Harry ten Brink Thanks a lot for sharing the document.

What I feel is the discussion in IPCC report is still incomplete. There are many other possible drivers such as Milankovitch cycles, magnetic reversals, geoid variability and others. Moreover, a complete model to explain all the drivers and their contribution to climate change is still missing.

Climate change is a function of multiple variables. For better and complete understanding, we need understand all the variables, their connectivity, variability, proportional weight to complete the total equation of climate change. Currently we are just trying to focus on a small part of the climate equation.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

page 53

Harry ten Brink Thanks a lot for sharing the document.

What I feel is the discussion in IPCC report is still incomplete. There are many other possible drivers such as Milankovitch cycles, magnetic reversals, geoid variability and others. Moreover, a complete model to explain all the drivers and their contribution to climate change is still missing.

Climate change is a function of multiple variables. For better and complete understanding, we need understand all the variables, their connectivity, variability, proportional weight to complete the total equation of climate change. Currently we are just trying to focus on a small part of the climate equation.

Kenneth M Towe

Sometime I think, what will happen if we carbon emission to ZERO. Can we stop climate change? We may halt our development but may not halt changing climate.

Moreover, our modern society is solely reliant on energy. What could be the substitute of fossil fuels? Can we meet the needs from solar, wind and hydro power? Can we estimate the possible consequences of mass solar panels or hydroelectric project? Are they available for all the countries? Is nuclear power plant safe and secure everywhere in this world?

we need more open discussions and research on this vital issue.

Take a look to this site about the "death" of the very low sunspot activity during the past years and the future sunspot activity near zero like 400 years ago. Atmospheric mean temperature does not encrease any more as forecasted.

https://wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/schwache-sonne-kuehle-erde-wie-schwach-wird-der-naechste-sonnenzyklus-nach-2020/

I hope you will find the other sides published in English.

Water vapor and CO2 have been rising at very similar rates 1700 to 2002. They are both greenhouse gases but there is about 50 times as much WV as CO2. CO2 has been shown to have little if any effect on climate. Eight cases of compelling evidence of this are listed in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . WV increase correlates with irrigation increase.

The warming trend which started in about 1973 ended in about 2002. A slight temperature downtrend since then was interrupted by the temporary aberration of an el Nino in about 2014. Temperature is now about what it was in 2002 while CO2 has increased by 40% of the increase 1800 to 2002.

mr Uddin

IPCC discusses the present climate change occurring in a period of ~100 years

What you mention are cycles of ten thousands of years

And you are vague on the IPCC report: quantify please where they do NOT include all drivers

Did you read the report?

mr Pangburn

1. Show the graph of the temperatures: the offical ones do not show your claimed decrease?!

2. I have to remind you that climate change is fefined as that of one climate period versus the previous one which means only allowed when comparing the latest 30 with the previous 30 year period, exactly to remove the natural "outliers" like the el nino's and volcano eruptions

3. Water vapor is not increasing and that is one of the issues against the water multiplier of warming: I refer to Roy Spencer

Harry,

1. Average global temperature is reported by five agencies, NOAH, RSS, UAH, GISS and Hadley. RSS has reported two versions, v3.3 and v4. I track and graph them all. All except RSS v4 show a very slight decline trend of about 0.01 K per decade 2002 to 2014. RSS v4 trend was undergoing an upward drift during that period. RSS v4 increased its upward drift to about 0.2 K above RSS v3.3 in 2015 where it has remained since with its slope trend now approximately matching the slope trends of the others. In the period from 2014 until now, all have been exhibiting the temporary aberration of the el Nino event and either have matched or are approaching their pre-el Nino temperature level. RSS has periodically ‘adjusted’ the v4 data. I have snapshots of what they reported in 1979, 2017 and 2018. The reports are disturbingly different. I wonder which of all these reports you consider to be ‘official’.

2. The 30 yr period for climate is a completely arbitrary number and could result in misleading perception. A linear trend could be either up or down depending only on whether an el Nino is at the end or the beginning. IMO the first credible temperature data began in 1895. My blog/analysis presented at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com matches measured 98.3% 1895 through 2017. The approximation of ocean cycles has a period of about 64 years.

3. Three measurements of water vapor have been reported: RSS, NCEP R1 and NCEP R2 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/09/does-global-warming-increase-total-atmospheric-water-vapor-tpw they all show an uptrend of about 1.5% per decade since 1992. Nasa/RSS have been measuring water vapor (TPW) by satellite and their reporting shows this rate since Jan, 1988. Rational extrapolation, based on the cause, which is/was increasing irrigation, extends this rate to 1960; an 8% increase since then. The transition from an uptrend to horizontal in 2002 shows clearly in the RSS trends through about 2014. This is followed by the temporary aberration of the el Nino. IMO it is too soon to tell (too much pseudo-random fluctuation) whether the long term trend (thin black line in above graph) will continue, or the heavy red line will be followed, or perhaps continuing or even steepening the decline.

Dan

1. I certainly do not advocate a fixed period of 30 years but a moving average

of at least 15 years

That is why I do not follow YOUR analysis of the temperature data in which you cherry-pick the beginning and ending at a specific year only 12 years apart?

As for your ignoring CO2 as a driver: a greenhouse gas seems the first to think of and there is ample physical basis herefore

2. As for water I refer to

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/five-reasons-why-water-vapor-feedback-might-not-be-positive/

about the level at which the increase is for instance

Dan

As for CO2: its influence is only significant after about 1960, so before most/all of the long-term temperature variation is natural. So the actual temperature data are of lesser interest before that crucial date give or take a few years in a moving average

like to refer to Vaughn Pratt's analysis

https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/

Replace CO2 with water vapor in Pratt's analysis and it becomes about the same as mine. Pratt did not mention water vapor but the commenters did. Both CO2 and WV are ghg and, allowing for different scale factors, can both explain all recorded average global temperature. If you look at my blog/analysis at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com you will see the same analysis that Pratt did but with WV in place of CO2 (Prior to mid 2016 I also had CO2 in my analysis instead of WV e.g. here: https://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com/2016/02/cause-of-globalclimate-change.html ) Multiple prior compelling evidence (see sect 2 in my b/a) ruled out CO2 indicating there must be an “as yet unidentified factor” as I expressed here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/04/week-in-review-energy-and-policy-edition-26/ .

