In line with our several articles exploring the solar / climate connection I am posting this paper by Richard Mackey taking a look back at some of the lifetime accomplishments of Australian geo-scientist, Rhodes Fairbridge.
Continue reading Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate.
Category Archives: Atmospheric science
Exactly where Lockwood and Fröhlich are wrong
A recent paper by Mike Lockwood of the University of Southampton has claimed that over the last 20 years, solar influences on climate have declined, while Earth has warmed.
Lockwood, M., Frolich, C., Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature, Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880, Published online
This paper is the latest in a rich tradition of near 20 years of IPCC inspired attempts to trivialize the solar/climate link.
According to your requirement and emergency you’ll pick the slot. The final pathological changes of hypertensive damage to the cardiovascular system due to cardiac myocyte hypertrophy and collagen induced myocardial hypertrophy and diastolic dysfunction, vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation caused the atherosclerosis. Now getting this medication has become easy with its lowest prices. Chiropractic can play an important role in managing your weight. There has been more than one rebuttal around the internet but I like Joe D’Aleo’s, “Shining More Light on the Solar Factor A discussion of Problems with the Royal Society Paper by Lockwood and Frohlich” which quotes an analysis by Dr N. Scafetta which draws on work by Dr. Richard Willson of Columbia University, an expert in satellite solar data.
Joe’s paper and blog are at ICECAP.
I have constructed this graphic above which juxtaposes competing interpretations of satellite solar data. There are discontinuities in satellite data series. Lockwood uses the PMOD interpretation which purports to show a slight downward trend. The ACRIM version shows an increasing trend in TSI.
Solar Cycle 23 not ending yet
Download a PowerPoint presentation of David Archibald’s latest edit of his paper, “The Past and Future of Climate” presented at the Lavoisier Conference in Melbourne June 2007.
This is my 4th posting since late 2006 on this subject of contrasting forecasts for solar cycle 24, click below for links to earlier posts.
Continue reading Solar Cycle 23 not ending yet
Sensational statements by Dr Kevin Trenberth, IPCC supporter
Dr Trenberth says,
“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.”
There are an awful lot of policy makers and others driven by the the content of the Al Gore movie and the general blizzard of scary predictions of the future pumped out by the media, that are sure acting as though they believe the IPCC makes predictions; and good, believable predictions too.
For the full statement by Dr Trenberth and many comments, go to the Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog.
Review comments on papers by the “great and the good”
A catch-all post for comments on my various reviews on significant pro IPCC climate papers.
Dr Rolf Philipona has kindly replied to my comments on his 2005 paper. I intend to present more data for various parameters in the weeks ahead.
Just for now though I want to restate that the Greenhouse Effect has to act in the lower atmosphere and then some of that heat is re-radiated to the surface. See basic descriptions on this NOAA site.
Hence my comment that I feel it is odd to ignore lower troposphere trends, because that is where AGW has first to take place.
IPCC Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is driven by increases in trace gases carbon dioxide, methane etc plus contentious postulated positive feedbacks from water vapour which as many authorities state is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas.
To wrap up for now, just a few very general points. Readers who follow weather forecasts and associated satellite imagery do not need me to point out that the lower atmosphere is characterized by constant large scale movement, lateral and vertical and circulation of air masses on hemispheric scales. Dr Philipona has alluded to looking to understand European warming to some extent outside the influence of the NAO and other people may comment on that.
Then there are issues of truly colossal scale heat transport such as the ever present Gulfstream which prevents the European climate from being significantly more frigid.
I have trouble imagining that Dr Philipona’s “line to the sky” radiation measurements from his Alpine site, however beautifully expressed in mathematics, can explain European warming in the face of these other confounding weather and climate factors.
BoM rain predictions “totally useless”
We are talking here about the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) “National Seasonal Rainfall Outlook”. The BoM produces these predictive maps every month looking ahead for the next three months. I have for some years been critical that these Outlook maps are too often grossly wrong when compared to the rain anomaly maps National Seasonal Rainfall Outlook produced by the BoM, 100 days or more later of course.
See my pages where Outlook maps are juxtaposed with real world rain anomalies. The quote of “totally useless” in my post headline comes from an article on ABC Online news, ABC being our Govt. owned Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Continue reading BoM rain predictions “totally useless”
The Past and Future of Climate by David Archibald
Link to 400 kb pdf file of David’s provocative and original updated (May 2007) paper which says we are coming into a weaker solar cycle and that a cooler climate is likely in decades ahead. David also explains that the Greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide is miniscule, as does the 1998 paper by Sherwood Idso.
See, How MINISCULE is the Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect ? an html version of a 1998 paper by Sherwood B Idso in Vol 10: 69-82 of Climate Research, “CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate”.
See also Jack Barrett’s paper: Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere
The Great Global Warming Swindle
View the Ch4 (UK) TV documentary online thanks now to YouTube.
Watch, listen, do some thinking, make up your own mind.
The original link to Google video seems now dead, 15 Mar
How hot was the Arctic in the 1930’s ?
Jonathon Lowe quotes research by Polyakov et. al at his excellent Blog, “Gust Of Hot Air”. Readers could spend some time reading Jonathon’s other fascinating articles investigating Australian temperature data.
The collapse of arguments for high climate sensitivity
Guest essay by Dr Doug Hoyt
In the past few years, three articles have come out that, taken together, lead one to conclude that climate sensitivity is very low, being less than 1 C for a CO2 doubling compared to the 3 C figure favored by the IPCC.
The first article is by Levitus et al (2005). They conclude that the oceans warmed by 0.06 C between 1948 and 1998. It represented an increase in heat content of 2 x 10^23 joules.
In 2006, Lyman et al. showed that the oceans cooled between 2003 and 2005 with a net loss of energy of 0.32 x 10^23 joules. Climate models do not predict or allow for such cooling of the oceans.
In 2007, Gouretski and Koltermann showed that the early heat content measurements were incorrect because they did not take into account changes in instrumentation. They concluded that between 1955 and 1996 that the oceans only gained 1.28 x 10^23 joules with an uncertainty of 0.8 x 10^23 joules. Essentially the earlier Levitus paper was wrong.
Combining the Lyman and Gouretski papers, the net ocean heat content between 1955 and 2005 seems to be only 0.98 x 10^23 joules with an error of (0.8 + 0.11) x 10^23 joules or 0.91 x 10^23 joules, adding the error terms of the two papers. The net heat content change is therefore essentially statistically indistinguishable from zero. The net warming of the ocean from 1948 to the present seems to be only 0.03 +/- 0.03 C.
The corresponding net radiative imbalance is about 0.1 W/m^2, well below the model predictions which equal 0.85 W/m^2 for 1993 to 2003 (Hansen et al., 2005). Instead of a climate sensitivity of 3 C for a CO2 doubling, the climate sensitivity is only about 0.4 C. There is little or no energy “in the pipeline” and thus a good reason to believe that all the observed warming of the atmosphere has already occurred.
Continue reading The collapse of arguments for high climate sensitivity