The End of the Current Climate Consensus?

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. . . .

 

This is probably the most comprehensive review of the case for new climate thinking.

Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)

 

What a novel idea that the sun has anything to do with the earth's warming or lack of it. Be prepared for the blame humankind first for climate change crowd to cry foul.

 

New Study: IPCC Made Fatal Errors In Assumptions About CO2 Which Destroy Global Warming Alarm
By Kenneth Richard on 7. January 2021

Share this...
CO2 is higher at the Poles than at the Equator. When air warms, CO2 goes down and water vapor goes up. The warming effects of CO2 and water vapor do not add; they oppose each other. This is opposite IPCC claims.
The IPCC claims doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm over the course of several centuries produces a warming of 1.2°C on its own (IPCC TAR). Since this is not enough to induce catastrophic warming or propel CO2 mitigation policies, IPCC models suggest water vapor perpetually rises along with CO2 and warming, and this rising positive water vapor feedback drives this initial 1.2°C warming up to 3°C, 4°C, and beyond.

The problem with this hypothetical model is that observational evidence fails to corroborate it.

A new paper (Lightfoot, 2020) shows that the claims (a) CO2 and air temperature go up and down together, (b) CO2 and water vapor go up and down together, and (c) warming by water vapor can be added to that of CO2 to give enhanced warming are all not observed to occur in the real world.

Instead, when air warms, CO2 falls as water vapor concentrations (40,000 ppm in the tropics, <1,000 ppm at the poles) rise. Again, this fundamentally contradicts IPCC claims. . . .

 

The Sun Climate Connection (Drs. Michael Connolly, Ronan Connolly, Willie Soon)

 

Radiation Transfer (Dr. William Happer)

 

“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 . . . .

 

Thanks for posting this link. The peer-reviewed science Svensmark has assembled clearly shows the CAGW narrative is both empirically false and theoretically disingenuous.

 

The treeline proxy is far more persuasive than tree rings, etc. because it is directly and linearly proportional to local lower troposphere temperature, without the confounding variables of precipitation, CO2, etc. Prediction: treeline proxies from the Himalayas, Andes, New Zealand Alps, etc. will confirm the MWP and LIA were global, although the effect will be smaller in the Southern Hemisphere because of the oceans' thermal inertia.

 

Thanks. I expect Svensmark to be awarded a Nobel one day.

 

Important work:

Exploring the Solar Wind With A New View of Small Sun Structures
Charles Rotter
Scientists have combined NASA data and cutting-edge image processing to gain new insight into the solar structures that create the Sun’s flow of high-speed solar wind, detailed in new research…

 

It seems increasingly likely that the solar wind, and not TSI, is the critical component of the Svensmark climate hypothesis.
Surprise! Study find solar winds hit north pole more than south
Anthony Watts
From the UA website and the not THAT Mann department: University of Alberta physicists have discovered a surprising imbalance in how the Earth responds to space weather driven by the…

 

This is a long link, but worth the time.

Japanese Climate Scientist Kyoji Kimoto: “Climate Change Governed By The Sun”, CO2 Lesser Role!
By P Gosselin on 22. January 2021

Share this...
Hundreds of publications show how climate in many regions around the world varies in sync with solar activity. More evidence is provided by Japanese climate scientist Kyoji Kimoto.
=======================================

Climate Change Governed By The Sun
By guest author Kyoji Kimoto, kyoji@mirane.co.jp
January 22, 2021

I’ve compiled a list of six examples how the sun impacts climate across the globe.

 

Follow the data.

Scientists Determine CO2 Levels Must TRIPLE To Yield A Tiny 0.5 W/m² Forcing At The Ocean Surface
By Kenneth Richard on 25. January 2021

Share this...
Oceans cover 71% of the Earth’s surface. An analysis of CO2’s radiative effect on ocean temperatures finds CO2 forcing is negligible even after reaching a concentration of 1,071 ppm. . . .

The solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface has increased by about 3 W/m² since 1980 (Delgado-Bonal et al, 2020) due to the cloud cover variations that are of “the utmost importance for current climate change” because they “ultimately determine the SW [shortwave] radiation.” This solar radiation increase can explain the recent warming trend. . . .

But here is the rub. CO2 must rise to 1,071 ppm (3 x 356.9 ppm) to have a radiative impact that “only gives ~500 mW m−² sr−¹” at the surface. That 500 milliwatts, or 0.5 W/m², is the total impact CO2 can have on the the first 0.01 mm of the global ocean’s thermal skin layer after surpassing 1,000 ppm. . . .

The authors even point out that the greenhouse effect of cloud forcing is 18 times larger (9 W/m²) than the forcing associated with a 1,071 ppm CO2 concentration (0.5 W/m²) at the ocean surface. So even if CO2 rises by the 1,000s of ppm, the CO2 impact would still not be capable of exceeding the influence of clouds.

Therefore, CO2 cannot be the driver of ocean temperature changes.

 

Unique Solar System Views from NASA Sun-Studying Missions
Charles Rotter
Using instruments that look not at the Sun itself, but at the constant outflow of solar material from the Sun, the missions — ESA and NASA’s Solar Orbiter, NASA’s Parker…

 

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: “No Reason To Panic”…”Gore Is Misleading”…”Warming Not Due To Civilization”
By P Gosselin on 30. January 2021

Share this...
A world renowned astrophysicist says the IPCC’s climate warnings cannot be taken seriously and that climate models use tricks to put the blame on CO2

Pierre Heumann at Weltwoche has a feature story on renowned Israeli astrophysicist, Nir Shaviv, professor at the Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. . . .

 

The Globe’s Total Greenhouse Effect Forcing Has Been On A Declining Trend For Decades
By Kenneth Richard on 8. February 2021

Share this...
CO2’s impact on the total net greenhouse effect (GHE) or longwave (LW) forcing trend has been offset by the dominant impact of cloud cover since the 1980s.
It is now widely accepted that changes in clouds, naturally driven by changes in atmospheric circulation, “may be the most important parameter controlling the radiation budget, and, hence, the Earth climate” (Sfîcă et al., 2021). Indeed, in recent decades, the post-1980 +3 W/m² increase in absorbed solar radiation due to the reduction in cloud albedo (Delgado-Bonal et al, 2020) can explain the warming in recent decades.



Image Source: Sfîcă et al., 2021
An overlooked 2020 observational study (Su et al., 2020) suggested that while top of the atmosphere (TOA) shortwave (SW) forcing has risen at a rate of +0.61 W/m² per decade since the early 2000s (because “decreasing cloud optical depth…causes an overall increase in TOA SW flux”), the total longwave (LW) or greenhouse effect (GHE) forcing – which includes the total net forcing impact of CO2 – has declined at a rate of -0.17 W/m² per decade. . . .

 

Yet Another Model-Based Claim Of Anthropogenic Climate Forcing Collapses
By Kenneth Richard on 25. February 2021

Share this...
High-resolution climate models have projected a “decline of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) under the influence of anthropogenic warming” for decades (Lobelle et al., 2020). New research that assesses changes in the deeper layers of the ocean (instead of “ignoring” these layers like past models have) shows instead that the AMOC hasn’t declined for over 30 years.
The North Atlantic has been rapidly cooling in recent decades (Bryden et al., 2020, Fröb et al., 2019). A cooling of “more than 2°C” in just 8 years (2008-2016) and a cooling rate of -0.78°C per decade between 2004 and 2017 has been reported for nearly the entire ocean region just south of Iceland. The cooling persists year-round and extends from the “surface down to 800 m depth”. . . .
Consequently, the cooling in the North Atlantic can no longer be dismissed as a response to an anthropogenically-weakened AMOC.

Something else is driving the cooling.

 

The article is repeated here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/climate-models-shown-inaccurate-again.583578/page-2

I put some words down

 

Faulty Hypothesis? NASA ERB Measurements Don’t Show Significant Radiative Budget Differences
By P Gosselin on 28. February 2021

Share this...
NASA earth radiation budget measurement from satellite data don’t support global warming claims.

Analyst blogger Zoe Phin downloaded and analyzed 10 gigabytes of NASA instrumental data on the earth’s radiation budget (ERB) fully covering the years 2003 to 2019 [site] [data]. . . .

According to the greenhouse gas theory, infrared absorbing gases are supposed to be preventing radiation from reaching space, thus causing warming at the surface.

“Well we clearly see that’s not case. If clouds (water vapor + aerosols) hardly changes outgoing surface radiation, then the whole hypothesis is in error,” Zoe concludes. “Less top-of-atmosphere outgoing radiation doesn’t cause surface heating and thus more radiation from the surface, despite the increase in downwelling radiation.”

See Zoe’s article on this.

 

Climate Change Alarmism Takes Another Big Hit

Stephen Moore, Washington Times

 

No Mention Of CO2: New Study Shows African Climate Variability Strongly Linked To Natural Cycles
By P Gosselin on 5. March 2021

Share this...
Africa climate variability linked to natural oceanic and solar cycles, a new study affirms. No mention of CO2.



Image source: “Decadal and multidecadal natural variability of African rainfall“.

A new study analyzes patterns of natural rainfall variability and can provide crucial assistance to African countries in seasonal rainfall forecasting for agriculture and protection against droughts & heavy rains. . . .

 

Scientists Continue To Affirm Rising Incoming Solar Radiation Drives Recent Warming In Europe
By Kenneth Richard on 11. March 2021

Share this...
Two new studies refer to the natural decline in cloud and aerosol reflectivity and consequent rise in incoming solar radiation or sunlight duration as the explanation for warming trends across Europe. CO2 is not even mentioned as a factor in climate change.
Scientists point out that, for Europe, “the decrease in cloud cover is caused by the predominance of high-pressure systems in the last two decades of the 20th century and in the second decade of the 21st century” (Bartoszek et al., 2021).

Because there is less solar radiation reflected to space by clouds (and sulphate aerosols), Europe has experienced an increase of “1.9 and 2.4 Wm−²” per decade−¹ in incoming solar radiation (S) and shortwave radiation imbalance (S*), respectively, from 1983-2015 (Kejna et al., 2021). . . .

 

Climate Dynamics: The True Control Knob of Climate Change
Guest Blogger
by Jim Steele The earth’s energy equilibrium is determined by the balance between incoming solar radiation versus radiative cooling that emits infrared radiation back to space. Water vapor primarily and…

 

Here is an excellent report from Curry.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/03/28/a-pertinent-climate-question/