quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
For anyone who's interested.

The Lockwood/Frohlich Royal Society answer to claims of Solar influence involvement in the recent warming is available here, direct from the Royal Society.

Thank you, thank you for pointing me to this truly peerless article. I'll begin my review by taking a look at what data it did take into account and what it didn't, though should have. Then we'll get into the grisly detail of the article's "smoothing" methodology. And finally, I'll give you something else to chew on.

The article analyzes the international sunspot number, which doesn't correlate perfectly with solar flare activity. See, for example:

quote:

Quoting from http://www.aasmeeting.org/publications/baas/v36n5/aas205/70.htm

The purpose of the experiment was to determine the effect the sunspot number would have on the number and intensity of solar flares. The hypothesis stated that as the sunspot number increased, the number and intensity of solar flares would also increase during the same time period. In the experiment, a 3.05 meter radio telescope capable of detecting the radio wave signals produced by solar flares at 3.7 - 4.2 GHz was constructed. The telescope tracked the Sun during weather appropriate days over a seventy-five day period. Solar flare occurrences were interpreted from the data received. Twenty-two solar flare events were successfully recorded by the telescope and verified by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellites. The results of the experiment did not support the hypothesis. No significant relationship appeared between the sunspot number and either the recorded flares by the telescope or the recorded flares by NOAA. Future research could test the hypothesis that the number and intensity of flare events may be directly related to the size of individual sunspot groups. With the ability to predict the occurrence of solar flares from sunspot activity, it may be possible to prevent the damage to power grids and satellites caused by solar flares.

On the other hand, just as I suspected, the articles doesn't consider the geomagnetic index, and has nothing on solar flare activity other than the following remark:

quote:

Quoting from http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Lastly, we note that transient bursts of solar energetic particles, often associated with very large solar flares, have been observed to have effects on the Earth’s middle and lower atmosphere, including the large-scale destruction of polar stratospheric and tropospheric ozone (Jackman et al. 1993, 2001; Seppa¨la¨ et al. 2004). However, we do not explicitly consider these events further here, beyond their general correlation with sunspot number and open solar flux. This is for a number of following reasons: (i) the events that cause significant effects are sufficiently rare that detecting a long-term trend in their occurrence is very difficult with the limited data available with us, (ii) observations and models show that the ozone can take up to two months to recover, but that after that there is no apparent longer-lived change induced by the transient, and (iii) links between the polar middle atmospheric ozone depletion and the global surface air temperature variation are not clear.

First of all, how do the authors know that the solar flare activity can be dismissed? Did they quantify it? All the data points to the geomagnetic index maxima steadily rising for more than a century. And while the sunspot index has flattened recently, the geomagnetic index has not. It is steadily rising:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GEOMAG/image/aasspot.gif (up to 1992)
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/RELATED_INDICES/AA_INDEX/
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/

Secondly, if ozone can recover from geomagnetic storms in two weeks, then the huge ozone hole over the Antarctica should have long since gone. Or do you think that aerosols have a special predilection for polar regions?

But, more to the point, I'm surprised the article only mentions the geomagnetic disturbances in relation to ozone depletion. It is not even the main way that the solar wind affects our climate! Much more energy is put into the system by Joule heating. But the article--and even the three alternative theories it mentions--appear to be stuck on the idea that our planet is only heated by sunlight. Even the solar ray hypothesis reduces the impact to modulation of cloud formation, as if only the light matters, as if the charged particles themselves cannot heat the atmosphere! But, according to

http://data.engin.umich.edu/tgcm_planets_archive/Pubs/AGU-2004S-invited.ppt

nearly one sixth of all energy received by Earth from the Sun is due to heating by the charged particles. For giant planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn, Joule heating is three orders of magnitude stronger than heating by solar irradiance.

For more on Joule heating of planets, see:

C.G.A. Smith, S. Miller, A.D. Aylward. Magnetospheric energy inputs into the upper atmospheres of the giant planets. Annales Geophys. 23 (2005).
http://www.ann-geophys.net/23/1943/2005/angeo-23-1943-2005.pdf

R. Raghavarao, R. Sridharan, R. Suhasini. Joule heating due to vertical ion currents in the lower thermosphere over the dip equator. Earth Planets Space 50 (1998).
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/5010/50100833.pdf

S.W. Bougher, J.H. Waite, T. Majeed, J.R. Murphy. Responses by the Mars and Jupiter Upper Atmospheres to External Forcings : Contrasts from TGCM Simulations. American Geophysical Union, Spring Meeting 2004, abstract #SA51B-05.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUSMSA51B..05B

