Saturday, June 30, 2007

More On the Relationship Of Global Warming To Ocean Cycles and Solar Energy Trends

This excellent article convincingly demonstrates the relationship between solar energy input and oceanic cycles and global warming. These processes are entirely natural, and certainly show no connection to carbon dioxide emissions. The United Nation's IPCC has intentionally or not, gotten the cause of global warming wrong.

Temperature Cycles in North America, Greenland and the Arctic,
Relationship to Multidecadal Ocean Cycles and Solar Trends
By: Joseph D’Aleo, CCM and George Taylor, CCM
AR4 devoted many pages to a discussion of mulitdecadal ocean teleconnections and various solar factors but in the end discounted them or concluded their relationship with climate changes were at best uncertain.

IPCC chapter 3 defined the circulation indices including the short term and decadal scale oscillations in the Pacific, and Atlantic and attributed their origin as natural. It noted that the decadal variability in the Pacific (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO) is likely due to oceanic processes. “Extratropical ocean influences are likely to play a role as changes in the ocean gyre evolve and heat anomalies are subducted and reemerge”. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is thought to be due to changes in the strength of the thermohaline circulation. But in the end they do not make any connection of these cyclical oceanic changes to the observed global cyclical temperature changes. They only go as far as making a possible connection to regional variances.

Understanding the nature of teleconnections and changes in their behavior is central to
understanding regional climate variability and change.(AR4 3.6.1)

In chapter 2, the AR4 discussed at length the varied research on the direct solar irradiance variance and the uncertainties related to indirect solar influences through variance through the solar cycles of ultraviolet and solar wind/geomagnetic activity. They admit that ultraviolet radiation by warming through ozone chemistry and geomagnetic activity through the reduction of cosmic rays and through that low clouds could have an effect on climate but in the end chose to ignore the indirect effect.

They stated: Since TAR, new studies have confirmed and advanced the plausibility of indirect effects involving the modification of the stratosphere by solar UV irradiance variations (and possibly by solar-induced variations in the overlying mesosphere and lower thermosphere), with subsequent dynamical and radiative coupling to the troposphere. Whether solar wind fluctuations (Boberg and Lundstedt, 2002) or solar-induced heliospheric modulation of galactic cosmic rays (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000b) also contribute indirect forcings remains ambiguous. (AR4

For the total solar forcing, in the end the AR4 chose to ignore the considerable recent peer review work (including Svensmark (1997, 2006), Lockwood and Stamper (1999) Solanki et al. (2004), Shaviv (2005) and Scafetta and West 2006) and in favor of Wang et al. (2005) who used an untested flux transport model with variable meridional flow hypothesis and reduced the net long term variance of direct solar irradiance since the mini-ice age around 1750 by up to a factor of 7. This may ultimately prove to be AR4’s version of the AR3’s ‘hockey stick’ debacle.

In this supplement, we will discuss how the ocean multidecadal cycles and secular changes in direct and indirect solar influences are much stronger candidates for explaining the observed cyclical temperature variations in the United States, Greenland and the arctic than the greenhouse effect.

(the remainder of this article is here:

No comments: