Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate - Science ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

a clear indication of corresponding changes ingalactic cosmic rays (GCR), which are modulatedby variations in solar activity. The oxygen-18values are proxies for a climate parameter, liketemperature or precipitation, from a shift in theIntertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). Thecorrelation extends well over 3,000 years, withamazingly detailed correspondence. The bottomgraph shows the central 400 years expanded and isaccurate on almost a yearly basis, making acause-effect relationship very likely.The best explanation for these observations, andsimilar ones elsewhere, is that – as has long beenrecognized [Singer 1958] – GCR intensity ismodulated by the strength of the solar wind and itsmagnetic field. More recently, a detailed mechanismwhereby cosmic rays can affect cloudiness andtherefore climate has been suggested and verifiedexperimentally by Henrik Svensmark [2007a,b].More detailed work is to take place under theCLOUD project proposed by a group of scientists atCERN, the world’s largest particle accelerator.Solar Activity and Climate (as seen by proxies)12Figure 14: Values of carbon-14 (produced by cosmic rays – hence a proxy for solar activity)correlate extremely well with oxygen-18 (climate proxy); data are from a stalagmite in Oman [Neff2001]. The time interval covers more than 3,000 years, from about 9,600 to 6,200 years beforepresent (BP). The lower graph shows a particularly well-resolved time interval from 8,350 to 7,900years BP. It would be difficult to explain this detailed correlation except through the modulation ofgalactic cosmic rays by changes in the solar wind and solar magnetic activity [Singer 1958]. Themechanism whereby cosmic rays influence terrestrial climate is most likely a change in cloudiness,as suggested by Svensmark [2007a, 2007b].
Lockwood and Fröhlich [2007] have claimed adivergence between TSI and temperature in the past20 years; but this claim is disputed by both solar andclimate experts. For example, evidence for climateeffects of TSI in more recent times is presented byScafetta and West [2007], and of solar activity byUsoskin and Kovaltsov [2007]. Shaviv [2002, 2005]has demonstrated the climate effects of fluxvariations of Galactic Cosmic Rays on thehundred-million-year time scale. See also Shavivand Veizer [2003].There now is little doubt that solar-windvariability is a primary cause of climate change ona decadal time scale. Once the IPCC comes to termswith this finding, it will have to concede that solarvariability provides a better explanation for 20thCentury warming than GH effects. Indeed, solarvariability may explain the pre-1940 warming andsubsequent cooling period, the MWP and LIA – andother quasi-periodic climate oscillation with aperiod of roughly 1,500 years, going back a millionyears or more [Singer and Avery 2007].4. Climate Models Are Not ReliableIn its 2001 report the IPCC admitted, “In climateresearch and modelling, we should recognise thatwe are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaoticsystem, and therefore that the long-term predictionof future climate states is not possible” [IPCC-TAR2001, p. 774] Further, as demonstrated in Section 3,the Earth’s climate system is subject to significant,changing influences beyond the Earth itself that arenot well understood and cannot be controlled.Computer models undoubtedly have their placeas a way of projecting possible consequences whenone or more variables are changed. However,models do not represent reality, yet the IPCCpersists in treating them as if they do. The IPCC andits predecessors have adopted climate sensitivities(for a doubling of CO 2 ) of 1.5º to 4.5º C. But actualmodel results exceed these ‘canonical’ limits in bothminimum and maximum; some model results rangeup to 11º C.! Computer models do not consider solardimming and brightening.Current models do not consider the observedsolar ‘dimming’ and post-1985 ‘brightening’ [Wild2005b; Stanhill 2007]. Existing models do not takeaccount of the existence of water vapor (WV)‘dimers’ (double H 2 O molecules) [Paynter et al.2007] and their atmospheric absorption of incomingsolar radiation in the near-infrared, which may leadto a negative climate feedback as WV concentrationincreases in the lower troposphere.! Computer models do not accurately modelthe role of clouds.The differences among model results are largeand arise mostly from the treatment of clouds andthe somewhat arbitrary choices of cloud-relatedparameters, notably, the droplet-size distribution[Senior and Mitchell 1993], which strongly affectsthe cloud albedo. Most of the effects of parametervariation are caused by a small subset of parameters;for example, the choice of entrainment coefficient inclouds is associated with 30 percent of the variationseen in climate sensitivity [Knight 2007].Special problems arise from the chaotic natureof climate. Small changes in initial conditions leadto vastly different outcomes. To overcome thiswell-recognized feature, modelers resort to multipleruns (‘simulations’), which are later averaged intoan ‘ensemble.’ The problem then becomes one ofconvergence, especially when the outcomes differgreatly from each other [Lucarini et al. 2007]. Anadditional problem arises when trying to averageover different model ensembles, some based on asmany as 10 runs, some only on one run.As previously observed, current GH models donot match the observed latitude distribution oftemperature trends. In particular, one would expectthat the production of sulfate aerosols in theNorthern Hemisphere (NH) should create a reducedwarming trend there – or even cooling. Theobservations show the opposite.In general, models do not consider realisticallythe lack of geographic homogeneity of forcing,especially for aerosols. Polar trends do not agreewith model expectations and can more easily beexplained with solar forcing [Soon 2005]. Modelsreviewed by the IPCC do not employ realisticgrowth figures for the GH gas methane[Dlugokencky 1998] and do not consider theresultant forcings caused by future changes in thestratosphere from increases in water vapor andozone depletion [Singer 1971; Shindell 2001].13
Page 1 and 2: Nature, Not Human Activity,Rules th
Page 3 and 4: ForewordIn his speech at the United
Page 5 and 6: group of activists wrote the all-im
Page 7: that action must be taken to reduce
Page 11: Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules t
Page 15 and 16: Global and U.S. Mean Surface Temper
Page 19 and 20: verification of the IPCC’s analys
Page 21: ! Global warming prior to 1940 was
Page 25 and 26: Figure 16: A result from the U.S. N
Page 27 and 28: Sea Level Since Last Glacial Maximu
Page 29 and 30: It is likely that actual SL observa
Page 31 and 32: Figure 21: CO 2 levels versus latit
Page 33 and 34: lamed on global warming. The author
Page 35 and 36: ates were linearly related to avera
Page 37 and 38: Estimated Annual Impact on U.S. ofD
Page 39 and 40: About the ContributorsAnderson, War
Page 41 and 42: ReferencesAnonymous 1994. IPCC’s
Page 43 and 44: Keatinge W.R. et al, 2000. Heat rel
Page 45 and 46: Rahmstorf, S., et al. 2007. Recent
Page 47 and 48: AcronymsAGW Anthropogenic Global Wa
Page 49 and 50: Labohm, Hans, Simon Rozendaal, and

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate - Science ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?