R. J. Strangeway. Plasma waves and electromagnetic radiation at Venus and Mars. Adv. Space Research 33, Issue 11 (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2003.08.040

K.D. Cole, W.R. Hoegy. Joule heating by AC electric fields in the ionosphere of Venus. J. Geophys. Res. 101, A2 (1996).
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/95JA01853.shtml

K. D. Cole. Saturated heat conduction and Joule heating in the Venus ionosphere by 100 Hz fields. J. Geophys. Res. 106, A7 (2001).
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/1999JA000006.shtml

Curiously, astronomers have even discovered a star-heating planet:

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=18712&pid=1114

The article brings up the data on the open solar flux, but no electron counts, no solar wind velocity, and no solar wind energy spectrum--none. Moreover, only the radial component of the solar flux is measured. One can't say much about the electric field by only looking at the co-directional magnetic field's component! Yet it is the electric field strength that affects Joule heating.

Finally, the article uses running means in order to smooth the data. It doesn't mention what running means window function was used but, based on the rather vague, and oriented toward layman readers, illustration of the method, it seems that they have used a step function.

Now, many of you may not be familiar with the running means method, and so may not know how easy it can distort data in certain situations. Rather than laying out the theory, allow me to point you to a very short, but quite insightful, article:

A.R. Webster, G.F. Lyon. On the use of running means in the power spectrum analysis of ionospheric data. Planet Space Sci. 21 (1973)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_ud...7e154bf52aad3d83bc8c

Even though it is strictly mathematical, the above paper applies itself to a subject related to the one at hand. Moreover, it was published so long ago, that it could not have possibly not be known to the authors of the article we here discuss. I think (though I may be wrong) that it is simple enough for anyone without a PhD in Math from MIT to understand it (though you may need to brush up on Fourier transform). But, just in case, and because the paper is not free, allow me to quote from the abstract and the introduction:

quote:

Abstract-Consideration is given to the use of a running mean as a filter to remove unwanted
low frequency components in original ionospheric data, where the intention is to apply power
spectrum analysis to the data. It is shown that, effectively, amplitude distortion will be introduced in general, and this distortion carries through the power spectrum analysis to give results which may be misinterpreted as real effects.

1. INTRODUCTION
The following describes the effectiveness, and limitations, of using running means to filter out very low frequency components from experimental data where the events of interest are quasi-periodic in nature and of rather higher frequency than those removed. In particular, the type of experiment in mind is the observation of travelling ionospheric disturbances, by way of total electron content measurements, or similar means, where the periodic variations represent small changes in the measured parameter superimposed on very much larger longer-period variations. If power spectrum analysis is used, then the limitations imposed by finite sampling intervals and finite record length (particularly the latter) demand that the large-amplitude low-frequency components be removed before the power spectrum analysis proper is attempted. This is discussed in detail by Blackman and Tukey (1959).

The use of a running mean provides a straightforward and effective way of removing the unwanted low frequency components. However, spurious peaks can, and will, be introduced in the final power spectrum by the running mean itself and these peaks may be misinterpreted if some allowance is not made. An example of this seems to have occurred in a recent communication to Planetary and Space Science (Titheridge, 1971) where the peaks in the power spectrum due to the running mean appear at least to contribute to the results interpreted as real effects. This will be discussed in Section 3.

It then proceeds to show, strictly mathematically, how spurious peaks and troughs can be introduced into a perfectly flat data profile--and even make it monotonously rise (or fall)--by different choices of the window function. In fact, for any quasi-periodic and highly volatile data (such as the solar activity data), one can make it "smooth" out into almost anything you damn please.

Lay out the black-and-white graphs of Figure 1 (in the "Recent oppositely directed trends..." article) against the corresponding red-line graphs of Figure 3 of the same article. Does anything strike you as odd? Such as troughs where there clearly ought to be peaks, and peaks where there clearly ought to be troughs. And why, if I may ask, do the graphs in Figure 3 stop shortly after 2000, and not go beyond 2005 as the graphs in Figure 1 do? Even with the so carefully "smoothed" out data, it was the time for the graphs to turn the other way. Could it be the authors didn't wish to confuse the readers even with a meager whiff of a curve going "the wrong way?"

I'm also curious why the data shown in the graphs only begins with 1975. If three quasi-periodic peaks suddenly turn into one, whatever the smoothing technique, it would be a sign that the data series is too short!

