APOD: Global Warming Predictions (2009 April 21)

[hydroresearch]

Chris, I would suggest checking the predicions from a few years ago about the new cycle. You will find they are all wrong.

For the most part, predictions of future solar cycles have always been poor. Nobody knows how to make such predictions yet.

It is easy to read too much into reports of solar activity. "A hundred year low" sounds so dramatic. But the current cycle isn't much lower than many others. It reminds me of the close approach of Mars a few years ago. Lots of people made a big deal about how it was closer than it had been for tens of thousands of years. That was true, but what usually went unmentioned was that it was only fractionally closer than it gets every couple of decades. Not really any big deal.

It's the same with the current minimum. True, we haven't seen such a deep one for a century. But we've seen other minimums during the last century that were nearly as deep. It is really premature to start seeing this as another Maunder minimum.

The bottom line is that actual measured solar irradiance over the last two solar cycles looks about the same. There's very little to suggest that the slightly deeper minimum we're coming out of has had much impact. There is a slight decline in average temperatures during every minimum. It's expected, it's part of the models, and it has nothing at all to do with the trend in global average temperature since we started pumping massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (a relationship for which good, solid, scientific evidence does exist).

The solar cycle is just one elemnt in the climate system. Large scale oscillations in ocean circulation are another example. If "future predictions of future solar cycles have always been poor", how do your models incorporate these poor predictions?

Solar irradiance is only one aspect of the solar cycle. With better instrumentation and satellite observations we are seeing other changes such as the solar wind which can have impacts on cloud generation. It seems the more we learn about the sun-climate relationship the more complicated we realize it is.

I have never claimed that we were entering a Maunder minimum, I just hate to see rash decisions made on models which are really not preforming at a level of accuracy to justify such decisions.

Thanks for all the good discussion.

[hydroresearch]

here are a couple of interesting charts I found in WIKI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg this one on the relationship between solar activity, CO2, and Temperature
And this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbo ... labels.png showing solar activity recorded in radiocarbon

Interestingly, looking at the dates of the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum, It would appear that the cooling process started many decades prior to the Maunder Minimum

Yes, but what if you put in some lag into the relationship?

[Chris Peterson]

Interestingly, looking at the dates of the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum, It would appear that the cooling process started many decades prior to the Maunder Minimum

The important thing that people need to get is that there isn't much evidence that the Little Ice Age was caused by the Maunder Minimum. Much more likely is that this was a "perfect storm" situation. Happening at nearly the same time was a decrease in solar output (the Maunder and Spörer minimums), a sharp decrease in atmospheric CO2 resulting from widespread reforestation in the Northern Hemisphere following the Black Death, and a significant drop in solar heating of the atmosphere as the result of high volcanic activity.

Models do show that part of the temperature decrease seen in the Little Ice Age can be attributed to decades of low solar activity. But that only accounts for a part of it. Trying to separate all the causes and assign a relative importance to each is not currently possible. And comparing the Maunder Minimum and Little Ice Age to the current (single cycle) solar minimum and temperature trends over two or three years is of no value at all.

[jedwards123321]

FYI, email I sent to friends about the April 21 APOD image:

Today's APOD image illustrates the standard "doom & gloom" scenario with
respect to global warming that most of the mainstream media loves to
latch on to and use to terrify the uneducated citizenry.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090421.html

Few people will follow the provided link associated with the "above
predictive map" to the URL:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Im ... ns_Map_jpg

where the science behind the image is more honestly described:

"This figure shows the predicted distribution of temperature
change due to global warming from the Hadley Centre HadCM3 climate
model. These changes are based on the IS92a ("BUSINESS AS USUAL")
projections of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions
during the next century, and essentially assume normal levels of
economic growth and NO SIGNIFICANT STEPS ARE TAKEN TO COMBAT
GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS." [emphasis MINE]

Again, I am NOT saying global warming isn't a real phenomena or
something to not be worried about or fought against. But continuing to
promulgate dramatic images based on PATENTLY UNREALISTIC scenarios for
the obvious intention of inciting action-thru-hysteria is dishonest and
disingenuous.

