Foundation of a New Climate Paradigm

[Jack Hays]

Here Nir Shaviv makes an argument for the climate paradigm that threatens to supplant the current consensus.

The End of the Current Climate Consensus?

First and foremost, I claim that the sun has a large effect on climate and that the IPCC is ignoring this effect. This I showed when I studied the heat going into the oceans using 3 independent datasets - ocean heat content, sea surface temperature, and most impressively, tide gauge records (see reference #1 below), and found the same thing in a subsequent study based on another data set, that of satellite altimetry (see reference #2 below). Note that both are refereed publications in the journal of geophysical research, which is the bread and butter journal of geophysics. So no one can claim it was published in obscure journals, yet, even though the first paper has been published already in 2008, it has been totally ignored by the climate community. In fact, there is no paper (right or wrong) that tried to invalidate it. Clearly then, the community has to take it into consideration. Moreover, when one considers that the sun has a large effect on climate, the 20th century warming is much better explained (with a much smaller residual). See reference #3 below, again refereed). . . .

As I said above, we now know from significant empirical data where the solar climate link comes from. It is through solar wind modulation of the galactic cosmic ray flux which governs the amount of atmospheric ionization, and which in turn affects the formation of cloud condensation nuclei and therefore cloud properties (e.g., lifetime and reflectivity). How do we know that? . .

One should be aware that we are still missing the last piece of the puzzle, which is to take the various mechanisms, plug them into a global aerosol model and see that there is a sufficiently large variation in the cloud condensation nuclei. This takes time, but compared with the aforementioned examples of genetics, neutrinos or dark matter, it will definitely take us much less to provide this last piece, but in any case, the evidence should have forced the community to seriously consider it already.

Nonetheless, even with the above large body of empirical evidence, the link has been attacked left and right. A really small number has been valid and interesting, but not to the extent to invalidate the existence of a cosmic ray climate link, just to modify our understanding of it. The rest has been mostly bad science, as I exemplify below. . . .

 

[Irredentist]

Here Nir Shaviv makes an argument for the climate paradigm that threatens to supplant the current consensus.

The End of the Current Climate Consensus?

[FONT=&]First and foremost, I claim that the sun has a large effect on climate and that the IPCC is ignoring this effect. This I showed when I studied the heat going into the oceans using 3 independent datasets - ocean heat content, sea surface temperature, and most impressively, tide gauge records (see reference #1 below), and found the same thing in a subsequent study based on another data set, that of satellite altimetry (see reference #2 below). Note that both are refereed publications in the journal of geophysical research, which is the bread and butter journal of geophysics. So no one can claim it was published in obscure journals, yet, even though the first paper has been published already in 2008, it has been totally ignored by the climate community. In fact, there is no paper (right or wrong) that tried to invalidate it. Clearly then, the community has to take it into consideration. Moreover, when one considers that the sun has a large effect on climate, the 20th century warming is much better explained (with a much smaller residual). See reference #3 below, again refereed). . . .

[/FONT][FONT=&]As I said above, we now know from significant empirical data where the solar climate link comes from. It is through solar wind modulation of the galactic cosmic ray flux which governs the amount of atmospheric ionization, and which in turn affects the formation of cloud condensation nuclei and therefore cloud properties (e.g., lifetime and reflectivity). How do we know that? . .

[/FONT][FONT=&]One should be aware that we are still missing the last piece of the puzzle, which is to take the various mechanisms, plug them into a global aerosol model and see that there is a sufficiently large variation in the cloud condensation nuclei. This takes time, but compared with the aforementioned examples of genetics, neutrinos or dark matter, it will definitely take us much less to provide this last piece, but in any case, the evidence should have forced the community to seriously consider it already.

[/FONT][FONT=&]Nonetheless, even with the above large body of empirical evidence, the link has been attacked left and right. A really small number has been valid and interesting, but not to the extent to invalidate the existence of a cosmic ray climate link, just to modify our understanding of it. The rest has been mostly bad science, as I exemplify below. . . . [/FONT]

So, the "new climate paradigm" is that the sun affects climate? How is this new? Isn't the entire basis behind the greenhouse effect that the sun is warming the earth? Hardly a revelation. Even if solar variations are the primary factor behind climate change, the greenhouse effect would still compound the overall impact of planetary warming.

 

[Jack Hays]

So, the "new climate paradigm" is that the sun affects climate? How is this new? Isn't the entire basis behind the greenhouse effect that the sun is warming the earth? Hardly a revelation. Even if solar variations are the primary factor behind climate change, the greenhouse effect would still compound the overall impact of planetary warming.