That article should not have passed peer review. It's not enough that we are plagued with models that always, one way or another, introduce an implicit ceiling for the atmosphere (and--of course!--anyone knows that a greenhouse with a ceiling works, even without any climate model). But we must have data distortion as well?!

However, there is some data that no AGW model will ever be able to explain, because it's not limited to our planet. The global warming is more global than you think. Not only Earth, but also Mars is warming up--and has begun warming simultaneously. There is data of Saturn warming up, of Neptune warming up, even some preliminary data that Pluto may be warming up too. Last I heard, no humans--nor even aliens--have been detected there.

So, chew on this.

Leo

quote:

Originally posted by leokor:

However, there is some data that no AGW model will ever be able to explain, because it's not limited to our planet. The global warming is more global than you think. Not only Earth, but also Mars is warming up--and has begun warming simultaneously. There is data of Saturn warming up, of Neptune warming up, even some preliminary data that Pluto may be warming up too. Last I heard, no humans--nor even aliens--have been detected there.

So, chew on this.

Leo

How do you explain Uranus cooling then?

From:-

Icarus 153, 236–247 (2001)
doi:10.1006/icar.2001.6698, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com
Uranus after Solstice: Results from the 1998 November 6 Occultation
Leslie A. Young
Southwest Research Institute, 1050 Walnut Street, Suite 426, Boulder, Colorado 80302
E-mail: layoung@boulder.swri.edu

QUOTE

CONCLUSIONS
From two probes of the Uranian upper atmosphere in November 6, 1998, we derive equivalent isothermal temperatures of 116:7 § 7:9 K for immersion, and 124:8 § 15:5 K for
emersion, indicating that the warming trend observed between 1977 and 1983 has reversed. If interpreted as a purely temporal
change, the 1998 observations indicate a cooling rate of3Kyr¡1.
This cooling rate cannot be caused by radiative processes alone.
Thus, the observations presented here strongly suggest that there is a nonradiative energy sink in the Uranian upper atmosphere.
Possibilities for the sink include thermal conduction to the stratosphere,and adiabatic cooling.

UNQUOTE

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
How do you explain Uranus cooling then?

Not all planets are alike. And, as I said before, some planets may receive "preferential treatment" from the Sun, depending on the state of their magnetospheres and the disturbances they cause in the Sun's radial electric field.

At this time, we know very little about Uranus. It has received significantly less attention from our probes and telescopes than other giant planets. We can't even be confident it's cooling, due to the scarcity of measurements. At this time, I cannot offer an explanation with any degree of certainty. But I can make an informed guess.

Uranus has a very peculiar magnetosphere. Its main magnetic poles are nearly aligned along the Sun-Uranus line, and the quadrupole component of its magnetic field is nearly as strong as the dipole component. It may be that such magnetosphere could draw the solar wind much stronger than ours, and thus bring Uranus closer to equilibrium with the Sun's electric field than the other planets are. Thus, the solar flares may have started going in other directions.

Has it occurred to you why, for such a tiny speck in such an enormous circumsolar sphere at 1AU distance, Earth attracts so many of powerful solar flares, hmm? Or do you think they are equally likely to shoot in any direction?

Leo

quote:

When any species "adapts" to its environment, it also changes it. I think we underestimate how much of our environment we have changed by our adaption to it and use of it. True, increases in CO2 may lead to some benefits, but unfortunately it doesn't always follow that the adaption and change process leads to advantages for the species concerned. Any ecologist will tell you that.

James Lovelock believes that the Earth is a fairly resilient thing, and in the past, environmental conditions have bounced back from mass extinctions to allow life to continue. The thing is though that this has tended to take about 100,000 years or so. Does the human race currently have the technical ability to survive such a long hostile period if it were to occur, and some tipping point were reached beyond which increases in CO2 were no longer favourable?

On your first point concerning what ecologists will tell me - I agree where we're talking about a species that cannot be proactive in managing its environment and has to rely predominantly evolution coupled with a return to the preferred environment; but humans are somewhat different, whether it's accelerating evolution through genetic engineering or building flood barriers or even starting to plan to prevent the next asteroid impact etc. So pretty diverse and big stuff that differentiates us from other creatures. Also remember we've essentally built the modern world in 250 years since the industrial revolution (and look at all the adaptations we've made in those few years) and the pace of development is faster and faster across the globe so a lot of fast adaptation is possible when necessary.

