I understand that the global warming models produced by the IPCC don’t take into account the possible influence of cosmic rays on climate?
New research out of the Danish National Space Centre provides evidence to support the theory that cosmic rays can influence the Earth’s climate through their effect on cloud formation.
It has apparently been hypothesized for a while, but now a causal mechanism has been identified. Apparently ions and free electrons from cosmic rays from exploding stars act as catalysts accelerating the formation of ultra-small clusters of sulpuric acid and water molecules which are the building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei on which water vapour condenses to make clouds.
According to the Danish researchers, during the 20th Century, the Sun’s magnetic field which shields the earth from cosmic rays more than doubled, thereby reducing the average influx of cosmic rays and perhaps impacting on cloud cover.
Did the sun’s magnetic field really double and how does it shield the earth from cosmic rays?
Anyway, low-altitude clouds have an overall cooling effect on the Earth and the Danes hypothesis that with less cloud the earth has been warming?
Is there evidence that there has been less cloud cover?
So with the new findings on the Sun, the ozone hole, particulate pollution and now cosmic rays, will the IPCC models need to be overhauled?
Also what about the impact of the volcano erupting in New Guinea?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Hi Jen – saw this recently and have been waiting until mention of it appeared here!
It probably re-inforces the argument that current AGW theory boils down to ” a best guess given the information we have.”
Which means that those who confidently deny ANY link between AGHG’s and GW are just as likely to be wrong as those who demand an end to any questionning on the basis that ” the argument is over “.
A best guess! A best guess! I guess some people don’t read anything but what they want. There might a little more to it than a “guess’ – see reams this blog. The IPCC models already have a few more things than GHGs and revisions happen to climate models inside and outside the IPCC process.
Realclimate and Stoat have already mentioned it and RC promises a post. RC have previously reviewed solar and celestial drivers over the last year or so – so hardly a conspiracy of silence.
New CERN work is interesting but remains to be seen whether it stacks up (at all!). Early days.
So all this stuff about “being ignored” is such dross really.
My apologies Luke – can you steer me to reports of the definite proof of AGHG’s as the source of the current warming?
It’s definitely not in the last IPCC report.
Jim – as you know there’s no “definite” proof of anything but there is good evidence. I can repost again to everyone’s tedium but if you look through Jen’s treasure trove of references in the climate archive here this blog you will find 3 solid references with empirical evidence from Philipona and another from Harries. I dare say if you go to Google Scholar and have a look you’ll find tons !! Realclimate have a number of posts on comparing models and reality from various viewpoints. The history of the effect is here at http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Here’s RC’s view of celestial drivers.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=153
And here’s a brand new view of HOW NOT TO attribute climate change.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/how-not-to-attribute-climate-change/#more-351
Also should comment that the review and running of the IPCC models takes some time. You can’t just have a brainwave and put your idea in overnight. Like the Queen Mary you can’t turn it on a dime. There’s a review cycle and publishing cycle. Unfortunately new science is likely to occur in intermediate stages. It gets reviewed in the next round – if it stacks up (unless of course they’re all conspirators and ideologues and the whole process is corrupt).
Jim – email me through Jen if you want more.
I should point out Jen’s blog Google search tool at http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/search.php?
Although you have to keep locking it on her site or it will jump to the entire internet after each search.
There’s so many references in there now and great arguments that’s an actual archive for pro and anti references.
No that’s fine – and entirely consistent with my post. This new study ( yes it may amount to nothing/it’s early days/hasn’t been replicated etc etc ) presents a different but prima facie plausible and rational explanation for global warming.
I imagine the researchers backgrounds are currently being scrutinised for ANY links with oil companies, private enterprise , conservative political parties and so forth and I’m sure that no matter how tenuous any connection may be, if something is found the blackguarding will commence.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if AGW true believers decided to acknowledge the limits of our understanding of climate drivers and ask ( as Jen has ) what this means for current theory?
It’s not just models that need to be overhauled, but the IPCC framework on climate forcings. The Cosmic Ray Flux/Solar effect on climate accounts for about 0.47 of the 0.6C warming.
http://tinyurl.com/hmzhl
http://spacecenter.dk/xpdf/sky-experiment_2.pdf
http://spacecenter.dk/xpdf/influence-of-cosmic-rays-on-the-earth.pdf
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/sensitivity.pdf
I wish people wouldn’t qoute the likes of Stoat and RC as objective sources – they are NOT!
CRF/climate theory is hardly in it’s early days -it was first suggested by Edward Ney in 1959.