Please read the link. Under the new paradigm the greenhouse effect was responsible for less than half 20th century warming, and climate sensitivity is low enough there is no emergency.

 

[Irredentist]

Please read the link. Under the new paradigm the greenhouse effect was responsible for less than half 20th century warming, and climate sensitivity is low enough there is no emergency.

I've never been too worried about a "climate catastrophe". Changes on such a large scale tend to happen gradually, not suddenly. Nevertheless, I do believe in reducing pollution, development and construction, and carbon emissions wherever possible. Not because I fear the end of the world, but because I believe the natural ecosystems of this world are best preserved by limiting the overall impact of humans to as small a degree as possible.

 

[Jack Hays]

I've never been too worried about a "climate catastrophe". Changes on such a large scale tend to happen gradually, not suddenly. Nevertheless, I do believe in reducing pollution, development and construction, and carbon emissions wherever possible. Not because I fear the end of the world, but because I believe the natural ecosystems of this world are best served by limiting the overall impact of humans to as small a degree as possible.

Fair enough.

 

[bubbabgone]

So, the "new climate paradigm" is that the sun affects climate? How is this new? Isn't the entire basis behind the greenhouse effect that the sun is warming the earth? Hardly a revelation. Even if solar variations are the primary factor behind climate change, the greenhouse effect would still compound the overall impact of planetary warming.

Given climate history ... all of climate history, that is ... it should be obvious that human sourced CO2 hasn't been in the driver seat for all the temperature swings large and small.
And as long as the IPCC continues to use CO2 forcing as the key driver their models should be ignored and the IPCC corruption that allows and encourages it will continue.
But if your only point is that CO2 is a component then, yes, of course you're right.

 

[Irredentist]

Given climate history ... all of climate history, that is ... it should be obvious that human sourced CO2 hasn't been in the driver seat for all the temperature swings large and small.
And as long as the IPCC continues to use CO2 forcing as the key driver their models should be ignored and the IPCC corruption that allows and encourages it will continue.
But if your only point is that CO2 is a component then, yes, of course you're right.

The models are not particularly important. Climate changes are difficult to predict with any accuracy because they happen on such a large scale and over an extended period of time. I do however think that human carbon emissions have had a significant impact. Exactly what that impact will be, only time will tell. But I will always support measures leading to fewer emissions and less pollution.

 

[Jack Hays]

The models are not particularly important. Climate changes are difficult to predict with any accuracy because they happen on such a large scale and over an extended period of time. I do however think that human carbon emissions have had a significant impact. Exactly what that impact will be, only time will tell. But I will always support measures leading to fewer emissions and less pollution.

Emissions =/= pollution.

 

[bubbabgone]

The models are not particularly important. Climate changes are difficult to predict with any accuracy because they happen on such a large scale and over an extended period of time. I do however think that human carbon emissions have had a significant impact. Exactly what that impact will be, only time will tell. But I will always support measures leading to fewer emissions and less pollution.

Models are critical in that they are responsible for what's driving alarmism.
And an honest IPCC is critical in that it's reports are invariably used as the climate source for media and politicians.
The problem is that Government appointed ideologues & activists form much of the Working Groups and Government reps shape the SPM that most people bother reading.
And then WG reports get changed to be consistent with the SPMs
Scientists like Landsea, Tol, Lindzen, and Curry saw what the IPCC was doing and resigned.


Less pollution is a commendable goal, but CO2 is not a pollutant regardless of who decided to classify it as one.

 

[Irredentist]

Models are critical in that they are responsible for what's driving alarmism.
And an honest IPCC is critical in that it's reports are invariably used as the climate source for media and politicians.
The problem is that Government appointed ideologues & activists form much of the Working Groups and Government reps shape the SPM that most people bother reading.
And then WG reports get changed to be consistent with the SPMs
Scientists like Landsea, Tol, Lindzen, and Curry saw what the IPCC was doing and resigned.


Less pollution is a commendable goal, but CO2 is not a pollutant regardless of who decided to classify it as one.

The definition of a pollutant is anything that is present or is introduced into environment, and which has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 can absolutely have both harmful and poisonous effects when introduced into the environment in sufficient quantities. Therefore, it is a pollutant, regardless of whether you want to classify it as one.

 

[Irredentist]

Emissions =/= pollution.

Well that really depends on what is being emitted, and whether it is poisonous or harmful to the environment.

 

[Visbek]

So, the "new climate paradigm" is that the sun affects climate? How is this new?

It isn't new at all. Shaviv has been hawking this garbage for years, mostly on his own blog page (which is where this link is from). Meanwhile, actual climate scientists know that anthropogenic causes vastly outweigh any and all natural sources of climate change.

