A High I.Q. Book Reviewer Shows She Can Fall Prey To Stupidity and Nonsense

Carolyn Dane is a reviewer of assorted books for the Intertel regional newsletter 'Port of Call', Intertel being the society for those in the upper 1 percent of I.Q.  In general her reviews are sober assessments of the fare on offer, but occasionally even the best and brightest can be led astray - perhaps because their own political ideology perturbs their perceptions and distorts their reasoning. Such was the case of her recent review ('Port of Call', Feb-March, p. 5) of Mark Steyn's book, 'A Disgrace to the Profession' where he conducts his own jeremiad against University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann and his hockey stick graph. At the outset Dane writes:

"This is a reference book rather than a book to read. It's a definitive refutation of the claim that most scientists believe in the dangers of global warming"

Okay, first, I hate to correct Ms. Dane, but this is no "reference book". A reference work, such as editor John Eddy's for solar physics ('The New Solar Physics, AAAS Symposium, 1978 ), would contain content from actual, past peer reviewed papers published in established,  refereed journals or content from cited monographs by leaders of the discipline. This book has neither, only an inane assembly of colloquial critiques from hacks and scientific has-beens (most not even climate science specialists) mixed with other quotes taken out of context. 

Dane continues:

"One hundred and twenty eminent scientists here, some Nobel laureates with impressive credentials, denounce Michael Mann and his hockey stick chart on which so much fraudulent global warming argument is based."

Let's back up here a bit and first note that, according to The Yale Scientific review of Steyn's book:

 "Steyn does not deny climate change, nor does he deny its anthropogenic causes. His issue, as he puts it, is with the shaft of the hockey stick, not the blade".

See, e.g.

http://www.yalescientific.org/2015/11/book-review-a-disgrace-to-the-profession/

This is important because otherwise one is mixing 'apples and oranges' in terms of the basis for objection to global warming which would certainly not then be called "fraudulent" as Dane mistakenly avers. As the Yale Scientific Review goes on:

"His outrage lies not only in the use of poor data, but in Mann’s deletion of data in ignoring major historical climate shifts such as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period."

And while we are at it, let me note that Mann's findings were later vindicated. As noted by Rational Wikipedia:

"After the M&M fiasco, a number of climatologists published their own reconstructions of global temperatures from independent lines of research that vindicated Mann's research by showing similar if not identical trends in temperature. Another attempt to discredit the work of Mann came in 2006 with the release of the Wegman Report, which recycled the M&M models and was largely plagiarized."

"M&M" (according to Rational Wiki) refers to  "Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, neither one an actual climatologist (the former a crank blogger and the latter an economist, to be specific), released a number of papers and articles criticizing the hockey stick, two of which managed to get published in scientific journals, and offering their own "reconstruction" of temperatures (often referred to as the "M&M model"). Their "research" was roundly demolished for using algorithms that massively cherry-picked data to the tune of excluding over 80% of the recorded temperatures in some cases to resuscitate the large variations in historical data and "hide the increase" in 20th century temperatures"

 In addition, Mann's exclusion of both periods (Maunder Minimum and Medieval Warming) was quite justified in that both periods were vastly less significant in terms of the C12: C14 isotope ratios I'd previously explained in a Port of Call from 2006. As the graph below shows (from John Eddy's book, op. cit.) the magnitude of the Middle Ages warming period (relative C14 strength of -18), for example, is less than about one half  the relative effect attributed mainly to anthropogenic sources in the modern era (-40). The Maunder Minimum cooling shows a similar (albeit slightly larger) fractional change. But again not as much as for the anthropogenic warming spike in ratio at the right end of the graph.

Graph of radiocarbon (C14) excess over C12 over ~ 2,000 yr. period.

Most significantly from Yale Scientific review (ibid.):

"To Steyn, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and all those who supported the hockey stick graph also did a disservice to science by politicizing climate change to the extent that it gives validity to deniers. However, Steyn may be giving these doubters yet more ammo, because he has done nothing to de-politicize the issue. Steyn claims that Mann has drawn his battle lines wrong — but then, so has Steyn, by attacking Mann instead of focusing on the false science."