Partly as a result of a WUWT article https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/25/precipitable-water/comment-page-1 the unidentified factor turned out to be water vapor (WV). Part of the warming from WV results unambiguously from direct feedback, i.e. warmer water has higher vapor pressure which drives more WV into the atmosphere. Because WV is a ghg, it counters radiation from the liquid surface water so the liquid surface water gets warmer. The warmer liquid surface water has higher vapor pressure producing more atmospheric WV and so on. All this direct feedback amounts to only about 6% (or less) temperature increase of the liquid surface water than if there were no feedback. This is a positive feedback factor so it also cools up to about 6% faster than it would if there were no feedback.

You did not read that I mentioned that I read your blog

Of course water is a much stronger GH compound.

However, you do not provide evidence of an increase in the atmosphere: what has storage of water to do with the immense amount of water in the ocean?

CO2 has been increasing by 40% almost all in the past 60 years and that surely gives a rise in temperature, as every meteorologist knows

Then this increase temperature should give rise to more evaporation and thus an increase WV and thus a multiplier

The big hang-up

CO2 doubling alone gives a temperature increase of ~1.1 C rest is water vapour

But where is the evidence of the increase WV?

Just noticed your last paragraph

Where is the "only 6% increase of the liquid water" coming from?

As with CO2 an increase in WV gives a warming of the lower troposphere

Harry,

My Dec 19 graph above ends in 2014 because that is when the el Nino begins as was shown on the Dec 18 graph. IMO the WV trend will eventually be level.

All of your other questions are answered at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com so either you didn’t read it or were too stubborn for it to register. The quote should have been “6% (or less) temperature increase of the liquid surface water”. You left out ‘(or less) temperature increase’. The basis is described in detail in Section 6 of my blog/analysis. I also discuss feedback in Section 8.

I don’t know what you are referring to by “storage of water”. The ghg effect of increased water vapor contributes to temperature increase (or countering of temperature decrease). CO2 has been shown to have little to no effect on temperature as pointed out in Section 2 of my blog/analysis.

IMO being a meteorologist might make understanding climate change more difficult.

NASA/RSS has been measuring average global water vapor by satellite and reporting numerical TPW data since 1988. The data is reachable through http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/tpw-1-deg-product which eventually gets to http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201811.time_series.txt where the last two digits are the month. When a new month is reported the previous month is deleted. My graph of the data through Nov, 2018 is shown in my Dec 19 post above. Humanity needs to attend to the issue of increased risk of disaster from precipitation related flooding.

Why do you think I did not read it

Ruling out CO2? Yes when you do it your way by using times with no temperature records

And a full blog on the climate change without any scientific reference: you think any serious scientist buys that

and when you have a reference it is to charlatan Svensmark (clouds/aerosol is my specialty so I use this blunt conclusion)

Take your item 4: what is the bottom line?

Of course there is thermal stabilisation due to the collisions and that the radiation is emitted by the most prominent GHG: water vapour

So what?

You forget that there is another issue: the lapse rate in the vertical temperature based on thermodynamics and the extra CO2 leads to more energy trapping and redistribution according to this vertical gradient to give an example.

If you had read it you should have been aware that items 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in section 2 all refer to conditions with directly measured temperature records.

My blog analysis is fairly comprehensive. If you actually read it, check/verify anything in it, examine all of the references and sub-references, and have the necessary engineering/science skill, you can discover the truth about climate change.

The only credible peer review of climate related issues is Mother Nature. Apparently what, if anything, you have looked at is ‘peer reviewed’ papers by mostly academics who approve each other’s ‘work’. Often referred to as ‘pal review’, it is collectively unreliable.

Bottom line: CO2, in spite of being a ghg, has little to nothing to do with climate (Section 2.). Water, in all three states, is a major regulator of climate; along with two other factors it explains 98% of average global temperature change since 1895 and credibly back to before 1700. Measurements of water vapor demonstrate that it has been increasing (long term trend) but is self-limiting. Water vapor increase correlates with irrigation increase. WV increase has been countering temperature decline forcing from quiet sun and declining ocean cycles. Expect increased precipitation related flooding and declining average global temperatures in future.

I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you.

I have nothing more to say.

Well

good luck

You seem to consider yourself the first and last homo universalis after Leonardo Davinci

You ask whether I have engineering/science skills

I wonder what your credentials are in this respect; certainly not a climatologist/meteorologist/spectroscopist

and re your references: where is the IPCC-report, or are you unaware of it

if u think co2 results only smog and temperature then thats not true, co2 effect started somewhere and that factor is risponsible to everything and nothing elese, the tiltation of earth, speed of earth, sun storm, orbit of moon, all these factors influence the climate... on earth mostly..

Happy New Year. Thank you all for your valuable contributions. Hope to learn lots more in 2019 :) :)

What are the drivers of climate change?

Answer depends on WHAT climate change you mean.

Slow & significant cooling of Earth over past ~50 million years largely resut of northward drift of continents and changes in ocean circulation.

Glaciation cycles over past million years were initiated by Earth's orbital parameters, enhanced by albedo changes and ocean circulation.

Cause of Temperature cycles through the Holocene (interglacial for past ~9 kyr), including the recent little ice age (~1600-188 & coldest period of Holocene) and warming since then are unknown, but solar variations are suspected.

Warming since ~1950 (when atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases begin to significantly increase) probably largely result of this GHG increase. However, natural causes of earlier climate cycles likely played a major role in warming over ~1800-1950, and likely still play some role.