It would be JUST as truthful to circulate the results of a predictive
model in which CO2 emission are totally HALTED as to circulate the
results of this above model in which "no significant steps are taken" to
curtail CO2 emission over the next 80 years. Come on.

I also again point out that no current predictive models that I am aware
of consider the likelihood of new and effective technologies that WILL
have a gigantic impact on this problem/scenario.

Case in point is a story from just yesterday:

"Ground-breaking research finds way to convert CO2 into clean-burning
biofuel"

http://www.gizmag.com/research-carbon-d ... anol/11483

"Scientists at the Singapore-based Institute of Bioengineering
and Nanotechnology (IBN) have made an unprecedented breakthrough
in transforming CO2 into methanol..."

"The report, published recently in the international chemistry
journal Angewandte Chemie, has been described by reviewers as
'very important', a classification only given to 10% of the
journal's manuscripts."

[Chris Peterson]

Again, I am NOT saying global warming isn't a real phenomena or
something to not be worried about or fought against. But continuing to
promulgate dramatic images based on PATENTLY UNREALISTIC scenarios for
the obvious intention of inciting action-thru-hysteria is dishonest and
disingenuous.

Models reflecting what is likely to happen if no action is taken are certainly not dishonest. They are highly effective in advising public policy decisions.

I also again point out that no current predictive models that I am aware
of consider the likelihood of new and effective technologies that WILL
have a gigantic impact on this problem/scenario.

You are mistaken about that. Every model is run against a range of scenarios, ranging from no action at one extreme to aggressive action at the other. You'll see this in any scientific publication, as well as most meta studies (such as the IPCC report).

[neufer]

Interestingly, looking at the dates of the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum, It would appear that the cooling process started many decades prior to the Maunder Minimum

The important thing that people need to get is that there isn't much evidence that the Little Ice Age was caused by the Maunder Minimum. Much more likely is that this was a "perfect storm" situation. Happening at nearly the same time was a decrease in solar output (the Maunder and Spörer minimums), a sharp decrease in atmospheric CO2 resulting from widespread reforestation in the Northern Hemisphere following the Black Death, and a significant drop in solar heating of the atmosphere as the result of high volcanic activity.

REforestation!? That's funny...

I thought it was due to global dimming from widespread DEforestation...
(which is consistent with the lowering of Carbon 14).

[aristarchusinexile]

Case in point is a story from just yesterday:

"Ground-breaking research finds way to convert CO2 into clean-burning
biofuel"

http://www.gizmag.com/research-carbon-d ... anol/11483

"Scientists at the Singapore-based Institute of Bioengineering
and Nanotechnology (IBN) have made an unprecedented breakthrough
in transforming CO2 into methanol..."

"The report, published recently in the international chemistry
journal Angewandte Chemie, has been described by reviewers as
'very important', a classification only given to 10% of the
journal's manuscripts."

Also another example of how U.S. technology and education have fallen far behind .. of course, the U.S. doesn't need clean energy when it has 'unlimited' and cheap dirty coal .. the profit margin, but also what is ordained for a worldwide, evil humanity, rules surpreme.

[Chris Peterson]

REforestation!? That's funny...

I thought it was due to global dimming from widespread DEforestation...
(which is consistent with the lowering of Carbon 14).

No, reforestation. Europe was heavily deforested in the centuries before the Black Death. After the plague hit, huge areas that had been dedicated to agriculture reverted to forests, sequestering carbon and dropping atmospheric CO2 levels, with a presumed consequent impact on global temperatures.

I don't understand the connection between forestation, global dimming, and the C14 chart you reference. C14 tracks solar activity directly, since it is created by high energy particles hitting the atmosphere.