In effect, the attacks on Mann himself rather than the science amount to an ad hominem fallacy. Worse, for Steyn, as the Yale Scientific review points out:

"His colloquial tone could be seen as a satirical take on what Steyn refers to as Mann’s “cartoon climatology,” but it eventually subverts his argument by driving the same points over and over while never fully delving into scientific details"

But without the scientific details, again, this cannot be regarded as a reference work. It is more a colloquial polemic against Mann and the "cartoon" use of his hockey stick graph, according to Steyn.

As for the "eminent scientists" Steyn enlists, who are they really? None are of note in the immediate climate arena, and none are even climate specialists. One (Ivar Giaever)  is a 1973 Nobel Physics winner, but is basically a has- been who has done about as much climate science research as a dentist who thinks he can pick up cardiac surgery from encyclopedias in his spare time and emerge as a transplant specialist. As one Skeptic Science entry on Giaever observed:

"While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well.  As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows.  He simply bounces from one climate myth to the next, demonstrating a lack of understanding of Climate Science 101, and then insults the entire scientific field by comparing it to a religion,"

And that about sums up the whole collection of "luminaries" that Steyn assembles for his book.
 
The only reason, indeed, one would fawn over  Steyn’s polemic would be if one is already a global warming skeptic (anthropogenic  aspect denier) who merely seeks confirmation bias. She is likely  also a movement conservative in mindset like he is. Otherwise there’d be no reason to award this absurd load of recycled denier drivel 4 of 5 stars (like so many of the ignorant loons on amazon.com do) given he is no climate scientist. He’s just another pawn doing the bidding of the fossil fuel companies. In this case using selective obscurantist tactics driven by an obsessive compulsive fascination with Michael Mann and his hockey stick.

Here’s a question for Carolyn:  If indeed Steyn’s work in Volume 1 is of such devastating finality,  quintessential clarity, and  ballast, i.e. that it “should end the argument once and for all’ then why hasn’t any of it been published in any peer reviewed scientific journal or even an ancillary journal like ‘Science and Justice’? Why haven't the illustrious critiques from Steyn’s luminaries  been published in any journals of renown? Hell, Physics Today always includes a section for opinion and these iconoclasts could even deliver it there - but I've never seen anything from Steyn's stellar constellation of squawkers.

Oh wait, perhaps this because of the conspiracy theory (well circulated among movement conservatives and their denier spawn) that the formal climate science establishment are all in cahoots so protect each other and keep the naysayers and critics out by selective rejection, . The only problem with this is that it's not how science - a competitive enterprise - works. If I am a journal referee and also a researcher who seeks to publish my papers in the same journal (or similar ones), it does me no service to give your work a pass if it competes with my own. If anything, the competitive peer reviewer is looking for anything to knock down a competitor's work to at least delay its publication. But the fact that over 15,000 peer reviewed papers in support of anthropogenic global warming have been published in the last 25 years puts this myth to rest.

 Sadly, Dane seems to be oblivious to the vast constellation of solid research supporting the validity of global warming science and particularly the anthropogenic contribution. She appears to comically reduce it to pure 'faith' like Giaever does when she babbles:
 
"But of course true believers will ignore it because anthropogenic science is a faith, not science"
 
Which elicits the question how she would know that since she clearly has done no climate science research herself - only chosen to parrot what Steyn and his skeptic cohort have put out. I suggest strongly she consult the position statement of the foremost organization of REAL climate scientists, the American Geophysical Union before she next responds. She (and others) can find the link to that statement on human-induced warming here:
http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

While it is certainly understandable that  unread conservative-libertarian ideologues would have a problem with the current body of scientific data (since it challenges their preconceptions), it serves no rational purpose to simply carp and seethe about “cartoon hockey sticks”  (In any case, it is the Keeling curve, proposed by Charles Keeling of Mauna Loa Observatory, that best embodies the global warming increase arising from anthropogenic sources) .

 Want to make an inroad and show your side is in the right? Publish the serious  work- assuming you have any -  in the peer-reviewed journals for real climate science and stop bellyaching how you're being "persecuted" by the alleged establishment!

