Tuesday, June 03, 2008

The “Army” Blames the Sun

There is some internet kvetching going on because someone with The U.S. Army Research Laboratory is claiming the temperature of the earth has to do with the sun. Here is a bit of the pdf file with the comments on Global Climate Models (GCM) and total solar irradiance (TSI).

Is climate sensitive to solar variability?: Modeling TSI variability: Earth’s atmosphere, landmasses, and oceans absorb and redistribute the total solar irradiance (TSI) by means of coupled nonlinear hydrothermal, geochemical, and radiative dynamic processes that produce Earth’s globally averaged temperature at a given time.

The variations in TSI are indicative of the Sun’s turbulent dynamics, as evidenced by changes in the number, duration, and intensity of solar flares and sunspots, and by the intermittency in the time intervals between dark spots and bright faculae. That time variation in TSI induces similar changes in Earth’s average temperature and produces trends that move the global temperature up and down for tens or even hundreds of years. Our conclusions depart from those of the GCM simulations. We maintain that the variations in Earth’s temperature are not noise, but contain substantial information about the source of variability, in particular the variations in TSI.

The true believers that mankind is creating unnatural and dangerous changes are in frenzy because he is not a climate scientist. Well, no. Dr. West is a mathematical physicist. In his own words.

Bruce J. West: I have worked on the applications of discontinuous statistical processes (Levy distributions) to all manner of phenomena including quantum chaos, non-equilibrium statistical physics and the statistics of biomedical time series. Most recently I have worked on the development of the fractional calculus for the study of stochastic processes for which the evolution of the probability density cannot be described by a partial differential equation, but requires a fractional propagation-transport equation.

This is not hard to understand. When a mathematician says the math in the Global Climate Models is wrong, it may be reasonable to doubt the programmed conclusions. CO2 does not equal heat so more CO2 does not mean more heat. Make sense?