In 1801, William Hershel noted the effect of solar activity on wheat prices in England:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0312/0312244.pdf
The bulk of climate change is now explained accross all time scales by the effect of cosmic rays on low-level cloud cover, modulated by the solar wind, via the 11-year solar cycle.
If this prediction comes true:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
the result will be global cooling due to a lack of solar wind that shields the Earth from cosmic rays.
Weeeellll .. .. many issues would not gain traction with mainstream climate science community i.e. they would disagree. (Recent Piekle issue is getting closer). IMHO the flavour is often more political than scientific and more emphasis on why “other” explanations may be possible, but not necessarily undertaking a thorough examination of the consensus opinion. (Death by sparrow pecking). But that’s OK – it’s her blog.
The climate scientists who operate the http://www.realclimate.org site have indicated they will address the Svensmark paper, which is Marohasy’s first link. Several of the RealClimate scientists are involved in the IPCC process.
Rebuttels of RC political attacks on CRF are here:
http://www.sciencebits.com/ClimateDebate
Of course finding other drivers doesn’t necessarily invalidate existing drivers. e.g. if we suddenly had no solar input or no greenhouse effect at all things might be a tad cold. So as much as one has to argue new ideas up – that doesn’t automatically replace existing theory – that needs to be argued down ! But nevertheless the new ideas are getting air-play and ventilation on pro CO2 warming sites. One would reasonably accept significant new ideas to meet some challenge – very normal in science – but everyone doesn’t get to play Galileo – lots of good ideas also bite the dust. And that’s OK. Might one even ponder some cosmic/greenhouse interaction ?
There’s much, much more to be discoverd about climate change – it’s just beginning to get interesting! The claim by some that ‘the Science is settled’ is patently false. Increased atmospheric CO2 hasn’t been removed from the equation, but the max temperature increase possible for the iconic ‘doubling of CO2’ is about 1C – towards the bottom end of the IPCC range.
Says who?
Says Physics and Planet Earth. The only way to get higher than 1C is to put unlikely/unproven postitive feedbacks via increased atmospheric water vapour into climate models, and ignore any possible negative feedbacks.
So interesting that 3C is the consensus so far. Feedbacks go 2 ways! CO2 enforces a water vapour greenhouse feedback amplification on the surface budget. And then there’s total uncertainty due to the terrestrial biosphere on atmospheric CO2 concentration up to an additional 380ppm.
Paul Biggs says: “Says Physics and Planet Earth.”
Well should have said initially that you having direct conversations with Gaia. What’s your secret?
Gaia is more about the occult than science.
Science is about who is wrong, and who is right: it’s not about counting scientific sheep.
Read: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, by Karl R. Popper.
IPCC states in the Summary for Policymakers “Based on global model simulations for a wide range of scenarios, global average water vapour concentration and precipitation are projected to increase during the 21st century. By the second half of the 21st century, it is likely that precipitation will have increased over northern mid- to high latitudes and Antarctica in winter.”
Climate models predict an average increase of approximately 4% in global precipitation over the next 75 years with a range from near 1% to near 7%.
Smith, T.M., Yin, X., and Gruber, A. 2006. Variations in annual global precipitation (1979-2004), based on the Global Precipitation Project 2.5º analysis. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, 2005GL025393.
“The trend mode is associated with simultaneous tropical SST variations over the period, with increased tropical precipitation over the Pacific and Indian Oceans associated with local warming of the SSTs. Increased precipitation in some regions is balanced by decreased precipitation in other regions, and the global average change is near zero. Although the trend mode is strong for this period, the record length is barely long enough to begin evaluation of interdecadal variations.”
For balance there is this:
Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation
L. V. Alexander et al
“Results showed widespread significant changes in temperature extremes associated with warming, especially for those indices derived from daily minimum temperature. Over 70% of the global land area sampled showed a significant decrease in the annual occurrence of cold nights and a significant increase in the annual occurrence of warm nights. Some regions experienced a more than doubling of these indices. This implies a positive shift in the distribution of daily minimum temperature throughout the globe. Daily maximum temperature indices showed similar changes but with smaller magnitudes. Precipitation changes showed a widespread and significant increase, but the changes are much less spatially coherent compared with temperature change.”
Consensus?