Short-term effects like volcanic eruptions don't produce climate changes, which are defined as 30 years or longer

Take a look to sun without any sunspot. The number of sunspots has decreased durung the past 35 years and will be low as about 350 years ago.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=vopesTaw&id=284E2B489A372676925315E50844D199849192DF&thid=OIP.vopesTawCS_mnMyxAlWQtAHaCq&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fasmwizard.files.wordpress.com%2f2011%2f07%2fsunspots_400_years-1_thumb.jpg%3fw%3d491%26h%3d177&exph=177&expw=491&q=sunspots+400+years&simid=608005112356801906&selectedIndex=8&ajaxhist=0

Hope that help to understand what might happen the next 15 years.

To T.H.

There is some correlation of global temperature and sunspots over the last few hundred years. However, decreased sunspots refers to low spot numbers during times of solar max within the solar 22 yr cycle. Within that cycle, the Sun has very low spot numbers once each cycle. And how much is solar irradiance observed to vary (since late 1950s) across each cycle? Only 1 to 2 watts/square-meter, out of a total irradiance of ~1362 w/m^2, measured across several cycles. That is not nearly sufficient to explain recent global temperature changes.

Proxy data on past solar activity is obtained from radioactive 14-carbon and 10-beryllium produced in Earth's atmosphere during times of higher energetic cosmic ray proton flux. This CR flux is modulated by solar activity, and thus is a measure of past solar activity, going back thousands of years. 14C and 10Be also correlate somewhat with global temperature.

To the extent that solar cycles do modulate temperature (and I believe they do), it is likely to be via mechanisms beyond total irradiance. Both changes in the UV/visible light ratio, affecting absorption by ozone in stratisphere, and increased cloud formation via atmosphere ionization produced from higher CR flux have been proposed. Circumstantial evidence is strong for such, but direct evidence is lacking.

Several factors are the drivers of climate change such as: CO2, CO, CH4, Nox, Ozone, ..

But the main drivers are the behavior of human kind, the industrial production and the policy followed by several countries especially the greatest economies.

With my best regards!

Dr. Adel Oueslati

In spite of CO2 being a ghg, multiple compelling evidence listed in Section 2 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com rules it out as a significant contributor to climate change. Explanation of why is in Section 5.

The data from all reporting agencies agree there has been little if any sustained change in average global temperature since about 2002. CO2 has increased since 2002 by 40% of the increase 1800 to 2002 so if CO2 has any effect on temperature at all it can’t be very much.

A sliding average of 5 months is ridiculous versus climate parameters defined as averages over a period of decades?!

I suggest to read Vaughan Pratt's analysis with a moving average of even 60 years to remove the apparent 30 year oceanic cycle

https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/

Several factors can and do influence average climate, e.g.:

1) Variations in Earth's orbit which change total TOA solar insolation in the northern hemisphere. This factor is instrumental in glacial cycles, but operates over thousands of years.

2) Variatons in solar output, both total irradiance and UV/visible ratio. (Total solar irradiance has increased by several percent over the past billion years.) Although shorter-term variations are demonstrated to occur, the magnitude of their effect on climate is still not well understood.

3) Variations in deep ocean mixing currents, which can bring either cold, deep water or warmer water nearer the surface. Pacific el Nino and la Nina events are examples that persits over only a few years. Longer term cycles also exist, such as the approx. 60-year AMO. Temperature of the ocean surface affects water evaporation rates, which is the major way by which ocean heat is transferred into the atmosphere.

4) The ~11-year solar magnetic cycle, which changes galactic cosmic ray particle flux in the upper atmosphere, affecting ionization rates and charged nuclei density for aerosol formation, which in term can influecne cloud formation density.

5) Overall surface and cloud albedo of Earth. Although surface ice is a prime example, more subtle examples exist in influence of rainfall on vegetation and several human agriculture practices. Aerosols, such as volcanic and human emissions of sulfur, also influence atmospheric albedo.

6) In spite of its denial by some, greenhouse gases (most prominant being CO2 and CH4) can and do have a major influence on climate. They are just not the only influence. The major question is what is the relative contributions in real time of these and other forcing factors?

The fact that CO2 is a ghg has caused much resistance to the observation that CO2 has little if any effect on climate. Contributions of three factors (CO2 is not among them) results in a 98.3% match to reported measured average global temperature 1895-2017 (IMO 1895 is the earliest that credible global measurements became available). http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

Increased confidence in longer term predictions depends on identifying the natural cause of ocean cycles and long term predictability of SSN.

I agree with your last sentence.

However, with many POSSIBLE factors influencing global temperature (probably the major factor in climate change) it becomes difficult to assign specific influences.

Temp does tend to follow solar changes, but sunspot cycles only change TOA insolation by about 1 watt/m^2 out of 1363 total. Possible effects of UV/visible ratios and of cosmic particle modulation by solar cycles, although proposed to affect Temp, have not been demonstrated.

Sulfate aerosols (e.g. volcanic) produce short-term cooling, and over many decades, humans probably released more sulfates.

It one totally negates any CO2 influence on Temp, then one must also deny any GHG influence of water vapor, methane, etc. If greenhousle warming is not real, then one must explain why Earth persists about 33 deg-C above its expected black-body Temp.

Further, satellite observations of upwelling IR radiaiton clearly denonstrate major effects of IR absorption and emission by H2O vapor and CO2 (as well as some others). Such satellite observations are likely shown in your local weather report. By observing the altitude of IR emission from e.g. CO2 through its IR flux, one can observe that IR emission from CO2 has been elevated into colder atmosphere, where IR emission flux to space slows. Of necessity, this must cause Earth to warm.

Correlation is not necessarily causation.

Determining what factors cause temperature changes and what is their relative magnitude is made quite complicated by the fact that many factors are involved, operate on different time and spaital scales, and in many poorly understood ways.