Perhaps the best summation of Steyn's book comes from one of the few amazon,com reviewers in possession of his wits and critical thinking skills:

 "Stein has never published a paper on climatology or climate physics. He thinks the top 200 scientific bodies on Earth are wrong. Yet, he cannot come up with enough evidence to show why in a peer reviewed journal. This book is nothing more than a slop for conspiracy theorists inside their glass shell of confirmation bias. It's the equivalent of spraying vinegar to ward of the poison gases from mythical chemtrails. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson said, "the laws of physics are real, everything else is politics". I suspect this will be a big seller among those who only have (the second world standard) high school education. It tells them what they fervently want to believe, even though it's unfortunately not true."

 

New Evidence The Sun Is Cooling: "Salvation" from Global Warming? No

Merely four years ago worries were afoot that the Sun had fallen 'asleep' and we might well be in store for another "Maunder Minimum" - a period of roughly 70 years beginning ca. 1645, which ushered in what's been called a  "little ice age ".  The sunspot counts reduced to zero and with them continental Europe experienced the lowest summer time temperatures in recorded history, and which adversely affected the crop growing season.

In 2009 such fears of a new little ice age were re-awakened, on account of 286 total spotless days accumulated in 2008, and 128 by the time of the 40th Meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society. This was held in Boulder, Colo. on June 12. However, as the meeting opened and specific papers were presented, some of the fears abated. For example, Frank Hill in his lecture 'A Helioseismic Comparison of the Solar Minima Preceding Cycles 23 and 24', noted the current cycle (24) was not yet exceptional - certainly in terms of spotless days aggregated. He pointed to 311 spotless days in 1913, and 287 spotless days for 1901. However, he also noted the lowest solar wind pressure since cycle 15, as well as the lowest irradiance in the modern (space observation) era.

But by early 2010, activity had begun to pick up and since then we beheld the Sun firing up not only large solar flares but coronal mass ejections - although the general trend of activity was still lower than for a typical cycle, see e.g.

Where the cycle in question is at the right side of the graph.  Note the total sunspot numbers generally lie below 100.

If something was disrupting the meriodonal flow and also the solar dynamo - then this pattern would be likely to recur for the next cycle, and hence we'd see the torsional oscillation flow initiated at much higher heliographic latitudes, maybe even 45 degrees or more. One explanation put forward is that the meriodonal flow just below the solar surface is slowing, or perhaps almost ceased. This would delay formation of sunspots at the proper solar latitudes even when high sunspot counts ought to be expected (from standard Babcock-Leighton solar dynamo theory.)

The graphic presented shows one modeling of the solar tachocline subjected to shear, which may account for the pushing up effect on the torsional oscillation flow and slowing of the meriodonal flow.

Now flash forward five years - to yesterday in fact- when it was reported in none other than the esteemed Financial Times, that scientists had found evidence for the Sun "cooling off" and have even forecast a "Grand Minimum" similar to the Maunder Minimum. In fact, the FT cites "1 in 5 solar physicists" as predicting cooler conditions over the next 50 years could rival those seen in Europe during the Maunder Minimum.

But climate change-global warming deniers would do best not to rush in and embrace these findings as a way to pooh-pooh global warming or its import. As I noted above, this behavior was effectively predicted 6 years ago at that SPD meeting when it was noted that changes in the meriodonal flow and also the solar dynamo - "would be likely to recur for the next cycle."  Which is precisely the cycle now being forecast as likely displaying this "grand" Maunder minimum.

For one thing, the total net change in global temperature is forecast to be on the order of  - 0.1C (or -0.1K). That computes to roughly -0.18F.   Six years ago, in his remarkable paper,  'Solar Irradiance: Recent Results and Future Research Plans',  Thomas N. Woods of the University of Colorado dealt with the solar irradiance aspect as it pertains to the Cycle 24, and in particular measurements made at the time.

Woods began by noting the assorted recent periods wherein irradiance measurably varied, including: the Medieval maximum, the Sporer minimum (1400s), the Maunder minimum (1600s), and the Dalton minimum (1800s). He noted with some emphasis that there is no single uniform value to characterize a time interval or period, since the irradiance itself can vary hugely on small or local scales. For example, solar flares can propel irradiance increases 50 times over normal and thereby briefly affect the radiance.