The consensus on climate sensitivity seems to be higher than 3C:
From the blog of climate modeller James Annan – an example of how ‘consensus’ is contrived and sustained:
Another week, another rejection (without review) from Nature. This was an attempted comment on Hegerl et al , which can be found here . The points we were trying to make will not come as a surprise to anyone who has read my previous comments such as the comment on Frame et al which we are still waiting to hear anything about, after a full 2 months at GRL. Basically, there are two main reasons why Hegerl et al’s “pdf” is not actually a valid probabilistic estimate of climate sensitivity at all. Firstly, they ignore much of the data that bears on the matter (and which indicates a highest likelihood of a value of about 3C), and secondly by starting off with a prior that assigns very high probability to high sensitivity and ignoring most of the evidence to the contrary, they ensure that the result also has a high probability of high sensitivity – albeit far lower than their prior did. Of course these…limitations…are prevalent in much of the literature.
Nature’s excuse this time? Editor Nicki Stevens wrote:
we have regretfully decided that publication of this comment as a Brief
Communication Arising is not justified, as the concerns you have raised
apply more generally to a widespread methodological approach, and not solely
to the Hegerl et al. paper
Yes, you read that right. Because everyone else has been doing much the same thing, they aren’t interested in ensuring that the stuff they publish is valid. Really, there seems little answer to this beyond picking our jaws off the floor and keeping it in mind when we read future Nature papers. (FWIW, it was also Nicki Stevens who told us that our GRL manuscript didn’t provide enough of an “advance in significantly constraining climate sensitivity relative to prior estimates”.)
Meanwhile, we have people like Gavin Schmidt quite prepared to openly dismiss the bulk of peer-reviewed literature in this area with such comments as “Basically no one really believes that those really high sensitivities are possible,” and “even Hegerl’s top limit is too high” . Not that I’m criticising him for that – quite the reverse, but the fact that there is such a credibility gap between what has appeared in the literature, and what at least some responsible and reputable scientists think, should surely be seen as rather worrying by all who are interested in ensuring that the scientific process works as intended. It is quite clear that (unless our arguments are wholly invalid, and so far no-one has suggested why they should be) none of the published “pdfs” actually provide any credible support for the belief that S is greater than 6C even at as little as the 5% level (for example), but according to Nature, as long as everyone keeps on getting this wrong together, they aren’t interested in correcting the mistaken (and alarmist) impression that they have helped to foster. We feel like the boy who tells the emperor that he has no clothes, except that we are not even being allowed to say it, at least not anywhere that it will be seen.
Paul Biggs says:
“Science is about who is wrong, and who is right: it’s not about counting scientific sheep.
Read: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, by Karl R. Popper.”
You may have read Karl Popper but you obviously failed to understand him. The very kernel of Popper’s falsificationism is the idea that science can never prove a theory “right”.
You’re comparing simulations late in the 21st century with recent history?
And issue with second comparison is ?
Jennifer: This thread has degenerated again into just analysing several selections from the rich variety of current or past scientific theories about weather and climate change.
Paul and Luke: Survival is about winners and losers. Pick your place in this race based on your own gut feelings like the rest of us and stop grabbing straws.
Folks: this endless discussion of reports based on the very complex models of forcings and feedback is not going to clearly outline Paul or Luke’s own opinion of who the winners and losers are in a global sense. Its too easy to hide in the rhetoric around these scientific arguments.
I’m remaining strictly visual in all of this. We should be looking for the dead possums here too.
BTW; in my part of the world there is no cloud cover and today is likely to be a record. HOT.
Popper argued that falsification can distinguish between science and pseudo science.
“Scientists ought not to be trying to find evidence that confirms their theories, rather they should be trying to find evidence that conflicts with their theories.
A theory is falsifiable if you can imagine an observation that you could make that would cause you to reject the theory.”
“The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.”
Vague theories are unfalsifiable eg “there is a strong risk that Thursday may have some isolated showers” or “generally it is thought that..” and therefore unscientific. Similarly, if theories keep changing as new evidence arises the theory becomes impossible to refute and therefore unfalsifiable.
A scientifc theory is falsifiable if you can imagine a test that would disprove that theory eg “all sheep are white” and “if all sheep are white all sheep at Yass are white.” I went to Yass and saw a black sheep therfore the theory was tested and found to be false. If I had gone to Yass and found all sheep to be white the theory would have been true. Irrespective of the outcome, the theory was scientific as it could be properly tested.
For a theory to be true I predict observation X.
I did not/could not observe X.
Therefore the theory is not true.
This from Reuters indicates the degree to which pseudo science has gripped the political mind in Europe;
EU global warming target difficult -Beckett
Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:34 PM BST
NEW YORK (Reuters) – A European Union threshold to avoid dangerous climate change is proving a more difficult goal to achieve than anticipated, according to Foreign secretary Margaret Beckett.
The EU has set a goal that global average temperatures should not exceed 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) above preindustrial levels if dangerous interference with the climate is to be avoided.