DB - Digging a bit deeper into the science can be revealing. Insolation is tiny but the influence that solar magnetism has on clouds is substantial. Earth surface temperature is very sensitive to cloud changes. An approximate assessment is at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.co .

Eight examples of compelling evidence that CO2 has no significant effect on climate are presented in Section 2 of the link in my previous post. The time periods cover from years to millions of years.

Understanding thermalization helps to understand why CO2 (or any ghg which does not condense in the atmosphere) has little if any effect on climate while change in water vapor does. This is explained in the blog/analysis linked above along with some of the egregious mistakes made by the EPA. Evidence of the process by which water vapor affects average global temperature and CO2 does not is demonstrated by the notches in graphs of earth radiation flux both measured at top-of-atmosphere and calculated at several altitudes by MODTRAN.

It is easy to get mired in the minutia of things that have little and/or temporary influence or simply have not changed much, like volcanoes. Figure 10 shows several volcano events co-plotted on temperature anomalies. No consistent or significant effect is observed. The 98.3 % match is accomplished with only 3 explicitly named factors.

Water vapor increase is self-limiting and might have already ended it 2002 except for the aberration of the last major el Nino which is still playing out. Meanwhile CO2 has increased by 40% of the increase 1800-2002.

The "theory" of how solar modulation of cosmic proton flux might influence cloud formation and thus Earth's albedo is well studied. And atmospheric ion formation is well known. But an actual link of these ions with significant water drop formation has not yet been shown, and some have argued that the ions so formed are of the wrong size to produce clouds.

You are correct in that clouds and their albedo is a very large unknown in how Earth's temperature is controlled, and climate models generally acknowlede that.

Water vapor is a greater contributor to warming than CO2, but not as much greater as its much larger abundance might suggest. That is because water tends to condense out in the mid- to high- troposphere, where the effect of its IR emission height is not as important. Satellite data show that quite well, and MODRAN simulations generally do also.

Although the atmosphere is where the greenhouse effect occurs and although over the past couple decades the atmosphere has not show much warming (as your graph indicates), much of insolation warming of Earth occurs in the oceans, and both ocean and land data suggest greater warming. The major way the oceans lose heat is by evaporation (thus heating the atmosphere). Therefore, the degree of deep ocean mixing, between deep oceans near freezing and warm, surface, equitorial water is quite important in determining that evaporation rate. ENSO events demonstrate that.

Influence by ocean mixing and high-albedo cloud formation are just two means by which warming from H2O and CO2 are modulated. With these and other influencing factors, knowledge of the relative proportion of each in contributing to global temperature is required to assign relative importance. I agree that climate science is not yet there.

To Dan Pangburn:

Where is that figure you copied 2 days ago with the y-axis mentioning february 2019 from?

Science requires references (and not over and over again to ones own blog)

HtB - The figure is graphs plotted by EXCEL from the UAH v6.0 temperature anomaly data provided at http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

and TPW (water vapor) data from http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201902.time_series.txt

which you can get to eventually from http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/

You are welcome to plot the data yourself or perhaps merely check a few points on the graph.

I have been unsuccessful in finding any other source which has arrived at a rational explanation for why CO2, in spite of being a ghg has no significant effect on climate. Humanity contributed about 1/3 of the warming since 1895 with increased TPW mostly from increased irrigation. The increase in TPW might have stopped in about 2005 (except for the aberration of el Nino action which has yet to play out) but, in any event, is self-limiting.

Dan Pangburn Since climate is the weather over 20+ years it is impossible for a scientist to say that the warming of the climate has stopped since 2005 as the year now is 2019. Did you receive this fact in a revelation or are you quoting from another oracle?

HRA - I did/do my own research, discovered the human contribution to GW and realized that it is self-limiting. As to the natural causes, having to do with the sun and possibly the moon and nearest/biggest planets I assumed they would continue to do what they have been doing since the depths of the LIA.

Dan Pangburn, so with the sun, moon and our nearest planets you make a some kind of horoscope that tells the global warming has stopped also the next years, decades !/?

It would be stunning if you can divinate the weather in the coming decades. You should write a paper about this if you can explain it. You'll become famous if you are actually right, but first you have to make sence of your idea.

We all know the energy input from the sun has been very close to constant (ridiculous small decrease in warming the last decades) and the changes in Earth orbit happens over much longer timescales, so the reason the graph you put up 3 days ago shows the last few decades are the warmest in 170 years and that the temperature has increased continuously since the 1970'es is the combined effect of anthropogenic derived greenhouse gasses increasing Earths 'insulation' while the energy input as constant.

HRA – I guess I left myself open for that one. My mistake for assuming others might actually be aware of ongoing studies. All that sun, moon, and planets stuff is what others have suggested might be the cause of the +/- 1/6 K or so, 64 year period, contribution to average global temperature of the net of ocean surface temperature cycles.

Perhaps you noticed that the warmup from the depths of the LIA began at the same time as the restart of significant sunspots in 1700. Apparently that huge signal was ignored by the consensus. Earth temperature is very sensitive to clouds as I discovered in a rough assessment at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.co . Svensmark found a correlation between low-altitude clouds and sunspots. The time-integral of sunspot number anomalies quantifies more than 1/3 of the temperature increase 1895-2017. The current blank sun is contributing towards decline in global temperature.

The analysis at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com includes multiple compelling evidence that CO2 has very little, if any, effect on climate and an allocation of three contributing factors in a simple equation which matches measured average global temperature 98.3% 1895-2005 and credible temperature estimate back to before 1700.

Dan Pangburn, It is too bad no one else than you follow the studies in climate science. We all know blogs are full of nonsense and if someone find something with real proof they would publish it properly. So I hope to see your theory of how Mars and Venus explain the global warming in a readable (peer-reviewed) form.