Jack has simply convinced himself that he can keep spewing this nonsense as long as he keeps saying "paradigm shift!"

 

[Visbek]

Given climate history ... all of climate history, that is ... it should be obvious that human sourced CO2 hasn't been in the driver seat for all the temperature swings large and small.

:roll:

No one makes that claim. The point is that over the past 200 years, anthropogenic causes vastly outweigh any and all natural causes.

And as long as the IPCC continues to use CO2 forcing as the key driver their models should be ignored....

Yes, because it's not like there is abundant evidence throughout history of forcing. :roll:

 

[Visbek]

Models are critical in that they are responsible for what's driving alarmism.

News flash! It's not 2002 anymore. We are now seeing the actual impacts of climate change.

And an honest IPCC is critical in that it's reports are invariably used as the climate source for media and politicians.

Hello? McFly? That's the whole point of the IPCC. It summarizes the most current climate science for policy makers.

The problem is that Government appointed ideologues & activists form much of the Working Groups and Government reps shape the SPM that most people bother reading.

Hello? McFly? Again, the purpose of the IPCC is to explain the science to politicians. The target audience is not the general public, it's policy makers. They get input from political appointees so that the resulting documents make sense to politicians.

Scientists like Landsea, Tol, Lindzen, and Curry saw what the IPCC was doing and resigned.

Wow! A three scientists and one economist don't like the IPCC. SHUT IT DOWN!!!! :roll:

Reminder: Tol is not a scientist, he's an economist who specializes in economic impacts. Plus, I don't think Curry ever worked with the IPCC.

Keep in mind that Tol and Landsea accept that AGW is real and the dominant source of climate change. Their concern is that climate scientists are overstating the likely impacts.

 

[Jack Hays]

Well that really depends on what is being emitted, and whether it is poisonous or harmful to the environment.

Fair enough. I realized too late I should have written "CO2 emissions."

 

[Irredentist]

Fair enough. I realized too late I should have written "CO2 emissions."

CO2 can be both harmful and poisonous when in high enough concentrations, therefore it can be classified as a pollutant, even though it does occur naturally.

 

[Jack Hays]

CO2 can be both harmful and poisonous when in high enough concentrations, therefore it can be classified as a pollutant, even though it does occur naturally.

The same can be said of virtually any gas.

 

[Jack Hays]

It isn't new at all. Shaviv has been hawking this garbage for years, mostly on his own blog page (which is where this link is from). Meanwhile, actual climate scientists know that anthropogenic causes vastly outweigh any and all natural sources of climate change.

Jack has simply convinced himself that he can keep spewing this nonsense as long as he keeps saying "paradigm shift!"

And yet you fear to engage the substance of his argument.

 

[Jack Hays]

“Not Worthy Of Any Consensus” …4 Renowned Scientists Expose Major IPCC Shortcomings: “Models Clearly Erroneous”

By P Gosselin on 6. December 2019
The Munich Climate Conference 2019

By Dr. Andreas Mueller
(Summarized by P. Gosselin)
Last weekend the climate conference by the Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy EIKE took place in Munich, despite threats by leftist radicals.
More than a dozen leading international climate experts presented views that severely challenge mainstream alarmist climate science.
1. Alps glaciers smaller than today during much of the Holocene
Among the speakers was Prof. em. Christian Schlüchter is a leading Swiss geologist who studied the glaciers of the Alps in great detail for decades. In his talk he reported his findings from very old timber found in and below glaciers, and what those ancient tree remnants tell us about the glacial epochs of the Alps.

Image: EIKE​

Schlüchter’s findings involve paleoclimatic records (timber, turfs, insects, etc.) found and dated using 14C as a standard method. The most important slide of his talk shows the last 12,000 years:

Image: EIKE​

His findings show that for long periods of time in the last 12,000 years, temperatures were higher than in 2005. Early on, from 10,000 to 8,800 BC, and again in the last few hundred years, temperatures were significantly lower.
The key message is that the alpine glacier extent was often smaller than in 2005. The timberline was at least 300 meters higher, which indicates a minimum of 1.8° C higher temperatures than today. An example of this is Hannibal, who managed to cross the Alps with elephants during the Roman times.
Schlüchter summarized that more than 50% of the last 11000 years alpine glaciers were smaller than 2005 and that events of glacier growth were fast and short. Also the little ice age (from the end of the medieval warm period to about 1850) was the longest glacier extension since the last ice age 12,000 years ago,
2. IPCC models have substantial shortcomings