“The scientific discussion now suggests that is more difficult to achieve than thought,” Beckett told reporters on Thursday at a meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
“That doesn’t mean the EU has given up the goal, it simply means that there is a growing recognition that actually it is a tougher task than had been anticipated.”
Late last month the head of the International Energy Agency Claude Mandil said it may be too late to keep within the threshold. The IEA set out six ways for dealing with global warming in a recent report on energy technology options, issued as part of its role as energy adviser to leading industrialised countries.
European university scientists have told Reuters that even the most ambitious of those may not be enough to prevent a 2 degree rise in global temperatures.
The EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme launched last year is the world’s first market to buy and sell the right to emit greenhouse gas carbon dioxide amid mandatory limits on power plants and industries.
New research from the Danish National Space centre has povided evidence for the theory (hypothesis) that cosmic rays have a significant effect on cloud formation at in the lower atmosphere. (The implication being that cosmic rays have a greater ifluence on climate than consensus climate science has acknowledged.)
Details of their methodology have been published so that it can be replicated. Now we wait to see if replication of the experiment falsifies the initial results. That is science.
Of course what happens in a laboratory chamber is a long way from the atmosphere too. (This blog has commented that some spectral effect in a laboratory vessel of CO2 is not the atmosphere – so you need to afford the same level of scepticism in this case.) Aerosols have changed through the 20 century – might that be another hypothesis.
‘setting loose rabbits to chase down holes, Luke?
Let’s just stick to the subject at hand. I expect the experiment will be replicated. Wait and see. In my understanding, a plausible explanation for observed data becomes an hypothesis. Once an experiment can be constructed that obtains evidence supporting the hypothesis, it becomes a theory. I expect that research to falsifying this evidence will be, er, robust.
But until it can be falsified, it is a serious contribution to a better understanding of climate science.
There are those who invoke a stable and self-contained climate on an autonomous Earth (of neccessity, travelling in an empty Universe) – like Royal Society and IPCC. Humans have now disturbed our benign climate by burning fossil fuels; and unless we change our ways, only more and more warming is their projection – with NO cold reversals. Their “straw man” is total solar irradiance (which varies only by fractions of a percent); it is no surprise they can demonstrate that TSI can’t explain observed warming since the Industrial Revolution. Contrarians like me assert that our ever-changing climate is externally driven at a wide range of time scales. The principal drivers are inertial and electromagnetic and ultimately (mostly) planet-related in a variety of ways. At human-relevant time-scales, an important inertial influence is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation – more upwelling of cold water in the equatorial eastern Pacific from the mid 40s, with an abrupt reversal at 1976/7 (next reversal due in 2007). An important electromagnetic influence is the double-sunspot (Hale) cycle of about 22 years. Solar magnetic polarity reverses at the peak of each 11-yr cycle. Planetary influences are forecast to bring the next Little Ice Age period of “quiet Sun” by about 2020, with its nadir about 2030. Clearly, nothing will be resolved until IPCC’s assertion of ever more warming is falsified by a period of clearly discernible cooling. We will just have to wait. Remember, it took mainstream science 50 years of more-and-more baroque alternative explanations for the growing observational evidence for drifting continents, before its final capitulation to Wegener.
Of course we could add that what happens in a computer model http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/270/5235/376a can be very different to what happens in real life. http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/record-amount-of-ozone-lost-over-antarctica/2006/10/03/1159641325829.html.
And the results of computer model driven policy can be ugly.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-2398111,00.html
Maybe the models sometimes leave out something important? How would this new effect, if it is shown to influence climate, affect the outcomes if it was incorporated into GCMs?
Is this correct:
1. I understand that a key issue for Bill Kininmonth is that the IPCC models don’t model/take into account cloudiness?
2. I understand that some IPCC modellers have argued that there is no mechanism for modelling cloudiness/cloud formation?
3. Does this new cosmic ray finding provide a mechanism for modelling cloudiness that could be incorporated into the IPCC models?
Helen – no rabbits – just applying the same logic evenly. What happens is a laboratory chamber is one thing. And you do alternative hypotheses.
And things don’t become theories that quickly in reality – one needs a body of evidence. I’m sugegsting that it’s simply at the interesting hypothesis phase with some laboratory evidence.(Yes I’m sure you can Google definitions that disagree but I’m talking practically).
All I’m saying overall is be “evenly” sceptical. As opposed to “oh that must be it then !”. The mainstream are “very” sceptical at this stage but still listening and discussing the topic.
Jen – does conflict with the cloud seeding methodology and research ? Did Mather get it right ?
Such an interesting debate. The more facts you put out, the shriller the cries become of “skepticism” in the face of “the consensus.”