My colleges Svensmark, Christensen etc. created a very sound theory and they did find a correlation between radiation and clouds, but then a decade ago the continued data and revision of data from the decade before showed large deviation from their prediction. At the same time their theoretical-mechanistic studies at CERN disproved the formation of particles relevant for cloud seeding by cosmic radiation. I think Svensmark did prove himself a real scientist in conceding the data was against the theory. I think he is hard at work expanding the understanding of radiation and climate. There clearly is an effect of radiation as we know from the sunspots and LIA correlation. Just the last 50 years the sunspots indicate cooling and we see warming which indicates the effect of GHGs exceed the sun's influence.

HR - Influence of planet synodic cycles on earth climate has been investigated for years. One peer reviewed paper is here: http://www.publish.csiro.au/AS/pdf/AS06018

I only used an approximation of the net of observed ocean cycle SST variations such as AMO, PDO and ENSO as noted in Section 1 and graphed in Sections 11 & 12 of my analysis. Their cyclic characteristic, one of which has been investigated for 1000 years suggests resonance of some probably external forcings.

DP

Ever read an IPCC-reports? If not then it is your scientific duty to read at least the latest the latest and show us in your blog where it is wrong in the conclusion that it is manmade CO2 and the sister GHGs are warming climate since 1950

Harry ten Brink Dan Pangburn Henrik Rasmus Andersen

Can you please help me understand the relationships?

1. Concentration of CO2 is increasing in atmosphere (well-mixed greenhouse gas)

2. Well-mixed means newly added CO2 has spread in the atmosphere homogeneously

3. Newly added CO2 has additional capacity to contribute in atmospheric warming

CO2 is a GHG, concentration of CO2 in atmosphere is continuously increasing, and we are calculating their impact after they got well-mixed in the atmosphere. If so, why the world experiencing extreme hot in New Zealand and extreme cold in USA.

As I can understand, In presence of additional CO2 in the atmosphere, temperature in any part of the world must not fall below average.

To Shahab Uddin

What you ask is weather not climate. Climate is the average weather over a long period (of decades). Additional CO2 only gives a one degree increase in the average of the global temperature. What you point out are the large differences for a relatively small region for a small period of time.

Shahab, I agree with HtB on 1, 2 and why extremes (it’s weather).

I list multiple examples that CO2, in spite of being a ghg, has little, if any, effect on climate.

All absorbed photon energy is thermalized i,e, shared with surrounding molecules which warms them. The ghg emit radiation according to the temperature of the layer of air. This absorb/emit goes on throughout the atmosphere.

There is a huge gradient in water vapor (also a ghg) from average of about 10,000 ppm at sea level down to (because of the low temperature) about 32 ppm above about 10 km. This huge gradient in WV population results in much of the absorbed energy being radiated to space by WV. The demonstration of this is the notches in graphs of top-of-atmosphere radiation vs wavenumber.

The ppm of CO2 is essentially constant throughout the atmosphere. This means that above 10 km or so CO2 molecules outnumber WV molecules about 410/32 so CO2 dominates radiation emission above 10 km so more CO2 molecules actually helps radiation of energy to space above 10 km.

My reasoning for the observation that more CO2 does not cause warming is that the warming from increased CO2 at sea level is compensated by increased cooling from increased CO2 above about 10 km.

This is explained further at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

Harry ten Brink Definitely what I am talking is weather, a small sub-set of the changing climate.

My question was, the weather what we are experiencing today is a product of the climate change. And if climate change is a product of CO2, with the additional CO2 today must be hotter than yesterday. The extreme cold in Chicago has broken her 40 year record. we observe changes in 30 years to assess climate. If so, what is governing our climate.

See my reply of March 11 for various causes.

Thanks Donald Bogard

I think my papers answer your questions. The sun is the sole driver of climate change. I have quantified the contributions and discovered the main drivers and the mechanisms. Dimitris Poulos

The most-overlooked factor in the cause of temperature increase since the depths of the Little Ice Age is the rise in water vapor. A top-down analysis can be a do-it-yourself project on a personal computer. The analysis at http://diyclimateanalysis.blogspot.com shows the water vapor increase caused about 70% of the temperature increase since 1909.

Doubling of atmospheric CO2 increases global temperature by ~1.1C. The ICPP reports that additional warming is produced by warming feedbacks, of which (as you say) water is most important, both the greenhouse effect of vapor as well as cooling (albedo) and warming (downward IR) effects of clouds. But the actual CO2 climate sensitivity has a wide possible range (even admitted by IPCC), and how much feedback warming occurs depends on the poorly known value. This implies the temperature magnitude of water vapor is also uncertain. (It obviously is quite variable in space and time.)

Your graph nicely illustrates influence of factors other than CO2. I used the similar HADCrut temperature data and atmospheric CO2 to determine the following. From 1910 until 1940, global temperature increased by ~0.5oC, for a rate of increase of 0.17oC per decade. Over this same time, atmospheric CO2 increased by ~12ppm (300-312 ppm). The temperature increase per unit increase in CO2 was ~0.042oC/1ppm CO2. From 1940 until 1970, temperature decreased slightly (~0.1oC) while CO2 increased by ~20ppm. (Year-to-year temperature variations make small temperature changes difficult to determine.) From 1970 until 2000, temperature increased by ~0.6oC, or ~0.2oC/decade. During this 30-yr period, CO2 increased by ~45ppm (325-370 ppm), and the rate of temperature increase per unit of CO2 was ~0.013oC/1ppm CO2

Although the rate of temperature increase over 1910-40 and 1970-200 were similar, the warming rate divided by CO2 were not – 0.07 versus 0.013. Clearly CO2 alone cannot explain the faster temperature increase in 1910-40, and other natural factors (forcing or feedbacks) must be involved. Although some have suggested cooling over 1940-70 occurred due to volcanic aerosols, your graph shows cooling began before these and continued long afterward. Volcanoes typically affect temperature for only a year or two.