On average though, with such violent inputs smoothed out, the Earth's temperature changes by about +0.07 K (kelvin) over a solar cycle. Compare this to the 1.6 K change (current est. increase) arising from global warming over the past 100 years mostly traced to human use of fossil fuels. Thus, the greenhouse component is nearly 23 times greater.

Even if the solar forcing on climate is enhanced by positive feedbacks the amplification is usually no more than a factor 2. So that 0.07 K increases become  0.14 K increases. The human component is still more important by a factor 11.4, a point made by Woods when he emphasized that the recent results support the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the primary contributor. This despite all the politicos, think tanks and yahoos who keep blabbering that climate change arises from "natural cycles" - meaning the Sun is responsible.

Now, let's consider this projected -0.1K cooling in context. What does it really mean given the preceding? It means at most 0.1K lower temperatures relative to the AGW (anthropocentric greenhouse warming) -forecast increments. In other words, if AGW now forecasts a 2.6K - 3.5 K increase by 2100 that now becomes 2.5K - 3.4K. If humans somehow get their acts together and get serious about controlling carbon inputs maybe we can still hold the line at a 2.0K increase by 2011 - which would then be adjusted to a 1.9K increase. But let's face it, this isn't too likely given humans haven't shown much pluck even with the climate "hangman's noose" staring them in the bloody face.

Of course, regional differences owing to a number of other factors could render the cooling changes greater. For example, some climatologists are forecasting northern Europe could experience cooling from -0.4C to -0.8 C.  To put this in context again, if a 2.6C increase is projected by 2050 that means for northern Europe the net warming increment could be tamped down to 2.6C - 0.8C =  1.8C which might make the climate barely more tolerable - say without the specter of the 11,000 heat deaths reported in 2003.

But more sober solar scientists aren't prepared to offer much solace, such as Sarah Ineson of the UK Met Office. She's quoted in the FT as saying:

"What the study shows is the Sun isn't going to save us from global warming".

Indeed. Since most solar physicists concur that the solar meriodonal flow - for which a slowing incepts cooling - isn't likely to remain constant over multiple cycles. Thus, for the next 22-year (polarity) cycle, the flow could speed up, with the result that we'd observe many more sunspots emerging at lower (typical) heliographic latitudes with much higher irradiance. Then you'd have the worst possible combination of high solar irradiance and much higher CO2 concentration- which in 35 years, at the rate of 2 ppm/yr would be nearly 400 ppm + 70 ppm = 470 ppm or within the threshold for  the runaway greenhouse effect.

To offer another perspective, during solar cycle 20 – over which I also conducted investigations on solar flares and their effects- the then Solar Max satellite used an active cavity radiometer (ACRIM) to measure temperature increases arising from higher activity – especially as generated by more convection at the periphery of large spots. The differential measured was something on the order of +0.1C at the Sun! Since the radiant energy must now transit 150 million kilometers, and its intensity falls off as the inverse square, one can see this would translate into negligible increases at Earth. In a similar vein, a  -0.1C cooling would translate into negligible reductions for the global mean.

What about longer period increases (or decreases) in solar luminosity associated with its possibly being a variable star – as opposed to sporadic sunspot outbursts?

The maximal magnitude of inherent solar -induced climate variability was probably first highlighted by Sabatino Sofia et al in their paper Solar Constant: Constraints on Possible Variations Derived from Solar Diameter Measurements, in Science, Vol. 204, 1306, 1979. Their estimate was a solar change in irradiance of roughly 0.1 % averaged over each solar cycle. (Irradiance is a measure of the energy per square meter received from the Sun).

Thus – if the solar irradiance effect at Earth (solar constant) is normally about 1360 watts/m^2, this would imply an increase (or decrease) of roughly  +1.36 W/m^2.. The problem is that there is not enough hard observational evidence to support this for any time in the past century – when global warming spiked to serious levels. Some like Sofia have argued that even if it had occurred, it would only engender a temperature change of perhaps plus or minus one-fourth of one degree, or significantly less than what has been documented.