At least people have decided Exxon is evil. We should get oil from the “all-natural”, “locally owned” wells instead.
Pretty easy questions to answer Jen:
If solar activity is the driver of global warming then the increase in global temperatures since 1980 should be accompanied by an increase in solar activity (sunspots, magnetic field etc) but have we?
Well, no. The Sun’s activity has been level for the last thirty years while global temperatures have increased. On the question of the influence of the Sun on the Earth’s climate:
“Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide,” says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.
So, while the the Sun’s magnetic field which shields the earth from cosmic rays may of increased in the last 150 years, for the last 30 it has been stable and therefore can’t explain global warming.
Also the IPCC does take into account changes in the Sun in their models, and has a section on cosmic rays and clouds, see:
Climate Change 2001.
Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
Chapter 6 Radiative Forcing of Climate Change
6.11.1 Total Solar Irradiance
6.11.1.1 The observational record
6.11.1.2 Reconstructions of past variations of total solar irradiance
6.11.2 Mechanisms for Amplification of Solar Forcing
6.11.2.1 Solar ultraviolet variation
6.11.2.2 Cosmic rays and clouds
And yes the final section is contains the work of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen who are responsible for the paper Jen discussed above.
Thanks Simon C. So how does the IPCC model cloud formation?
PS Joel Norris from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has done alot of research into clouds their effect on climate. His concludes that the changes in cloud cover since the early 1950’s has had a net cooling effect.
Jen see:
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/
he has some stuff there on cloud modelling and temperature etc.
Also read the IPCC reports.
I see we have a new player in the opinion stakes since I last looked. That’s real good Jennifer. Perhaps it’s time I asked the blog a question or two on some basic physics starting with how the Suns magnetic field has doubled lately and how we got onto that from this end.
“Interestingly, during the 20th Century, the Sun’s magnetic field which shields Earth from cosmic rays more than doubled, thereby reducing the average influx of cosmic rays”
However this is much more interesting but I reckon someone’s using the long bow regarding all that’s past.
“The existence of such a cosmic connection to Earth’s climate might thus help to explain past and present variations in Earth’s climate”
Cosmic rays versus infra red down under?. My bet is they get stuck in the dust too and that’s fine enough round my place at the moment. IMHO they need an amplifier in their new model for this high end radiation. Feedback is another mater.
SimonC – Norris post quite good. Thanks.
Luke: At first glance this cosmic radiation / low level cloud theory seem inconsistent with the previous thread on the prediction by Aaron Gingis of a massive drop in rainfall around NE Tasmania with more “particulate pollution” from the proposed new pulp mill. Both are at odds with the way rain clouds form above vortexes over tropical waters.
SimonC,
Jen asked you how the IPCC modelled cloud formation.
You have not answered her question and instead offered a conclusion – a net cooling effect.
So one might be allowed the heretical thought that the IPCC don’t know.
Louis try arguing like this. Having considered the IPCC’s treatment of clouds at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/260.htm specifically :
7.2.2 Cloud Processes and Feedbacks
7.2.2.1 General design of cloud schemes within climate models
7.2.2.2 Convective processes
7.2.2.3 Boundary-layer mixing and cloudiness
7.2.2.4 Cloud-radiative feedback processes
7.2.2.5 Representation of cloud processes in models
I would like to raise the following issues .. .. .. .. .. ?
Am I right in saying that what the IPCC may model as per their documentation in WG1, is not likely to be reflected in what the computational modellists do with their computer based projections. Who ensures that there is at least some consistency, between what is written and concluded, and what is actually done.
This may be out of context, but from SimonC’s Norris link above, “Climate Models: Uncertainties due to Clouds — introductory”, it appears that different models can give either a cooling or warming effect to clouds (Slide 7). Also (slide 10), models handle clouds poorly because grid boxes in models are 250km wide by 1km high, and cloud processes happen on a much smaller scale.
Re Cloud Modelling by computer program:
Luke, or Phil Done (Does it matter?) merely parroting the literature to deflect your own comments and understanding of cloud formation may seem a satisfactory answer at first reading, but in detail one quickly realises you haven’t a clue.
In this you are among friends because most scientists have no clue how clouds form.
Billions of tonnes of water, suspended in the air, often to fall down as a liquid, occasionally as hail, and to date no climate model is capable of predicting cloud formation.
To a scientist that means that the theory is wrong.
To a devout believer it means that we haven’t obtained the right data but given time and heaps of public funding will find a solution since we KNOW the theory is right, despite overwhelming contradictory evidence.