[hydroresearch]

Here is a link to a graph of the IPPC models. I hope some of you climate alarmist will take the time to take a look and realize that when it is extremely difficult to predict the weather a week in advance, its nearly impossible to predict it 50 years in advance.

http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/IPPCMODELS.JPG

[StACase]

... a story from just yesterday:

"Ground-breaking research finds way to convert CO2 into clean-burning
biofuel"

http://www.gizmag.com/research-carbon-d ... anol/11483

"Scientists at the Singapore-based Institute of Bioengineering
and Nanotechnology (IBN) have made an unprecedented breakthrough
in transforming CO2 into methanol..."

"The report, published recently in the international chemistry
journal Angewandte Chemie, has been described by reviewers as
'very important', a classification only given to 10% of the
journal's manuscripts."

The last part of that reads like those letters we all got from Ed McMahon telling us we have just won $1MM. Well really, the story doesn't say anything about the energy input necessary to transform CO2 into methanol. The article doesn't mention that nature does that very thing with chlorophyll and sunlight.

At the end of the day it will be yet another in a long list of something for nothing schemes that don't work. These stories, new engine uses water for fuel and the like, are always scams. When will people learn?

That people buy into this sort of thing goes hand in hand with the willingness to believe in "Global Warming", an obvious scam with all the accompanying politics and propaganda and yet it's not recognized for what it is. We live in a world with a huge segment of the population well educated, but you'd never know it based on stuff like this.

[Chris Peterson]

Here is a link to a graph of the IPPC models. I hope some of you climate alarmist will take the time to take a look and realize that when it is extremely difficult to predict the weather a week in advance, its nearly impossible to predict it 50 years in advance.

Which is why absolutely nobody is even remotely trying to predict the weather 50 years in advance.

Note also that this image has been adulterated. It shows three years of weather data superimposed on the actual model data, which is decadally averaged in its prediction range. Comparing weather to average climate is meaningless. This chart is deliberately misleading, and was obviously not produced by any sort of climate scientist. It is also posted on a site of questionable quality.

[gpobserver]

Dear Chris Peterson,

Your postings suggest you think that the only influence of the sun on terrestrial climate is the variation in solar constant and a resultant variation in heating of the earth. That assumes that the earth's albedo is constant. According to research by Henrik Svensmark, it is the variation in the interplanetary magnetic field and the resultant modulation of high-energy galactic cosmic rays that changes the amount of cloudiness of the earth's atmosphere and therefore the earth's albedo. A reduction of the magnetic field produces an increased flux of cosmic rays and the resultant cloud-nucleating ions in the lower atmosphere. This increase of cloudiness reflects more sunlight and reduces heating of the earth's surface. http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/ Please note correlations between solar minima such as the Maunder and Dalton minima, climate, and Be-10 isotope concentrations.

Best regards,
- Roy Tucker

[Chris Peterson]

Dear Chris Peterson,

Your postings suggest you think that the only influence of the sun on terrestrial climate is the variation in solar constant and a resultant variation in heating of the earth. That assumes that the earth's albedo is constant. According to research by Henrik Svensmark, it is the variation in the interplanetary magnetic field and the resultant modulation of high-energy galactic cosmic rays that changes the amount of cloudiness of the earth's atmosphere and therefore the earth's albedo. A reduction of the magnetic field produces an increased flux of cosmic rays and the resultant cloud-nucleating ions in the lower atmosphere. This increase of cloudiness reflects more sunlight and reduces heating of the earth's surface. http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/ Please note correlations between solar minima such as the Maunder and Dalton minima, climate, and Be-10 isotope concentrations.