Your graph also nicely shows an approx. 60-year temperature cycle. This is the approximate AMO (Atlantic Meridional Oscillation) In my opinion, variations in deep ocean mixing, exchanging warming surface water with deep very cold water, as do ENSO events (el Nino, la Nina) influence decadal temperature much more than is recognized. If natural factors (such as the AMO) displays in temperature prior to 1970, logic dictates a natural warming cycle likely also contributes to the rise in 1970-2000. This implies the warming rate in this time is not all do to increasing CO2, and that the CO2 sensitivity is lower than commonly assumed (but not assumed by all).

Donald

You will like

https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/

fig 1

and esecially the 3d figure

and then: theoretically T should increase linearly with the log of CO2

Therefore "doubling" is the keyword for warming

DB,

Seven compelling demonstrations that CO2 has little if any effect on climate are listed in http://diyclimateanalysis.blogspot.com . Also included is the apparent reason why CO2, in spite of being a ghg, has no significant effect on temperature. The match between measured average global temperature and calculated (sans CO2) is 98+% 1895-2018. How do you rationalize denying that CO2 has no significant effect on temperature?

The world has been lied to by politicians who seek to control its inhabitants. The irony is that CO2 has no significant effect on warming and has increased crop yield by about 15% or more but the planet is still impoverished for CO2. About 70% of planet warming since 1909 has been from water vapor increase which is accurately measured worldwide via satellite. WV increase correlates with irrigation increase.

DP

CO2 does affect atmospheric temperature. The science on this is robust. It is the relative amount of the CO2 effect (and its feedbacks) that is disputed.

Many satellites (used for weather and other purposes) monitor IR radiation into space. Such IR loss is Earth's only way of cooling. IR fluxes into space at those wavelengths at which CO2 absorbs (about 8% of the total) are much lower than if they had not been absorbed, but emitted from the surface. The reason is that those CO2 wavelengths are being emitted from high in the atmosphere (typically 12-15 km), where CO2 amounts at higher altitudes are insufficient for another absorption. The CO2 IR emission rate at these cold temperatures is much lower (the T^4 relation), meaning energy loss from Earth has been slowed. The Earth's atmosphere and surface are forced to warm to regain energy balance.

When your TV weatherman shows satellite images of cloud locations and temperatures, he is using these kinds of satellite data.

This concept is simple, based on many data measurements (not a blog), and quite well understood in physics. We are not talking climate models here, which are far more uncertain.

DB,

I agree, it is the relative amount of CO2 effect that is in dispute. What I have found is that the CO2 effect is not significantly different from zero.

The only robust science about CO2 that I have seen is the laboratory measurements that demonstrate it is a ghg. To be more complete wrt climate the science must include a recognition and understanding of thermalization (ghg molecules absorbing IR and sharing the absorbed energy with surrounding molecules), an explanation of what happens to the energy ‘missing’ from the CO2 ‘notch’ in TOA graphs of radiation flux vs wavenumber and an explanation for the pronounced ‘hash’ in the TOA radiation flux at the water vapor wavenumbers.

Perhaps you could provide a link to an explanation of these things other than mine at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . But that alone does not necessarily drive the CO2 effect to zero. The CO2 effect is driven to zero by rational examination of all historical data, much of which is presented at either link (above). I have never seen a rational explanation of why temperature trend changed direction before the CO2 trend did (according to Vostok data from the last and previous glaciations). Another observation is that the GCMs, which have CO2 as the driver, have been since about 2002 showing a temperature increase rate about twice measured.

A corroboration that CO2 is not significant is that recognizing the increasing water vapor as a factor and excluding CO2 results in a nearly perfect match to measured average global temperature over the period examined, 1895-2018.

DP, I address some of your questions.

1) The "hash". That 15 micron (667) CO2 wavenumber is not a single quantum absorption--emission. It is a band of several vibrational resonances each coupled with many rotational resonances. These combinations occur across a very wide IR range of about 10-20 microns, but typically decrease in intensity the further removed from 15u. This characteristic is what produces the wide 15u absorption feature in your figure and why it has a quasi V-shape. ALL IR absorptions--emissions have this type of character, including water Solids only seem to emit continuous IR because so many different energy bonds are included. But examined in detail their IR emission--absorption is made of a huge number of fine quantum absorptions.

2) Lost energy. Yes, when a C=O bond absorbs IR, that extra energy is orders of magnitude more likely to be transferred as kinetic energy to other gas molecules, rather than be emitted as IR. That is how the atmosphere is warmed. But because NO energy is lost from Earth in this process, no cooling results. Only IR emitted to space loses energy. The 15 micron CO2 band slows that energy loss and forces Earth to warm some, until the higher atmosphere temperature increases the rate (by T^4) that ALL IR emissions occur, thus increasing overall energy loss. So the C=O bond energy is eventually lost across a range of IR emissions.

3) Glacial periods. Warming and cooling during glaciation events precede changes in atmospheric CO2 (by centuries) because CO2 was NOT the primary driver of the temperature change, but responded to it. Earth's orbital cycles (Milankovitch cycles) were teh primary drivers. These change solar TOA insolation in the north polar regions by up to 100 watts/m^2 for periods over tens of thousands of years. That changed Earth's albedo through growing ice cover and land--vegetation changes. CO2 responded to these changes through its solubility in oceans and through changes in photosynthesis and soil activity. But CO2 greenhouse probably did contribute to the overall temperature change.

Strange situations become clearer once one understands the basic science underlying them.

DB,

1) I believe that your description of CO2 emission “It is a band of several vibrational resonances each coupled with many rotational resonances.” is somewhat misleading. The 15 micron band is produced only by the two lateral vibration modes of the CO2 molecule. The broadening at 1 atm, commonly called ‘pressure broadening’ results from quantum mechanical effects. At high altitude (say 50 km) there is little pressure and essentially no broadening resulting in a spike. The spikes are shown at discreet altitudes in graphs from MODTRAN6. I show this in Section 5 of my blog/analysis at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com as well as the TOA graph above. The other two CO2 vibration modes are at higher frequency than the range of significant radiation at earth temperatures so they don’t participate in the GW issue.