I’m not parroting Louis – you haven’t even read what you’re criticising ! That’s the point. Boot in – before even having the decency to read it. You couldn’t even string a sentence together critiquing their report because you don’t know what’s in it.
I love this syllygism:
1. We don’t understand global climate.
2. It seems to be getting warmer.
3. Therefore, we must undertake massively expensive efforts to achieve a global temperature that nobody has agreed on.
Those who understand syllogisms will understand why this is a sillygism.
On the IPCC and the impact of particulates in the atmosphere.
5. Aerosols, their Direct and Indirect Effects
Content
Executive Summary
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 Advances since the Second Assessment Report
5.1.2 Aerosol Properties Relevant to Radiative Forcing
5.2 Sources and Production Mechanisms of Atmospheric Aerosols
5.2.1 Introduction
5.2.2 Primary and Secondary Sources of Aerosols
5.2.2.1 Soil dust
5.2.2.2 Sea salt
5.2.2.3 Industrial dust, primary anthropogenic aerosols
5.2.2.4 Carbonaceous aerosols (organic and black carbon)
5.2.2.5 Primary biogenic aerosols
5.2.2.6 Sulphates
5.2.2.7 Nitrates
5.2.2.8 Volcanoes
5.2.3 Summary of Main Uncertainties Associated with Aerosol Sources and Properties
5.2.4 Global Observations and Field Campaigns
5.2.5 Trends in Aerosols
5.3 Indirect Forcing Associated with Aerosols
5.3.1 Introduction
5.3.2 Observational Support for Indirect Forcing
5.3.3 Factors Controlling Cloud Condensation Nuclei
5.3.4 Determination of Cloud Droplet Number Concentration
5.3.5 Aerosol Impact on Liquid-Water Content and Cloud Amount
5.3.6 Ice Formation and Indirect Forcing
5.4 Global Models and Calculation of Direct and Indirect Climate Forcing
5.4.1 Summary of Current Model Capabilities
5.4.1.1 Comparison of large-scale sulphate models (COSAM)
5.4.1.2 The IPCC model comparison workshop: sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, dust, and sea salt
5.4.1.3 Comparison of modelled and observed aerosol concentrations
5.4.1.4 Comparison of modelled and satellite- derived aerosol optical depth
5.4.2 Overall Uncertainty in Direct Forcing Estimates
5.4.3 Modelling the Indirect Effect of Aerosols on Global Climate Forcing
5.4.4 Model Validation of Indirect Effects
5.4.5 Assessment of the Uncertainty in Indirect Forcing of the First Kind
5.5 Aerosol Effects in Future Scenarios
5.5.1 Introduction
5.5.2 Climate Change and Natural Aerosol Emissions
5.5.2.1 Projection of DMS emissions in 2100
5.5.2.2 Projection of VOC emissions in 2100
5.5.2.3 Projection of dust emissions in 2100
5.5.2.4 Projection of sea salt emissions in 2100
5.5.3 Simulation of Future Aerosol Concentrations
5.5.4 Linkage to Other Issues and Summary
5.6 Investigations Needed to Improve Confidence in Estimates of Aerosol Forcing and the Role of Aerosols in Climate Processes
References
Co-ordinating Lead Author
J.E. Penner
So IPCC takes in account aerosols and section 5.4 is about the modelling of the climate effects of aerosols 5.2.2.8 is about volcanoes.
Climate models have taken volcanos and aerosols into account since at least 1988. See James Hansen’s work with Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (volume 93, pages 9341-9364). His modelling (B) explicitly considers volcanic activity in future predictions.
Jen are you now convinced that the IPCC takes the Sun, cosmic rays, particulate matter and volcanoes into account?
PS I not convinced by the original paper you linked to. From what I’ve read it looks like they’ve vacced down a chamber then introduced various gases into the chamber in a very controlled manner. The UV lamp is switched on and condensation occurs. All well and good but their chamber lacks ‘real’ world variables such as particulate matter and air movement. The authors probably realise this which is why they use the word ‘suggests’ when refering to the link between cloud formation and cosmic rays.
Here’s another silly one;
1. Exxon is evil
2. Stanford receives $US100M from Exxon for global climate study
3. Stanford is evil and a shill for Exxon.
Capisce Filippo?
Simon C,
I was really just after a paragraph or two explaining how the IPCC models handle clouds.
I feel, based on past experience, that I could, for example, do a lot of the reading only to discover that the models don’t really include clouds.
Could you please just tell me how the IPCC models cloud formation?
Hey Rog – Let’s assume Exxon are doing a great job – so what are the research highlights arising from Exxon’s investment. Can you guide us to the various journal papers and published reports.
