Climate hypersensitivity to solar forcing?

International audienceWe compare the equilibrium climate responses of a quasi-dynamical energy balance model to radiative forcing by equivalent changes in CO2, solar total irradiance (Stot) and solar UV (SUV). The response is largest in the SUV case, in which the imposed UV radiative forcing is preferentially absorbed in the layer above 250 mb, in contrast to the weak response from global-columnar radiative loading by increases in CO2 or Stot. The hypersensitive response of the climate system to solar UV forcing is caused by strongly coupled feedback involving vertical static stability, tropical thick cirrus ice clouds and stratospheric ozone. This mechanism offers a plausible explanation of the apparent hypersensitivity of climate to solar forcing, as suggested by analyses of recent climatic records. The model hypersensitivity strongly depends on climate parameters, especially cloud radiative properties, but is effective for arguably realistic values of these parameters. The proposed solar forcing mechanism should be further confirmed using other models (e.g., general circulation models) that may better capture radiative and dynamical couplings of the troposphere and stratosphere

Response of an ocean-atmosphere climate model to Milankovic forcing

International audienceThere is considerable evidence in support of Milankovic's theory that variations in high-latitude summer insolation caused by Earth orbital variations are the cause of the Pleistocene ice cycles. The enigmatic discrepancy between the spectra of Milankovic forcing and of Pleistocene climate variations is believed to be resolved by the slow, nonlinear response of ice sheets to changes in solar seasonality. An experiment with a preliminary version of a 14-region atmosphere/snow/upper ocean climate model demonstrates that the response of the ocean-atmosphere system alone to Milankovic forcing is capable of driving ice cycles with the observed spectrum. This occurs because of the highly nonlinear response of both the thermal seasons and the annual mean temperature to solar seasons, which is caused in turn by the highly nonlinear feedback between temperature and snow and sea ice

Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group One, a panel of experts established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, issued its Fourth Assessment Report. The Report included predictions of dramatic increases in average world temperatures over the next 92 years and serious harm resulting from the predicted temperature increases. Using forecasting principles as our guide we asked: Are these forecasts a good basis for developing public policy? Our answer is “no”. To provide forecasts of climate change that are useful for policy-making, one would need to forecast (1) global temperature, (2) the effects of any temperature changes, and (3) the effects of feasible alternative policies. Proper forecasts of all three are necessary for rational policy making. The IPCC WG1 Report was regarded as providing the most credible long-term forecasts of global average temperatures by 31 of the 51 scientists and others involved in forecasting climate change who responded to our survey. We found no references in the 1056-page Report to the primary sources of information on forecasting methods despite the fact these are conveniently available in books, articles, and websites. We audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder

Climate hypersensitivity to solar forcing?

We compare the equilibrium climate responses of a quasi-dynamical energy balance model to radiative forcing by equivalent changes in CO2, solar total irradiance (Stot) and solar UV (SUV). The response is largest in the SUV case, in which the imposed UV radiative forcing is preferentially absorbed in the layer above 250 mb, in contrast to the weak response from global-columnar radiative loading by increases in CO2 or Stot. The hypersensitive response of the climate system to solar UV forcing is caused by strongly coupled feedback involving vertical static stability, tropical thick cirrus ice clouds and stratospheric ozone. This mechanism offers a plausible explanation of the apparent hypersensitivity of climate to solar forcing, as suggested by analyses of recent climatic records. The model hypersensitivity strongly depends on climate parameters, especially cloud radiative properties, but is effective for arguably realistic values of these parameters. The proposed solar forcing mechanism should be further confirmed using other models (e.g., general circulation models) that may better capture radiative and dynamical couplings of the troposphere and stratosphere.Key words: Meteorology and atmospheric dynamics (climatology · general or miscellaneous) · Solar physics · astrophysics · and astronomy (ultraviolet emissions