The active frequencies of both WV and CO2 molecules are also shown in graphs produced by Hitran.

IMO the hash at WV wavenumbers results from the decline in population of WV molecules from about 10,000 ppmv at surface to 32 ppmv at top of troposphere (about -50 C). As the population thins out more of the emission from WV molecules makes it all the way to space. The hash indicates the altitudes (temperatures) over which the emission originated.

2) I found data that quantified the relaxation time for CO2 molecules and show it in Section 4 of my blog/analysis. I think it is important in understanding this stuff to be aware that, on average, there are about 25 times as many WV molecules as CO2 molecules and each WV molecule can absorb/emit over a much broader wavelength range than a CO2 molecule.

3) Your explanation for glacial periods sounds good to me except at the depths of the last glaciation a lot more land (the continental shelf) was exposed with a lot less ocean surface area (my guestimate 8% less). Sea level was about 120 m lower then. I have read that WV was low then. That probably contributed to the cooling. The Vostok ice cores showed that temperature trend always changed direction before CO2 trend. An event cannot have been caused by an event that followed it.

especially in my last paper (2016) I have explained how sun drives climate and all the mechanisms that explain and quantify the solar variations and the derived climate variability. there is even an explanation of the solar wind phenomenon.

Dimitris,

Thanks for your comments. Following your name using Google, disclosed a plethora of information I had been vaguely suspecting but had previously found little information on.

I expect this to eventually substantially explain the net of ocean surface temperature cycles with period approximately 64 years. Probably some sort of resonance pattern which came sharply in phase in the middle half of the 20th century. Reconciling your work with that of Valentina Zharchova should be useful

In my work, an approximation of the net of ocean cycles in combination with the influence from solar cycles with amplification ala Svalgaard quantified by relation to SSN account for about 30% of average global temperature increase since 1909. The remaining 70% or so being explained by the approximately 9% increase in the ghg water vapor since then. The calculation procedure is documented at http://diyclimateanalysis.blogspot.com . Uncertainty in the effective thermal capacitance of the planet is a major contributor to uncertainty in the percentages. This uncertainty should diminish if the quiet sun continues.

Dan,

there are two solar drivers, solar activity and irradiance and the solar wind effect. Solar wind pares with qeomagnetic field and is responsible for cloud formation.

The 60 year ocean cycles count for the internal system variability and pair with the above two cycles for a complete explanation of temperature variations on Earth.

DP

Every IR absorption—emission involves a quantum state. The 15u (667 wavenumber) is from the v2(o) ground state to the v2(1) state and has the greatest intensity. From that excited state, several IR absorptions—emissions occur to several other v2 states having IR energy changes with wavenumbers of 618, 668, 721, 647, 689. Then from the various v2 states are IR transitions to v3 states with wavenumbers of 961 and 1064. Rotational energy changes are associated with such v transitions.

The CO2 ground state is most heavily populated, so the 15u transition is much more likely, and energy transitions further away from 15U increasingly unlikely, some by orders of magnitude. You might think such other transitions can be ignored. However, the 15u transition occurs a few hundred times before an IR escapes to space. In contrast, low probability transitions occur much less often, and thus they occur many fewer times before IR loss to space. Further, their emission height to space is much lower, where the atmosphere is much warmer. As the rate of IR emission increases with T^4, this fact raises the effect of these other transitions on Earth IR energy loss. I

n satellite IR spectra taken over deserts, where little H2O is present, the 15u occurs from a very high altitude with temperature 220K or less. But IR emissions at ~14u and ~16u occur from a temperature of ~265K, and IR emission even further away from the primary 15u transitions occurs from near Earth’s surface. This increases the relatively efficiency of these other transitions relative too 15u than would be the case if they all had the same emission height.

D Poulos,

The solar wind does not penetrate the Earth's atmosphere because of its low energy (~1 kev/proton) and Earth's magnetic field. Solar flare protons (energies of 10s of Mev) do penetrate Earth's upper atmosphere, but not into the lower troposphere. However, galactic cosmic ray protons (energy of ~1 Gev) produce a shower of various charged nuclear species in the atmosphere, all the way to the ground for some, and thus are the major factor in producing atmospehric ionization to attract dust and aerosols.

Donald Bogard , solar wind doesn't penetrate atmosphere indeed, but it manipulates geomagnetic field. Geomagnetic field is responsible for cloud formation.

HOW does the Earth's geomagnetic field produce the atmospheric ionization that most advocates think may be responsible for cloud generation???

If you have a different explanation, I would like to see it.

Donald Bogard I have explained it in my papers, the atmosphere is ionized for the rotating earth in geomagnetic field repels electrons upwards. Variations in geomagnetic field produce variations of atmospheric charge.

Where the atmosphere is ionized is very high up, much higher and loser densityn than the troposphere where clouds exist. Accounting for cloud formation in the troposphere via ionization (and aerosol clustering) requires an ionization source there. Netgher the geomagnetic field nor solar wind account for that.

Donald Bogard electricity escapes from the ground to the troposphere to increase its charge and help for cloud formation.

Dimitris

Give a reference for this statement

And I provide you the real reply here

It is absolutely not the case

The aerosols on which cloud droplets form are ionic species that have abundant charges themselves so that they do not need a single extra charge

To give you a number: average cloud nucleus has a size of (at least) 100 nm

that contains faro ver ONE MILLION ions=charges

Harry ten Brink I have explained this in both my 2016 paper and a nice presentation I made (available here). It is simple physics for a charge moving in a magnetic field. Electricity escapes from the ground to the troposphere because of the geomagnetic field to participate in cloud formation. Geomagnetic field intensity decides the electricity balance of the atmosphere and the amount of electric charge charged particles in atmosphere carry as well as the height they gather .