OK. In response to my question about how current IPCC models deal with clouds, I reckon SimonC is suggesting it is a dumb question, and posting lots of chapter headings, because he can’t answer it.
Everyone else is ignoring it.
So I will have a go at answering my own question in the hope someone who really understands the physics and the models will explain the bits I get wrong:
I understand based on past reading, that current official climate models recognise the importance of water vapour and clouds as absorbers of radiation. The models deal with water vapour a feedback rather than a forcing agent.
This means that when surface temperatures change (i.e. because of forcing from increasing levels of carbon dioxide) there will be a change in the water content of the atmosphere. But the water content of the atmosphere will not change the temperature.
I think this means that the models assume that as it gets warmer there will be more cloud cover in the tropics but less in places like southern Australia.
The significance of the new Danish research, if it stands up to scrutiny, is that it would suggest cloud cover is a forcing as well as a feedback. In other words, stars exploding in outer space can change cloud cover which will change temperature.
So again I ask, wouldn’t this suggest a need for a model overhaul?
Yeh sure Luke,
http://gcep.stanford.edu/research/activities.html
Jen says:
“Everyone else is ignoring it.”
Yep, some of us have enough humility and good sense not to pretend to be climate scientists. Shocking as it may seem, I must also concede that I am not an expert in astronomy, physics, nanotechnology or international diplomacy either.
You are right Jen. It does call for a model over haul.
It also calls for some greater understanding by us of just how these computational models are put together, and what is the linkage between the conclusions in the WG and TAR’s etc and what gets represented in the models.
I want to know what are assumptions built in to the models that project X c in year Y.
After all the CSIRO is still generating consulting income by peddling their wares to various State Govts,in order to achieve revenue targets set by management. State Govts dont mind paying just to stick it up the Howard Govt.
So when they say the wheat belts of SA are doomed to be turned into deserts I want of know the basis of thsi projections.Particularly so when the GW theory has it that rain fall will increase.
The latest Danish data just makes it even more relevant.
Steve M,
If you don’t want to try and get your mind around the basics, then I suggest you stop ‘throwing stones’ at so-called skeptics like me who really want to understand.
It appears you have taken sides on this issue based simply on perceived authority — without any interest in the evidence.
Rog – didn’t find many climate studies in there. But good to see they’re looking after their future energy business.
Jen, I’ve given you the research that should lead you to your answers. I’m not an expert and don’t have the time to do your research for you. If you would like to get a quick answer you could try emailing Norris or one of the authors of the papers referenced in the IPCC. As for including cosmic rays in the models – from what I’ve read the activity of the Sun has been stable for the last 30 years while the Earth’s temperature has gone up and I haven’t found any references to decreased lower cloud cover so the impact of cosmic rays on cloud cover, if it exists, is small and any temperature changes due to it is swamped by the influence of AGW and other forcings such as aerosols. Also if cloud cover was a driver of global temperatures then we should of seen a decrease in lower-cloud cover before the rise in global temperature.
So as for IPCC models – Suns activity is included, Volcanoes are included and particulates too. Cosmic rays – IPCC discusses them and their effects but as for inclusion in their models probably not due to the fact that in real life they don’t seem to have a measurable effect. I could be wrong, and perhaps they do include Cosmic rays in their models (say as part of the Sun activity). Best way to find out is to read the papers that the models are based on and ask the people involved.
Simon C
You have suggested the new Danish research findings are not particularly relevant because the IPCC report already makes mention of cosmic rays.
I have suggested the new Danish finding might be very relevant because it suggests cloud cover/formation should be modelled as a forcing as well as feedback agent in the IPCC models.
Just because there is a chapter on cosmic rays in the IPCC report doesn’t mean that their impact on cloud formation has been accurately incorporated into the model/ incorporated into the model at all.
Jen says:
“It appears you have taken sides on this issue based simply on perceived authority — without any interest in the evidence. ”
Not true. I have spent hundreds of hours researching the AGW issue. It took me five or so years to arrive to the conclusion that AGW is, on the balance of probabilities, a significant issue.
As you are well aware, we live in the Information Age. If the sum total of human knowledge can be thought of as an ocean even the best and brighest of us is only capable a thimble full of that knowledge. Every single one of us- including you- must therefore yield to “perceived authority” on all but a handful of issues.
I note for example that you seem to consider Bob Carter something of an authority on AGW. Are you aware that Mr Carter seems to suffer from an embarrassing case of foot-in-mouth disease? – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/
Jennifer: Allow me to jump in and say thanks to Simon C for his patience with the blog after reminding you it was me who threw in a red herring in this thread about particular pollution and clouds. Thanks Simon; you and the IPCC were well ahead on this one.
