>
<br>It's also not clear that La Nina or El Nino years have much correlation with global warming, positive or negative.<br><br>As I've tried to make clear, it's complex.<br><br>While looking around for real-time sunspot numbers (I haven't found any yet), I came across a science article from the BBC in 2004 that claims that the Sun has been the most active in the past 60 years than at any other time in the past 1000 years.<br>
<br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm</a><br><br>Isn't it possible that the Sun is having a warming effect that is exacerbated or amplified by the CO2 we've been dumping into the air? Does it have to anthropogenic-only or nothing?<br>
<br>Since the Sun seems to have stalled on it's climb back up to activity this solar cycle, maybe we'll get a break.<br><br>Paul<br><br>Ted Moffett wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div><span>In the March-May US temperature map from NOAA, Idaho was assigned the next to lowest number, thus was second coolest in the lower 48, with Oregon the coolest and Washington third coolest. Thus based on this map, the Northwest had the coolest weather in the contiguous US from March to May. La Nina? Info on La Nina and Northwest US weather from Western Regional Climate Center:<br>
<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/enso/ensofaq.html" target="_blank">http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/enso/ensofaq.html</a><br> From URL above:<br> In the Pacific Northwest, this appears to be not as true. La Nina generally brings cold, snowy, wet, active winters to the northern Cascades and the northern Rockies.<br>
-----------------------------------<br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/images/03-05Statewidetrank_pg_final.gif" target="_blank">http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/images/03-05Statewidetrank_pg_final.gif</a><br>
-----------------------------------------<br>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br></span></div>------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br></blockquote></blockquote></div>