Archive for the ‘Climate’ Category

Unsettled science?

October 9, 2010

 

History of sunspot number observations showing...

Image via Wikipedia

 

Within the space of two days there have been two scientific papers with entirely different conclusions about the effect of the active sun on climate. That there is a difference from two different studies is perfectly normal (and desirable if we are to learn), but what is obvious is the inanity of considering that the effects of solar variations on climate is a “settled science”. Solar Science and Climate are still in the realm of “where we don’t know what we don’t know”.

The first on October 5th, led to the conclusion that:

an increase in solar activity from the Sun actually cools the Earth

The second reported here comes to the conclusion that:

“The contribution of the active sun, indirectly via cosmic rays, to global warming appears to be much stronger than the presently accepted [IPCC] upper limit of 1/3.”

 

????

(more…)

Oh dear ! Science in the service of totalitarianism

October 7, 2010

Fred Pearce in the New Scientist is at it again!

The world badly needs an independent carbon police to check the figures and catch the carbon frauds.

Can science deliver?

 

Carbon police?

 

Verifying national emissions requires both “bottom-up” independent oversight of the inventories, and better “top-down” monitoring of the atmosphere, says Matthias Jonas of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenberg, Austria.

A new climate treaty will also need carbon sniffers in tropical forests, especially in countries that sign up to a part of the deal called REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). REDD would offer cash to countries that conserve their forests so they can soak up atmospheric CO2. This means knowing how much carbon is actually being absorbed by the forests. In August, a study of Peruvian forests by Greg Asner of Stanford University, California, found existing estimates of carbon stored and released could be out by as much as 50 per cent.

Enough said!

The Carbon Police mean business. Trees and plants not absorbing their required amount of carbon dioxide will be punished severely.

10:10

Why Forecasts need to be wrong

October 7, 2010

 

The Lorenz attractor is an example of a non-li...

Image via Wikipedia

 

This started yesterday as a short comment on the changing forecasts by Hathaway on solar activity in Solar Cycle 24 but has now become something else.

As clarification, I  distinguish here between prophecies and forecasts  where:

  • I take prophecies to be a promise about the future  based primarily on faith and made by prophets , witchdoctors, soothsayers and politicians such as “You will be doomed to eternal damnation if you don’t do as I say”,
  • I take “forecasts” to be an estimate of future conditions based on known data with the use of calculations, logic, judgement, some intuition and even some faith. They are extrapolations of historical conditions to anticipate – and thereby plan for -future conditions.

(more…)

New Research – “A stronger sun cools the earth”??

October 6, 2010

New research and like all good research poses more questions than it answers. And the caveat is that the 3 year period of the research may not be very significant in the rythms of the sun. But it only emphasises to me that climate models which ignore the sun are not really worth very much. And climate models will only begin to become interesting when the sun’s influences and mechanisms by which they apply are far better understood.

From The Telegraph:

An increase in solar activity from the Sun actually cools the Earth, suggests new research that will renew the debate over the science behind climate change.

A stronger Sun actually cools the Earth

Stronger Sun actually cools the Earth??

Focused on a three-year snapshot of time between 2004 and 2007, as solar activity waned at the end of one of the Sun’s 11-year cycles, the new data shows the amount of light and heat reaching the Earth rose rather than fell. Its impact on melting polar ice caps, and drying up rivers could therefore have been exaggerated by conventional climate models during the period.

Scientists also believe it may also be possible that during the next upturn of the cycle, when solar activity increases, there might be a cooling effect at the Earth’s surface.

In the New Scientist:

Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London studied satellite measurements of solar radiation between 2004 and 2007, when overall solar activity was in decline.

Haigh’s measurements showed that visible radiation increased between 2004 and 2007, when it was expected to decrease, and ultraviolet radiation dropped four times as much as predicted. Haigh then plugged her data into an atmospheric model to calculate how the patterns affected energy filtering through the atmosphere. Previous studies have shown that Earth is normally cooler during solar minima.Yet the model suggested that more solar energy reached the planet’s surface during the period, warming it by about 0.05 °C.

An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing of climate

by Joanna D. Haigh, Ann R. Winning, Ralf Toumi & Jerald W. Harder

(Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature09426).

The effect is slight, but it could call into question our understanding of the sun’s subtle effects on climate. Or could it? Stefan Brönnimann of the University of Bern in Switzerland says Haigh’s study shows the importance of looking at radiation changes in detail but cautions that her the results could be a one-off. He points out that the sun’s most recent cycle is known to have been atypical