Jennifer: Half a clue that your choice of work at the head of this thread would wind up being discussed like this came from an old experiment we did back in the 60’s building circuits for cloud chambers. It didn’t take much to set them off on the bench. I can’t recall if it was electronics or physics we were doing that time but I’m nearly certain it was at RMIT. Likewise if the Danes used an evacuated tube as Simon suspects then who knows what they are modelling, it’s certainly not our atmosphere.
“The experiment called SKY (Danish for ‘cloud’) took place in a large reaction chamber which contained a mixture of gases at realistic concentrations to imitate the chemistry of the lower atmosphere. Ultraviolet lamps mimicked the action of the Sun’s rays. During experimental runs, instruments traced the chemical action of the penetrating cosmic rays in the reaction chamber.
The data revealed that electrons released by cosmic rays act as catalysts, which significantly accelerate the formation of stable, ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules which are building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei. A vast numbers of such microscopic droplets appeared, floating in the air in the reaction chamber”.
Regardless of pressure there is no mention of negative feedback.
Alternatively even intense UV focused on a bottle of assorted gas at atmospheric pressure is not too different to what we get downunder today from? You guessed it natural UV coming right through that big hole.
Now that doesn’t make sense either so like Simon, I stick with the IPCC for a while.
You need your eyes checked Luke, its what you have been banging on about all this time; investment in renewables, sequestration and mitigating GHG.
I think you are a closet sceptic.
On cue – oooo – temper – all good stuff too Uncle Rog, but it’s all a bit smart – didn’t see any climate science which they’ve been known to have a disdain for. Did see lots of stuff to shore up there future business and a coporate posture to keep existing business as usual going for a long as possible. But nevertheless good useful stuff on the face of it. Strange for a company so sceptical that they would be investing so heavily in the alternatives? don’t you think.
And of course I’m a closet sceptic – just not on the trivia. And Rog – keep going – I think you’re starting to surf this stuff quite well.
And – what I have mainly been “banging on about” is blatant misrepresentation of the science by forces of darkness. (yep it’s a moral issue).
The problem is that the blog debate is actually improving – one is actually having to work at the debate now vis a vis snatching the rhetorical candy from a baby (or Louis). 🙂
Re IPCC and cosmic rays: I thought that a point made earlier by Luke in response to a question by me on this topic on an earlier thread was that the Cosmic ray mechanism was considered by IPCC and then OMITTED OR DISMISSED from their model because there was thought to no plausible mechanism for an effect (but now arguably plausible due to the SKY Danish artificial cloud experiments).
In other words Simon Cs remarks about this are a bit misleading .
On the other hand the quantitative (forcing) role for cosmic rays is still speculative and needs further testing.
This is just about the dumbest thing I’ve ever read!
Jennifer and supporters above – would it be safe to assume you mean to say that volcanoes and cosmic rays have only been around for the very last one hundred years out of the six hundred thousand years which we do have ice core data for?
It’s time to realize that if you’re a layperson out in search of whatever happen to support your stance then you probably just don’t know quite as well as the established community of scientists and climatologists who have dedicated their life into studying these things.
To put it simple…if these curves look similar to you then cosmic rays are less likely than CO2 to be to blame:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png
More of interest:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png
detribe – the IPCC contains a collection of models and I don’t know if they all exclude cosmic rays but from the IPCC chapters I referenced and the state of the research I would assume that they won’t account for cosmic rays. (not directly – but if cosmic rays are related to sun activity then they may indirectly).
I’ve now seen a picture of the chamber it’s pretty much what I thought – it looks like a 30 x 30 x 60 cm box with a big lamp shining on it.
I agree with the IPCC and modellers discounting cosmic rays-clouds-temperature connection – it has way too many holes in it at the moment – why would cosmic rays only affect low cloud cover? why would lower amounts of cloud cover cause night time temperatures to rise quicker than day time temperatures? where is the evidience that there is less cloud cover now than before? why have temperatures gone up in the last 20 years while the suns activity has been constant?
Gavin at ‘Real Climate’ gives his opinion here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=359
This link suggests the IPCC models predict increased precipitation with warming but this hasn’t happened at least not as predicted, and of relevance to the original post, I think it indicates precipitation has not increase, can one thus infer cloud cover has not increase: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/10/10/raining-on-greenhouse-predictions/#more-170
I’ve just cleaned spam from this thread and will now be closing the thread to comment.
I suggest we continue the discussion here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001888.html