Yes, I'm aware of similar work. The latest versions of the climate simulations all have albedo models under development, although the models aren't very good yet, because the physical basis of cloud formation remains poorly understood. The referenced paper is of limited value except as a general reference; it is quite old and references old work (the most recent being from 13 years ago). Much more work has been done since then; much of the primary research in recent years has been centered on the physics of cloud formation (including the effects of aerosols, cosmic rays, high energy particles from the Sun, and the Earth's magnetic field). I don't think too many people would argue that cloud formation is primarily a product of galactic cosmic rays; I think the current evidence leans towards atmospheric aerosols being more significant.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the interplanetary magnetic field". I assume you are referring to the terrestrial magnetic field.

[hydroresearch]

Here is a link to a graph of the IPPC models. I hope some of you climate alarmist will take the time to take a look and realize that when it is extremely difficult to predict the weather a week in advance, its nearly impossible to predict it 50 years in advance.

Which is why absolutely nobody is even remotely trying to predict the weather 50 years in advance.

Note also that this image has been adulterated. It shows three years of weather data superimposed on the actual model data, which is decadally averaged in its prediction range. Comparing weather to average climate is meaningless. This chart is deliberately misleading, and was obviously not produced by any sort of climate scientist. It is also posted on a site of questionable quality.

Perhaps the national climatic data center for the winter of 2007-2008 will calm you down. As one can see over half of the US was at or below its average.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/re ... ank-pg.gif

Weather is what makes the climate and is therefore not meaningless.

[neufer]

REforestation!? That's funny...

I thought it was due to global dimming from widespread DEforestation...
(which is consistent with the lowering of Carbon 14).

No, reforestation. Europe was heavily deforested in the centuries before the Black Death. After the plague hit, huge areas that had been dedicated to agriculture reverted to forests, sequestering carbon and dropping atmospheric CO2 levels, with a presumed consequent impact on global temperatures.

Not sure what you are basing this on:

0) If Europe was heavily deforested in the centuries before
the Black Death there would be few parent trees left to self-reforest.

1) Europe is a small continent with a small percentage of global vegetation.

2) The European plague killed off CITY folk much more so than country folk.
Increased burning by city plague emigrants probably more than
made up for reforestation of farms surrounding these cities:

<<In 1466, 40,000 persons died of plague in Paris. In 1570, 200,000 persons died in Moscow and the neighbourhood. The plague of 1575–77 claimed some 50,000 victims in Venice. In 1625, 35,417 Londoners had died of the plague. In 1634, an outbreak of plague killed 15,000 Munich residents.Late outbreaks in central Europe include the Italian Plague of 1629–1631, which is associated with troop movements during the Thirty Years' War, and the Great Plague of Vienna in 1679. About 200,000 people in Moscow died of the disease from 1654 to 1656. Over 60% of Norway's population died from 1348 to 1350. The last plague outbreak ravaged Oslo in 1654. In 1656 the plague killed about half of Naples' 300,000 inhabitants. Amsterdam was ravaged in 1663–1664, with a mortality given as 50,000.>>

I don't understand the connection between forestation, global dimming, and the C14 chart you reference. C14 tracks solar activity directly, since it is created by high energy particles hitting the atmosphere.

This was an afterthought regarding the burning a lot of old forest whose Carbon-14 had decayed some
but I can now think of many reasons now why this effect was probably negligible.

[hydroresearch]

Here is a link to a graph of the IPPC models. I hope some of you climate alarmist will take the time to take a look and realize that when it is extremely difficult to predict the weather a week in advance, its nearly impossible to predict it 50 years in advance.

Which is why absolutely nobody is even remotely trying to predict the weather 50 years in advance.

Note also that this image has been adulterated. It shows three years of weather data superimposed on the actual model data, which is decadally averaged in its prediction range. Comparing weather to average climate is meaningless. This chart is deliberately misleading, and was obviously not produced by any sort of climate scientist. It is also posted on a site of questionable quality.

Perhaps the national climatic data center for the winter of 2007-2008 will calm you down. As one can see over half of the US was at or below its average.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/re ... ank-pg.gif

Weather is what makes the climate and is therefore not meaningless.