Dear Dimitris Poulos and Harry ten Brink

i have got below references related to geomagnetic field, cloud formation and climate change. hope these can support the discussion

1. Campuzano, S.A., De Santis, A., Pavón-Carrasco, F.J., Osete, M.L. and Qamili, E., 2018. New perspectives in the study of the Earth’s magnetic field and climate connection: The use of transfer entropy. PloS one, 13(11), p.e0207270.

2. Kitaba, I., Hyodo, M., Nakagawa, T., Katoh, S., Dettman, D.L. and Sato, H., 2017. Geological support for the Umbrella Effect as a link between geomagnetic field and climate. Scientific reports, 7, p.40682.

3. Svensmark, H., Enghoff, M.B., Shaviv, N.J. and Svensmark, J., 2017. Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei. Nature communications, 8(1), p.2199.

Dimitris Poulos Harry ten Brink Donald Bogard

Thanks a lot for supporting the discussion with all the valuable information. attachments are for your reference.

Interesting discussion!

@Shahab Uddin rather than geomagnetic field playing an indirect role to climate through galactic cosmic rays, as the links above propose, I prefer the explanation of geomagnetic field's direct role to electricity transfer to the atmosphere and cloud formation. As I have stated before and in my papers and texts geomagnetic field's intensity determines the amount of electricity to escape from ground to the troposphere.

mr Udin

The Svensmark hype is on the (few) ions arriving from space

Dimitris

Give quantitative figures like I gave you above

A single charge does not serve as a cloud nucleus

I suggest the book of Pruppacher and Klett: Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation

or Twomey (of the Twomey effect of aerosol on climate, via clouds) Atmospheric Aerosol with a very good even short descriptionn of cloud formation

Harry ten Brink I suppose this is a new idea? They hadn't thought about it? Where do aerosols get their charge from? From the ground. Without charge there wouldn't be ions. A strong geomagnetic field favors electron escape from the ground to the atmosphere. It is simple physics law.

thanks Dimitris Poulos Harry ten Brink

can magnetic reversal -well recorded in sea-floor rock- significantly contribute in climate change or weather dynamics ?

Dimitris

Aerosols contain IONS=charged atoms and molecules

Seasalt: Na+ and Cl- millions in one particle

Sulphate (from natural DMS or SO2): SO42-

Shahab Uddin this is an interesting issue. During magnetic reversal there will be no clouds and rain, only haze and humidity.

Dimitris

What are you writing now?!

no clouds or rain with change of magnetic reversal based on what?

Aleš Kralj Harry ten Brink during magnetic reversal instead of repelling electrons from ground to atmosphere, electrons gather to the center of earth, atmosphere is left with no charge for cloud formation.

Dimitris Poulos Harry ten Brink Aleš Kralj

The hypothesis by McCormac and Evans (1969) assumes that the Earth's magnetic field disappears entirely during reversals.

Thanks Aleš Kralj

but what I think is, all what we have presently are hypothesis... McCormac and Evans (1969) and your youtube link... youtube link is not a scientific reference ..however, as long as we are dealing with hypothesis, it does not matter it is developed now or 1969

again, all the sciences we are dealing today not a contribution of 21 century ..time does not matter... if you think you have better scientific publication as theory (not from you tube or any other hypothesis you prefer) please let us know

Its good

Dimitris

Aerosol particles are neutral entities but built up of CHARGED molecules: ions

this has nothing to do with the elctrical field in the atmosphere

Example: SEASALT particles come from seaspray and each particle consists of ONE BILLION of charges

Sulphuric acid particles consist of a MILLION ions:

hydrogen and sulphate

Water condenses on these particles at very low supersaturation because of the large size of the particles and because the charges make them hygroscopic

REPLY on this common basic knowledge on cloud formation?!

dear Aleš Kralj thanks for the sharing

and hope you know that youtube and wikipedia are not a scientific reference. surely we can learn from youtube and wikipedia, but for reference, wee must go back to the original reliable reference

dear Aleš Kralj ... I agree with your last comment "we don't know precisely"

regarding my comment in wikipedia, hope you have read my comment carefully. i said " ... for reference, wee must go back to the original reliable reference ". surely there are many peer-reviewed articles in the reference. but it does not mean 'wikipedia' is peer-reviewed.

however, our discussion was magnetic reversal... surely it is common topic for geologist, oceanographer, and related fields. but, the dynamic effects of magnetic reversal are still under debate. so, when we are discussing on some such issues, better to use specific reference. In google we can get lots of information but surely I cannot use www.google.com as a reference

Harry ten Brink I think you missed my point, ions in the atmosphere are charged and they get their extra electrons because of the strength of the magnetic field that moves volumes of electrons and negative charged particles from the ground to atmosphere and pushes those ions higher in the air.

Dimitris

this is irrelevant for cloud formation no way I missed A point and your point has nothing to do with clouds

Or else explain to the community how clouds form on ions

Harry ten Brink how's this irrelevant for cloud formation? This makes an atmosphere full of charged particles.

Water vapor is a ghg

Since 1988 global measured (NASA/RSS satellite) WV trend has increased 4.4%. Extrapolated to 1909 the approximate WV increase since then is 9%.

At sea level on average, WV molecules outnumber CO2 molecules 24 to 1.

IMO ignoring WV or accounting for it by some means other than measurement is a mistake. The WV increase since it has been measured by satellite (reported on line by NASA/RSS) is about twice that calculated from increased vapor pressure from increased average global temperature.

My calcs show the increased WV accounts for about 70% of the average global temperature increase 1909-2018.

Dimitris

Study cloud formation: For the last time that occurs on aerosols each composed of millions of charges

Harry ten Brink ...millions of charges that come from the ground