By Zbigniew Jaworowski
Zbigniew Jaworowski submitted comments to CCSP-USP report - ‘Report totally ignores studies which disagree with the man-made warming hypothesis’
A striking feature of the Report is a unilateral presentation of information, with an almost exclusive concentration on greenhouse gases, and particularly on the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, as the dominant cause of the Modern Warm Period. The Report totally ignores studies which disagree with the man-made warming hypothesis.
An example of this neglect, one from among many, is a lack of information on cosmo-climatologic research. Recent studies demonstrate a powerful influence on climate of fluctuations of the muon fraction of cosmic rays, caused by variations of Sun’s activity. In the lower troposphere muons create condensation nuclei for water particles, indispensable for cloud formation. Cloudiness, which is directly related to the flux of muons, determines temperature at the surface of the Earth and in the lower troposphere. Short-term fluctuations of muon flux change the cloudiness by 3 – 4% (Svensmark and Calder, 2008). In the Report this is not discussed at all. But the relationship between climate and cosmic ray fluctuation, on the time scales from decades to centuries to millennia, is much stronger than between climate and human emissions of CO2. (Svensmark, 2007; Svensmark and Calder, 2008). Only a 2% increase in cloudiness is sufficient to cancel any climatic effect of man-made emissions of CO2 (Veizer, 2005). The activity of Sun, which was stronger during the last 60 years than for the past 1100 years (Usoskin and al., 2004; Usoskin et al., 2003), is a much more plausible cause of the Modern Warm Period than human emission of CO2. Extremely strong correlation between temperature (estimated from delta 18O in stalagmites) and radioactive carbon-14 (produced by cosmic rays in the atmosphere) indicate that the influence of Sun (modulating the cosmic ray flux) on the Earth’s temperature was about 280 times stronger than the influence of atmospheric CO2 (Mangini et al., 2005). These fundamental studies are ignored in the CCSP-USP Report, making its claim that CO2 man-made emissions are the main cause of the Modern Warming Period unsupportable.
The foundations of the CCSP-USP Report, its “fingerprints” and “human influences”, are based on ice core studies of CO2. However, ice cores are a wrong matrix for reconstruction of chemical composition of the ancient atmosphere. No effort dedicated to improving analytical techniques can change the imperative pattern of polar ice as a non-closed system matrix. Because of this pattern of ice the CO2 ice core data will always be artifacts caused by processes in the ice sheets and in the ice cores, with CO2 concentration values about 30% to 50% lower than in the original atmosphere. The low CO2 ice-core concentrations during the past interglacials, when the global temperature was warmer than now, suggest that either atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate, or that proxy ice core reconstructions of the chemical composition of the ancient atmosphere are false - both propositions are probably true.
The scenarios in the CCSP-USP draft Report are based on unreliable ice core data and on incorrect presentation of the past climatic changes. They should not be used for global economic planning. Under Information Quality Act’s terms this document is not permissibly disseminated so long as it continues to reproduce these false scenarios with the apparent imprimatur of the federal government. The requested change is: (1) to drop all the references to “human influences” and “fingerprints” as they cannot be credibly validated and are in fact empty notions; (2) to present the veritable fluctuation of climatic cold and warm phases over the past millennium; (3) to review the recent cosmo-climatologic studies, and to reflect them in the conclusions and recommendations of the Report. Without such corrections, the statements in this document fail to meet the authors’ claim of representing “the best available information” (p. 14), and “the best available evidence” (p. 15), and otherwise violate applicable objectivity requirements. Read full comments here.