On your second point I think technologically we can handle slower changes eg sudden global warming because of the use of aerosols etc to induce cooling. Moving people up hill if there is coastal flooding etc. Asteroids we can't deal with yet, I don't think. And if we were hit by several super volcanoes I think we'd have problems.

quote:

Originally posted by leokor:
Uranus has a very peculiar magnetosphere. Its main magnetic poles are nearly aligned along the Sun-Uranus line, and the quadrupole component of its magnetic field is nearly as strong as the dipole component. It may be that such magnetosphere could draw the solar wind much stronger than ours, and thus bring Uranus closer to equilibrium with the Sun's electric field than the other planets are. Thus, the solar flares may have started going in other directions.

Sorry, this is incorrect. Though the rotational axis of Uranus indeed points at the Sun, the main magnetic axis has a rather big incline. However, the peculiar position of the rotational axis may, according to the following article, result in cooling:

R. Holme, A.P. Ingersoll. Baroclinic instability in the interiors of the giant planets: A cooling history of Uranus? Icarus 110:2 (1994)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_ud...d5c3c8aceb290871acc5

Leo

quote:

Originally posted by leokor:
At this time, we know very little about Uranus. It has received significantly less attention from our probes and telescopes than other giant planets. We can't even be confident it's cooling, Leo

Very true so I was wondering just how much climatic information we have on the other planets in comparison with Earth. We don't have weather stations on Neptune or have carried out Vostock-like coring on Pluto.

Given that we have only recently discovered larger planets than Pluto in the Kuiper belt I suspect our knowledge is minimal.

So what's the ratio of climate knowledge of the other planets to the Earth? Taking a guesstimate with all the weather stations, sampling, satellite coverage, historical knowledge, supercomputer modelling etc. one to a million, billion...?

I suspect the sceptics feel happier cherry picking sparse or negligible data.

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
Very true so I was wondering just how much climatic information we have on the other planets in comparison with Earth. We don't have weather stations on Neptune or have carried out Vostock-like coring on Pluto.

Also very true - but then again, Neptune doesn't yet have large Air Con units - belching out hot exhaust - for the weather stations to be positioned 9 feet away from, nor does the planet have large expanses of new tacmac to reflect heat up into a station built just above it. Nor can they be positioned within a few feet from south-facing brick walls on Neptune.

Maybe we should follow the example set on Earth and install weather stations on Neptune now... build all this stuff around them in 20 years time... and then be AMAZED that their data records a temperature rise?

That's a funny site all right but it does show that's there's tons of weather stations.

Ah well - when in trouble Realclimate to the rescue... Don't know why they put "unequivocal" in quotation marks. Anyone know?

QUOTE
It has been estimated that the mean anomaly in the Northern hemisphere at the monthly scale only has around 60 degrees of freedom - that is, 60 well-place stations would be sufficient to give a reasonable estimate of the large scale month to month changes. Currently, although they are not necessarily ideally placed, there are thousands of stations - many times more than would be theoretically necessary. The second error is obvious from the fact that the recent warming is seen in the oceans, the atmosphere, in Arctic sea ice retreat, in glacier recession, earlier springs, reduced snow cover etc., so even if all met stations were contaminated (which they aren't), global warming would still be "unequivocal".
UNQUOTE

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
Very true so I was wondering just how much climatic information we have on the other planets in comparison with Earth. We don't have weather stations on Neptune or have carried out Vostock-like coring on Pluto.

Ah, but they warm up so much faster than Earth does that it is impossible not to notice. The colder the planet, the faster it warms up (the Stefan-Bolzmann law depends on the fourth power of temperature) and, as I have pointed out before, the giant planets get ~1000 times more energy from the solar wind's charged particles than they get from sunlight.

You may need a lot of weather stations to detect a piddling change of less than 1 degree. But if the martian polar caps are receeding at the rate of several miles a year, if the Saturn's and Jupiter's surface temperature goes up tens of degrees, and some of their moons are melting, then it becomes rather obvious, don't you agree?

Leo

[QUOTE]Originally posted by realprimate:
Ah well - when in trouble Realclimate to the rescue... Don't know why they put "unequivocal" in quotation marks. Anyone know?
It means you are using someone's opinion to "rescue" yourself from the "trouble" you inevitably find yourself in by being dependent on using someone's opinion rather than fact.

I think the scientific name for this is "Chasing one's own tail".

quote:

Originally posted by leokor:
and some of their moons are melting, then it becomes rather obvious, don't you agree?