The bottom line, as Dr. Ineson put it, is we should not look to the cooling Sun for our salvation.

I could not agree more!

Difficulties of Integrating Solar Variability into Climate Change

How times have changed in respect to the Sun and what it does! Merely two years ago worries were afoot that the Sun had fallen 'asleep' and we might well be in store for another "Maunder Minimum" - a period of roughly 70 years beginning ca. 1645, which ushered in a little ice age which saw continental Europe with the lowest summertimes temperatures in recorded history, and which adversely affected the crop growing season.

In 2009 such fears of a new little ice age were re-awakened, on account of 286 total spotless days accumulated in 2008, and 128 by the time of the 40th Meeting of the Solar Physics Division, in Boulder, Colo. on June 12. However, as the meeting opened and specific papers were presented, some of the fears abated. For example, Frank Hill in his lecture 'A Helioseismic Comparison of the Solar Minima Preceding Cycles 23 and 24', noted the current cycle (24) was not yet exceptional - certainly in terms of spotless days aggregated. He pointed to 311 spotless days in 1913, and 287 spotless days for 1901. However, he also noted the lowest solar wind pressure since cycle 15, as well as the lowest irradiance in the modern (space observation) era.

But by early 2010, activity had begun to pick up and now we have the Sun firing up not only large solar flares but coronal mass ejections (see e.g. the attached coronograph, from http://www.spaceweather.com/)

The possible variability of the Sun, as well its potential for violent eruptions (in solar flares) makes it a pre-eminent subject of astronomical, and human importance. Indeed, attention to the Sun's behavior extends beyond the domain of esoteric research. Defense agencies and the military, for example, as well as power companies and telecommunications systems, are regular consumers of solar data - specifically flares, but also the particle bursts that result from flares. The data is provided through the 24 hours monitoring of the Space Environment Services Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This is critical because, if conditions are right, energetic particles can saturate the delicate electronic detectors on board a spy or communications satellite (As occurred with the Telstar 401 in January, 1997).

None of this is mysterious, of course. For years short wave fadeouts known as Dellingers originated with the passage of large sunspot groups with their powerful magnetic fields, near the center of the Sun. Solar flares magnify the effects, especially with electronic detectors on aircraft and in satellites. In some cases, large flares (with high x-ray output) have been known to cause malfunctions in navigation systems aboard commercial aircraft.

More recently, key questions have been asked regarding new solar findings (specifically emissions in ultraviolet or UV bands) and the relation to climate change. Evidently, the amount of UV emitted changes much more than the total amount of energy (irradiance) received. The Earth's stratosphere, that region of the atmosphere that is most absorptive of UV radiation, is thus expected to be especially sensitive to UV changes from solar cycle to cycle.

(The irradiance is just the solar radiance - in watts per square meter per steradian - integrated over the full solar disk."Steradian" denotes a solid angle measure. See, e.g. the definitional details (with diagrams) here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steradian)

Needless to say, irradiance has a direct bearing on the issue of climate change and to what degree the Sun is responsible, and especially whether (quantitatively) its irradiance over any one solar cycle or period therein overrides the human-incepted, CO2 -driven, greenhouse effect.

In a paper just published in Nature Geo-Science, Sarah Ineson of the British Meteorological Office, compared the way that the Met Office's improved climate model dealt with winters at times of high UV and low UV. They used data on the amount of UV that the Sun gives off as revealed by the SORCE satellite operated by the University of Colorado, at Boulder. Ineson found that at low UV levels the stratosphere in the tropics was cooler because there was less UV to absorb. This meant the difference in temperature between the tropical stratosphere and the polar stratosphere decreased.

This decrease altered the way the atmosphere circulated and - as the changes spread to the lower atmosphere- this made it easier for cold surface air from the Arctic to come south in winter, freezing chunks of northern Europe. Such conditions look similar to those seen in the past 2 European winters (which occurred during periods of relatively low solar activity as I noted earlier). Meanwhile, the Arctic itself is warmer than usual, as shown in previous blogs - given the degree of ice shelf melting.