Here is another graph from NOAA showing winter temperature trends have been declining since 2000. These data have not had the urban heat island effect removed. If you look at any long term station in the US that is in a rural area you will find they are all declining.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/re ... 009_pg.gif

[Chris Peterson]

Perhaps the national climatic data center for the winter of 2007-2008 will calm you down. As one can see over half of the US was at or below its average.

No, the data has absolutely no bearing on the climate at all, and tells us nothing about trends.

It is also worth noting that the climate models predict more extreme weather, which is arguably what this chart shows (hard to say with the image stripped from its context).

[Chris Peterson]

Not sure what you are basing this on:

0) If Europe was heavily deforested in the centuries before
the Black Death there would be few parent trees left to self-reforest.

1) Europe is a small continent with a small percentage of global vegetation.

2) The European plague killed off CITY folk much more so than country folk.
Increased burning by city plague emigrants probably more than
made up for reforestation of farms surrounding these cities

All good points. The comment is based on work by William Ruddiman. His theory is quite controversial, but the idea that there is some truth in it (that is, that it could be one component of the Little Ice Age) doesn't seem unreasonable. There was significant European reforestation in the two centuries after the Black Death, and a drop in atmospheric CO2 shows up in the ice core record for that period. Given that global temperature is quite sensitive to even small changes in CO2, the theory isn't obviously unreasonable. BTW, Ruddiman has also proposed that reforestation in the Americas also led to the observed drop in CO2. It is estimated that within less than a century of Europeans reaching the Americas, more than 90% of the indigenous population, much of it in agricultural societies, had died.

Anyway, I'm certainly not pushing this as a major cause of the Little Ice Age, just including it in a list of factors that are suggested as contributory. It isn't reasonable to simply note the similar time frame of the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum and assume that the first was caused by the second (I know that you aren't saying this).

(Are you a programmer? Most other people don't use zero-based lists. <g>)

[BMAONE23]

Here is a link to a graph of the IPPC models. I hope some of you climate alarmist will take the time to take a look and realize that when it is extremely difficult to predict the weather a week in advance, its nearly impossible to predict it 50 years in advance.

Which is why absolutely nobody is even remotely trying to predict the weather 50 years in advance.

Note also that this image has been adulterated. It shows three years of weather data superimposed on the actual model data, which is decadally averaged in its prediction range. Comparing weather to average climate is meaningless. This chart is deliberately misleading, and was obviously not produced by any sort of climate scientist. It is also posted on a site of questionable quality.

Perhaps the national climatic data center for the winter of 2007-2008 will calm you down. As one can see over half of the US was at or below its average.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/re ... ank-pg.gif

Weather is what makes the climate and is therefore not meaningless.

When I look at it, I see a more static situation with about 1/3 of the country experiencing "Slightly Cooler"(lower than average) temps and about 1/3 experiencing "Slightly Warmer"(higher than average) temperatures.

[BMAONE23]

Here is another graph from NOAA showing winter temperature trends have been declining since 2000. These data have not had the urban heat island effect removed. If you look at any long term station in the US that is in a rural area you will find they are all declining.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/re ... 009_pg.gif

And when I look at this chart I also notice that the High temps (spikes) above the Mean Line are gradually increasing in both number and height while the Low Temp (spikes) decrease in both quantity and severity WRT the Mean Level.

[hydroresearch]

Here is another graph from NOAA showing winter temperature trends have been declining since 2000. These data have not had the urban heat island effect removed. If you look at any long term station in the US that is in a rural area you will find they are all declining.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/re ... 009_pg.gif

And when I look at this chart I also notice that the High temps (spikes) above the Mean Line are gradually increasing in both number and height while the Low Temp (spikes) decrease in both quantity and severity WRT the Mean Level.

May I suggest a couple of references for you perusal?. I would be interested in your comments.

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/ ... ts%201.pdf

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 2d71db52d9

[gpobserver]

Chris Peterson wrote:

"I don't think too many people would argue that cloud formation is primarily a product of galactic cosmic rays; I think the current evidence leans towards atmospheric aerosols being more significant."

I did not assert that galactic cosmic rays are primarily responsible. They contribute to the total sources of nucleation. However, a contribution of a small percentage could potentially have a greater effect on climate than carbon dioxide.

"I'm not sure what you mean by "the interplanetary magnetic field". I assume you are referring to the terrestrial magnetic field."

No, I am referring to the interplanetary magnetic field. The solar wind, being a plasma, will carry along with it the solar magnetic field. During periods of strong solar activity, the heliosphere will swell to a much greater size providing more shielding of the inner solar system from high-energy galactic cosmic rays. A reduction in GCR flux then reduces that contribution to cloud nucleation leading to a reduction of the earth's albedo and more surface warming.

Best regards,
- Roy Tucker

[Chris Peterson]

Chris Peterson wrote:
"I'm not sure what you mean by "the interplanetary magnetic field". I assume you are referring to the terrestrial magnetic field."

No, I am referring to the interplanetary magnetic field. The solar wind, being a plasma, will carry along with it the solar magnetic field. During periods of strong solar activity, the heliosphere will swell to a much greater size providing more shielding of the inner solar system from high-energy galactic cosmic rays. A reduction in GCR flux then reduces that contribution to cloud nucleation leading to a reduction of the earth's albedo and more surface warming.

An interesting idea, and it sounds plausible. But that is unrelated to the paper you referenced, which deals only with the geomagnetic field and its effects on cosmic ray absorption. The geomagnetic field is modulated by the solar wind, but not by the solar magnetic field.

[hydroresearch]

Perhaps the national climatic data center for the winter of 2007-2008 will calm you down. As one can see over half of the US was at or below its average.

No, the data has absolutely no bearing on the climate at all, and tells us nothing about trends.

It is also worth noting that the climate models predict more extreme weather, which is arguably what this chart shows (hard to say with the image stripped from its context).

Please check out this link and get back to me.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 2d71db52d9

Thanksd

[granlund]

So let's get it straight.... CO2 causes warming, but the entire northern hemisphere is just emerging from one of the coldest, longest winters ever....
It seems that global warming alarmists are lying by at least an order of magnitude as to the significance of Co2 verses the variations in the sun's output about which we can do nothing.
Even the most ardent global warming folks are changing their tune, talking about global climate change rather than global warming.
So which is it? Warming, or cooling? CO2 warms the atmosphere or cools it?
I'm old enough to remember the 1970's when the chicken littles of the world were predicting another ice age by the year 2000.
If anyone had the time to look at Captain Cook's maps of Vancouver Island in British Columbia from the late 1700's, you would find that the maps were pretty good indeed, you could navigate by those maps today, and that makes sense as a guy that goes all over the world in a sailing ship must have had a decent cartographer along.
However when you look at his maps of the area north of Vancouver Island, it bears little resemblance to the coastline today. One could easily conclude his cartographer was drunk, or he never actually went there, maybe he made the whole thing up and spent his time drunk in a bar in Barcelona... but in fact if you read his mission notes you find that they encountered sea ice, 15 to 20 miles out into the ocean from every inlet north of Vancouver Island. They even sent a shore party onto the ice to try to find land, and they journeyed for three days to get to land.
I've cruised all the way up to the Alaskan panhandle and there isn't any sea ice there today, nor has there been for a hundred years.
So.... what human activity was going on back then in the 1700's that caused that ice to disappear?
C'mon! Change is normal. The ancient Greeks belt temples on dry land and here we are 2000 years later and some of them are under water and great places to scuba dive.
Clearly there is a lot of money to be made fixing a fictitious problem.
....of course there is a simple way to eliminate CO2... just kill every man woman and child on the earth.... and all the animals too. Oh... then all the plants would die too.
The ice age is over... get used to it!