Also speaking at the conference was Italian physicist and climate modeler Nicola Scafetta, a well-known critic of IPCC climate models. His talk in Munich again examined the substantial shortcomings of IPCC climate models:

Image: EIKE​

Scafetta discussed several areas where the climate models constantly fail. A key case is the Medieval Warm Period, which he showed together with the Roman Warm Period and the Modern Warm Period:
On the following slide, Prof. Scafetta shows how the IPCC models (light blue line) fail to reproduce the Medieval Warm Period (red real data) in the left part of the chart:

Image: EIKE​

According to Scafetta, the models the IPCC uses are not capable of reproducing climate variations, which follow periodic solar activity.
The following chart compares the IPCC 2013 models to that of his own model (yellow area):

Image: EIKE​

Both are not perfect and so indeed contradict any claim that the “science is settled”. But Scafetta’s model appears to be much more on track than the IPCC models.
Scafetta concludes:

continued . . . .

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=3]3. Nir Shaviv: CO2 climate sensitivity largely overestimated [/h]Renowned Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv continued where Scafetta left off, presenting the IPCC world and its errors. Shaviv emphasized that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is unknown and largely overestimated by the IPCC:

Image: EIKE​

The Israeli astrophysicist judged the IPCC leaving out the sun as a driver “a severe shortcoming”, saying that the IPCC overestimates climate sensitivity of CO2 at the expense of solar influences.
While IPCC modelers managed to hide this for 20th century data, it will lead to a serious overestimate of temperatures in the 21st when solar influences will be cooling, according to the the Israeli scientist. Shaviv therefore expects a much lower temperature rise than that predicted by the IPCC.
Shaviv summarized:

Image: EIKE​

4. Sun, clouds have huge impact on climate, IPCC ignores
Danish physicist and climate researcher Henrik Svensmark talked how he found it more and more difficult to raise funding for his research because the results contradict the IPCC.
Svensmark investigated the mechanism of how cosmic rays impact the creation of climate-crucial clouds. This happens through creation of ions which serve as clouding seeds in the atmosphere:

Image: EIKE​

By experiments and by correlation measurements, Svensmark investigated the mechanism of cloud creation by cosmic rays. IPCC researchers already cite a reduction of cloud creation as a possible positive feedback mechanism, which could escalate global warming to catastrophic levels, and so Svensmark’s research needs to be addressed seriously.
The importance of cloud creation as a cooling climate factor is regarded as undisputed, Svensmark’s conclusion:

Image: EIKE​

[h=3]Scientific summary[/h]Overall, as a physicist, I found the 4 ground-breaking scientists presented results that make it seem highly improbable that the IPCC climate models are complete and reliable. The IPCC models are hardly worthy of any 97% consensus.

 

[bubbabgone]

The definition of a pollutant is anything that is present or is introduced into environment, and which has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 can absolutely have both harmful and poisonous effects when introduced into the environment in sufficient quantities. Therefore, it is a pollutant, regardless of whether you want to classify it as one.

Like water vapor is a pollutant?

 

[bubbabgone]

:roll:

No one makes that claim. The point is that over the past 200 years, anthropogenic causes vastly outweigh any and all natural causes.

How did you make that that determination given all the natural forcings that have never been adequately accounted for?
Lemme guess ... argumentum ad verecundiam?

Yes, because it's not like there is abundant evidence throughout history of forcing. :roll:

So which is it, CO2 throughout history or just the last 200 years?

 

[digitusmedius]

This long and fully debunked bull**** again, Jack? The more you keep at it the weaker it gets.

 

[digitusmedius]

Like water vapor is a pollutant?

It's a greenhouse gas. After all these years you still know nothing (deliberately, of course) about this subject.

 

[bubbabgone]

News flash! It's not 2002 anymore. We are now seeing the actual impacts of climate change.



Hello? McFly? That's the whole point of the IPCC. It summarizes the most current climate science for policy makers.



Hello? McFly? Again, the purpose of the IPCC is to explain the science to politicians. The target audience is not the general public, it's policy makers. They get input from political appointees so that the resulting documents make sense to politicians.



Wow! A three scientists and one economist don't like the IPCC. SHUT IT DOWN!!!! :roll:

Reminder: Tol is not a scientist, he's an economist who specializes in economic impacts. Plus, I don't think Curry ever worked with the IPCC.

Keep in mind that Tol and Landsea accept that AGW is real and the dominant source of climate change. Their concern is that climate scientists are overstating the likely impacts.

The IPCC selects the studies it wants to include and very often the WG lead authors use their own studies.
You appear to know very little about problems with the IPCC and I bet you discount anything you should have learned from ClimateGate, amiright?