Interestingly, this pattern has apparently been observed before, during the prolonged period of solar activity that marked the Maunder Minimum in the 17th and 18th centuries. So what is going on, are we or are we not entering another Little Ice age?

Not! Because recall the data for the severe European winters were taken mainly over the period when Cycle 24 was still dormant (relatively) and the associated solar wind pressure was the lowest since cycle 15, as well as manifesting the lowest irradiance in the modern (space observation) era. So this anomaly would be expected, as would the SORCE data from that epoch reflecting the abeyance in solar activity.

Does this mean climate science has it all wrong and needs to give more credence or input to the Sun? Not at all! What it means, as pointed out during the 40th Solar Physics Division meeting which I attended in June of 2009, is that we need improved solar models! As noted during papers presented in that conference, the behavior of cycle 24 appeared to pose more serious questions for solar dynamo theory. This is the Babcock-Leighton theory that every 11 years or so, magnetic fields on the Sun attain a high torsional component which causes them to "twist" up and also move from more northerly to more southerly solar latitudes where most active regions (ARs) form.

Typically, this is around 22-23 heliographic degrees. But as assorted paper presenters at the solar conference observed, the torsional oscillation flow for the current cycle had been hovering near helio latitude 33 degrees, nearly 10 degrees off. Even moving at about 7 Mm (mega-meters or 10^6 meters) a year southward, this would take over 2 years to reach a latitude of 23 degrees, where large active regions (and spots!) ought to form.

Inteestingly, it was almost exactly two years after that notation that they did - and spaceweather.com reported large spots emerging!

Clearly, the solar dynamo model needs refining, and certainly basic concepts such as the emergence of tachoclines, and the meriodonal flows inside the Sun. To show how amiss we may be, one paper presented in that 2009 meeting displayed beautiful, multi-layered cross sectional views of the meriodonal flows in full color. But when the presenter was asked to show the actual observational data that supported it, nearly ninety-five percent of the colored lines and contours vanished!

Clearly, there's a lot of unwarranted extrapolation. For their part, the torsional oscillations tend to occur about 1000 kilometers below the Sun's surface (photosphere) but we have few instruments that can actually probe that deeply. One refrain one heard over and over in terms of supporting dynamo theory was: 'We need more money!'

If nothing else, and I propose extreme caution here- superior instruments (say designed for solar "sounding") might help to discriminate between the classical (e.g. Babcock-Leighton) dynamo theory and new ones involving "shallow" dynamos. In the latter case, ephemeral photospheric regions (EPRs) might be the first phenomena to be accounted for much in advance of actual sunspots seen as "inverse ion hurricanes". (EPRs, as the name implies, are not very stable or long lasting, usually appearing as small pores, then vanishing in 1-2 days)

In order to work then, a proper shallow dynamo theory needs to present sufficient observations to back up the supposition that a super-adiabatic temperature gradient is largest near the surface and its associated latent energy supports the reaction:

H + (energy) -> H+ + e(-)

[ionization of hydrogen]

As is known from the standard (sunspot) theory of Parker, the "inverse ion hurricane" represented by a large sunspot enables the basis for the latent energy to translate into a convective collapse process so the luminosity can flow out and around the periphery of spots. This is why the more spots there are in a cycle, the higher the solar irradiance, and the higher the mean global temperature of Earth. (One can get variations up to 0.21 K or more). This is often counter intuitive, since spots are actually cooler regions in relation to the Sun's surrounding photosphere, which is roughly 1500 K hotter.

The bottom line is there is much more to learn, and we need more money ....yes, but this must go to better actual instruments to plumb the solar depths...not merely for more sophisticated computers to do more numerical simulations!

In this case, forecasting the basis of future cold winters, say before the onset of solar cycle 25, may depend much more upon the reliability of our solar dynamo models, than on any climate change models. The strongest suit of the latter is to provide us an enhanced and improved look at what happens when a variable such as UV input is altered by the behavior of the Sun. Hence, it is precisely our climate models that can provide ongoing checks on the validity (or not) of our solar models, as opposed to the converse.