Leo

Melting? ?? Well - I think these proxy measurements are a side issue anyway as they can directly monitor the sun. (Reminder. The subject of this thread).

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:

I think the scientific name for this is "Chasing one's own tail".

I think the non scientific term is "if you don't know then ask someone who does". Nothing better than asking a real live climatologist about weather stations (whither stations?)

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
Melting? ?? Well - I think these proxy measurements are a side issue anyway as they can directly monitor the sun. (Reminder. The subject of this thread).

By the same logic, one could say that it is enough to measure the CO2 content in the atmosphere to show that it causes the warming. Why any weather stations? Why drill any ice cores? Etc.

It is symptomatic that the study that is the subject of this thread selectively chooses the data it wants, manipulates them the way it wants, and does NOT, in fact, take into account the solar measurements that are really important (see my posts above).

Would you be so kind as not to point me to the climate model that takes Joule heating into account? 'Cause if they don't, then they're losing about a good share (by some estimate, up to a sixth) of all energy Earth receives from the Sun. What would adding it do to the models, I wonder?

Leo

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Roger58:
doesn't yet have large Air Con units - belching out hot exhaust - for the weather stations to be positioned 9 feet away from, nor does the planet have large expanses of new tacmac to reflect heat up into a station built just above it. Nor can they be positioned within a few feet from south-facing brick walls on Neptune.

QUOTE]

Hey Roger

global warming has been detected from sea-based measurements (Gille 2002, Levitus et al. 2000).

Floating aircon units maybe?

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
Melting? ??

Oh, one could rather say "sublimating," but it's actually more than that. The growing solar wind contribution has intensified certain processes in Jupiter's and Saturn's magnetospheres. As most of their moons reside entirely within the magnetosphere, the electric discharges like Jupiter-Io, Jupiter-Europe, Saturn-Enceladus, Saturn-Dione result in ejection of more of the moons' material into space. This is better seen with such small moons as Enceladus and Dione. But even Triton shows evidence of warming.

Leo

Leokor,

I can find no pattern of warming in the solar system. There are various changes, found due to the growing observational evidence. Many of which seem to be a result of seasonal changes on other planets.

So do you have a coherent pattern of change in the solar system - a link to previous posts of your addressing this will do fine.

Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
I can find no pattern of warming in the solar system. There are various changes, found due to the growing observational evidence. Many of which seem to be a result of seasonal changes on other planets.

So do you have a coherent pattern of change in the solar system - a link to previous posts of your addressing this will do fine.

True, each individual case, considered on its own, may have many other explanations. The coincidence in time, however, makes one wonder. It would be interesting to run some correlation studies. As I stated before, a number of times, I do not pretend to provide a comprehensive statistical treatment of the matter, simply because I don't have time and money to do serious independent research on my own. I have a day job and a family to feed. So, given the subject of this thread, I comment here on many shortcomings of the published study, on a number of parameters and physical effects that have not been taken into account (such as Joule heating, which may upend the existing climate models), and on various statistical data that still await serious investigation (such as the indications of a solar system-wide global warming).

Do you argue regarding the published study's shortcomings as described in my earlier posts? Do you argue that Joule heating has been taken into account? Do you argue that Joule heating doesn't matter? Do you argue that the possibility of a solar system-wide global warming has been thoroughly investigated and, if discarded, then for what specific reason(s)?

If you answer yes to any of these questions, then by any means, tell us why, so we can discuss it. If you answer no, then I am justified to doubt.

Leo

quote:

Originally posted by leokor:
If you answer yes to any of these questions, then by any means, tell us why, so we can discuss it. If you answer no, then I am justified to doubt.

And, just maybe, someone ought to be given a grant to do the job.

Leo

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
So do you have a coherent pattern of change in the solar system - a link to previous posts of your addressing this will do fine.

Oh, I believe I forgot to answer this. The "Greenhouse it ain't" thread on this very forum has, toward the end of it, a number of links--admittedly, to press releases; a serious investigation still awaits its heroes. It is not my fault that the grant money are divided in you-know-what way (such as to produce the published study this thread is about).

Oh, and feel free to browse the various article links listed above as to the validity of the planetary Joule heating phenomenon.

Leo

Leokor,

There really is no reason to view the changes observed in the solar system as being anything but coincidental. All of the below are claimed to show that, but for each there is a reasonable alternate theory.
_______________________________________________________

Mars: