Disproving Global Warming II

The latest submission to arXiv:physics.ao-ph is entitled Interglacials, Milankovitch Cycles, and Carbon Dioxide by Gerald E. Marsh. Here is a review of the evidence regarding the timing of Termination II, the penultimate interglacial transition 140k years ago, and factors that may have caused it: CO2, Milankovitch induced insolation changes, or changes in solar magnetic flux, altering the Earth’s albedo through cosmic ray flux.

To appreciate the importance of this period, and a clear logical analysis of it, consider the recent lecture tour of Australia by Lord Monckton and Prof. Plimer. Lord Monckton argues strongly that climate sensitivity to CO2 is very low, too low to be of concern, and an increasing number of peer-reviewed papers using independent observational methods — Douglass, Lindzen, Spencer, Schwartz, Pinker, Shaviv — back him up. Prof. Plimer argues that the history of climate has been enormously variable, and not related to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

This contrast of low sensitivity but high natural variation has prompted criticism on the irony of a tour by sceptics with contradictory viewpoints. As I understand their view, they maintain “the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 cannot be as low as suggested by these results because low sensitivity cannot explain the large glacial-interglacial transitions”. A solar cause for the penultimate transition has been scoffed at because the timing is wrong. It must have been a volcano or something that kicked off the chain of CO2 feedback that resulted in the warm interglacial.

The paper by Marsh, a retired scientist from Argonne Labs, finds that solar geomagnetic variations of time period around 100k years did occur, and can potentially explain this and other transitions, through changes in the Earth’s average albedo from variation in low cloud, caused by variations in cosmic ray flux. Here is the summary:

It has been shown above that low altitude cloud cover closely follows cosmic ray flux; that the galactic cosmic ray flux has the periodicities of the glacial/interglacial cycles; that a decrease in galactic cosmic ray flux was coincident with Termination II; and that the most likely initiator for Termination II was a consequent decrease in Earth’s albedo.

The temperature of past interglacials was higher than today most likely as a consequence of a lower global albedo due to a decrease in galactic cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, the galactic cosmic ray intensity exhibits a 100 kyr periodicity over the last 200 kyr that is in phase with the glacial terminations of this period. Carbon dioxide appears to play a very limited role in setting interglacial temperature.

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “Disproving Global Warming II

  1. David,Their view that “the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 cannot be as low as suggested by these results because low sensitivity cannot explain the large glacial-interglacial transitions” is founded on the logical fallacy of arguing the consequent; and isn't scientific as well.The scientific approach would be to note their observations, conclude the theory is wrong, and go back to the drawing board.I could offer alternative explanations but prefer not to, at this point in time, because it's too early to introduce facts that will cause a fundamental shift in the scientific paradigm, that established by Charles Lyell two centuries ago.

  2. David,

    Their view that “the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 cannot be as low as suggested by these results because low sensitivity cannot explain the large glacial-interglacial transitions” is founded on the logical fallacy of arguing the consequent; and isn’t scientific as well.

    The scientific approach would be to note their observations, conclude the theory is wrong, and go back to the drawing board.

    I could offer alternative explanations but prefer not to, at this point in time, because it’s too early to introduce facts that will cause a fundamental shift in the scientific paradigm, that established by Charles Lyell two centuries ago.

  3. I find it very hard to accept the argument that variations in cosmic ray flux are sufficiently strong to cause such major changes in albedo. What we really do know about the gross relationship between Bond albedo, the solar constant and the greenhouse effect is well known and is as follows:The net power deposited in the terrestrial atmosphere and surface depends on the solar irradiance and the Earth's short-wavelength (0.15–4.9 microns) albedoPin=CRe^2(1-A)where C is the solar constant (adjusted for the Sun-Earth distance, i.e. TSI), Re is the Earth’s radius, and A is the short-wavelength Bond albedo (the amount of sunlight reflected back to space by the atmosphere and surface of the Earth). Subsequently, the short-wavelength, incoming power is re-radiated back into space at thermal or long-wavelengths (peaks near ~10–15 microns), wherePout=4Re^2σTtoa^4where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and Ttoa (~255 K) is the effective temperature of the Earth (defined with unit emissivity). Ttoa is a physically averaged long-wave emission temperature at about 5.5 km height in the atmosphere (this “top of the atmosphere’’ or “toa’’ temperature depends on wavelength and cloud cover; altitudes from 0 to 30 km contribute to this emission). One can relate that temperature to a more relevant global climate parameter like the globally averaged surface temperature Tsurf by introducing a greenhouse forcing parameter G [W/m2], which is defined as the difference between the emission at the surface and the top of the atmosphere (OLR). The forcing G increases with an increasing concentration of greenhouse gasses. After Raval and Ramanathan (1989), one can define the normalized greenhouse effect g as g=G/σTsurf^4. Then the outgoing power can be written asPout=4Re^2σ(1-g)Tsurf^4If the planet is in radiative equilibrium, Pin=Pout, then we haveTsurf^4=C(1-A)/4σ(1-g) This means that the Bond albedo, together with solar irradiance and the greenhouse effect, directly controls the Earth’s temperature. Global warming would result if either A decreased or g or C increased.How are changes in cosmic ray flux which may or may not have a big effect on nucleation of low cloud going to overcome the enormous power of the total solar irradiance (C) (or TSI) to vary albedo – which is controlled simply via OLR = C(1-A)/4.This is especially puzzling in a warm state interglacial world where there is a lot of photautotrophic biological activity going on, busily pumping oodles of Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN) into the lower troposphere?In my view, for any fixed value of C (TSI), the relationship between Bond Albedo and surface temperature is a big lazy S type curve with only a relatively small zone of (linear) inflection at any metastable state where the albedo may be stabilized by the supply of CCN (presently biogenic and anthropogenic in my view).For those familiar with a sort of extended Miskolczian nomenclature it looks something rather like this:http://jump.fm/IOWFFI think we have to be very, very careful with the use or misuse of ice core 10Be data as a supposed proxy for cosmic ray flux because it has been shown that it is very much a function of the overall dust content of the ice and should probably be normalized against sulfate content at the very least due to volcanic dust flux.Simple variation in TSI is the most likely cause of glacial Terminations.

  4. I find it very hard to accept the argument that variations in cosmic ray flux are sufficiently strong to cause such major changes in albedo.

    What we really do know about the gross relationship between Bond albedo, the solar constant and the greenhouse effect is well known and is as follows:

    The net power deposited in the terrestrial atmosphere and surface depends on the solar irradiance and the Earth’s short-wavelength (0.15–4.9 microns) albedo

    Pin=CRe^2(1-A)

    where C is the solar constant (adjusted for the Sun-Earth distance, i.e. TSI), Re is the Earth’s radius, and A is the short-wavelength Bond albedo (the amount of sunlight reflected back to space by the atmosphere and surface of the Earth). Subsequently, the short-wavelength, incoming power is re-radiated back into space at thermal or long-wavelengths (peaks near ~10–15 microns), where

    Pout=4Re^2σTtoa^4

    where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and Ttoa (~255 K) is the effective temperature of the Earth (defined with unit emissivity). Ttoa is a physically averaged long-wave emission temperature at about 5.5 km height in the atmosphere (this “top of the atmosphere’’ or “toa’’ temperature depends on wavelength and cloud cover; altitudes from 0 to 30 km contribute to this emission). One can relate that temperature to a more relevant global climate parameter like the globally averaged surface temperature Tsurf by introducing a greenhouse forcing parameter G [W/m2], which is defined as the difference between the emission at the surface and the top of the atmosphere (OLR). The forcing G increases with an increasing concentration of greenhouse gasses. After Raval and Ramanathan (1989), one can define the normalized greenhouse effect g as g=G/σTsurf^4. Then the outgoing power can be written as

    Pout=4Re^2σ(1-g)Tsurf^4

    If the planet is in radiative equilibrium, Pin=Pout, then we have

    Tsurf^4=C(1-A)/4σ(1-g)

    This means that the Bond albedo, together with solar irradiance and the greenhouse effect, directly controls the Earth’s temperature. Global warming would result if either A decreased or g or C increased.

    How are changes in cosmic ray flux which may or may not have a big effect on nucleation of low cloud going to overcome the enormous power of the total solar irradiance (C) (or TSI) to vary albedo – which is controlled simply via OLR = C(1-A)/4.

    This is especially puzzling in a warm state interglacial world where there is a lot of photautotrophic biological activity going on, busily pumping oodles of Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN) into the lower troposphere?

    In my view, for any fixed value of C (TSI), the relationship between Bond Albedo and surface temperature is a big lazy S type curve with only a relatively small zone of (linear) inflection at any metastable state where the albedo may be stabilized by the supply of CCN (presently biogenic and anthropogenic in my view).

    For those familiar with a sort of extended Miskolczian nomenclature it looks something rather like this:

    http://jump.fm/IOWFF

    I think we have to be very, very careful with the use or misuse of ice core 10Be data as a supposed proxy for cosmic ray flux because it has been shown that it is very much a function of the overall dust content of the ice and should probably be normalized against sulfate content at the very least due to volcanic dust flux.

    Simple variation in TSI is the most likely cause of glacial Terminations.

    • I too suspect that CRF effect will not be adequate despite the correlations (and the correlations below are similar enough). Am currently writing up an analysis whereby response to periodic fluctuating forcing is amplified, and this could be due achieved by biotic factors too. I need to get it finished first.

  5. I too suspect that CRF effect will not be adequate despite the correlations (and the correlations below are similar enough). Am currently writing up an analysis whereby response to periodic fluctuating forcing is amplified, and this could be due achieved by biotic factors too. I need to get it finished first.

  6. Pingback: free printable coupons

  7. Pingback: wypozyczalnia samochodow

  8. Pingback: kliknij link

  9. Pingback: kliknij link

  10. Pingback: AMT

  11. Pingback: discount air jordan

  12. Pingback: abs fitness challenges

  13. Pingback: strona

  14. Pingback: Eleanor Leibowitz

  15. Pingback: strona www

  16. Pingback: wynajem opiekuna wroclaw

  17. Pingback: legal recruiter

  18. Pingback: depilacja dla dziewczyn

  19. Pingback: polecam link

  20. Pingback: witryna www

  21. Pingback: kliknij

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s