Scafetta-Wilson Paper: Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades

I think Scafetta is onto something.
Having spent a couple of hours trying to absorb
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
this paper also covers similar territory to Scarfetta, some I dont agree with but a good overview.

Interesting to note that even Leif’s TSI track albeit much reducing TSI variability from previous estimates still preserves the match between lower TSI and observed cool periods.
I accept that the match is not perfect but the lack of perfection could well, in my opinion, be a result of ocean cycle variability.
However small the TSI variability actually is there really does seem to be a closer match to climate changes than anything in the CO2 measurements.
The current absence of a generally accepted mechanism is not good grounds for denying the existence of a relationship.

Here is a comparison of Frolich and lean with Willson(1997) TSI reconstruction.
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/TSI_FLvsW.gif

This on Guardian front page
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/14/al-gore-climate-change1
Quotes:
“Gore, awarded an Oscar for his 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, held private talks with Obama in December in which they reportedly discussed the “green” components of the $787bn US stimulus package signed into law on 17 February.”
Tell me how an unelected person like Gore who isn’t a scientist or engineer is allowed to decide, in secret, where US taxpayer money should go?
“Gore says he has also detected a shift in the view of many business leaders. “They’re seeing the writing on every wall they look at. They’re seeing the complete disappearance of the polar ice caps right before their eyes in just a few years,” he says. ”
He is living on another planet. Will the media not take issue with what he says?
Responding to James Lovelock, the originator of the Gaia theory, who said the European trading system for carbon was “disastrous”, Gore says: “James Lovelock has forgotten more about science than I will ever learn.
The founder of Gaia and the profiteer of Gaia have issues with each other. As much as I disagree with Lovelock’s theory of Gaia (it is a theory that I once believed independently years ago and no longer believe) he should fight back against Gore’s rude remark above and he should criticise those who have taken his theories and created a full blown cult.

Considering the barnburning ramp of SC24 these days (another SC23 plage appears) we need something to sink teeth into.

That is interesting about the closed minds at work in the government agencies as revealed by Roger Pielke.
I have two contributions to make: one is about possibly fraudulent public officials; the other is about the Sun.
Fraud
In Australia, if government officials behaved like that –not funding policy relevant research because it would undermine their preferred policy perspective, they would be on the cusp of behaving fraudulently in relation to our Commonwealth Crimes Act.
According to Australian Senior Counsel, to commit fraud in terms of the Commonwealth Crimes Act is to intentionally create a situation prejudicially affecting the Commonwealth in which any of the following occurs:
• dishonestly causing economic loss to the Commonwealth;
• dishonestly influencing the exercise of a public duty;
• inducing the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency to do any act to its detriment.
Quite clearly, the government officials identified by Roger Pielke are trying to create a situation that would prejudicially affect the USA by inducing a US Government to do something to its detriment. The argument in support of this goes along the lines that if the solar science research was funded as others recommended it could produce results which undermined the IPCC hypothesis. If this was achieved, the US Government might not then enact policies which have prejudicial effects. Thus funding solar science research could produce results which would be beneficial to the US Government. Whether US legislation about fraud is similar to Australia’s and whether this fraud argument has a US analogue would be worth exploring by others skilled in US law.
There is also a plausible argument that if Australian officials acted like their US counterparts, they could be committing fraud by dishonestly influencing the exercise of public duty.
The Sun
The Sun affects climate dynamics in many more ways than merely electromagnetic radiation, even though this has been the predominant preoccupation of the scientific community that inquires into this phenomenon.
There is solar plasma, the Sun’s electromagnetic field and the electromagnetic structures created by the Sun in the Heliosphere. See Professor Brian Tinsley’s home page for a good way into this work (http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/faculty/tinsley.html ). His view is that about half of the global warming over the past century can be accounted for by the impact of the solar processes he and associates study.
Additionally, there is the gravitational interaction between the Sun and the Earth, especially, of course, the luni-solar tides. There is a substantial literature on this phenomenon, especially the 18.6 year lunar nodal cycle.
Given this multiplicity of processes, the interaction between them and between them and climate processes becomes a key consideration.
In the early years, before the seekers of the truth enabled their minds to be corrupted by the IPCC meme, US government agencies and NATO funded individual research projects as well as conferences that examined the totality of ways by means of which the Sun might regulate our climate.
Here are some of the conferences from 1961 to 1993. There were several more.
Solar variations, Climate Change, and Related Geophysical Problems, were published by the New York Academy of the Sciences: see Annals of the New York Academy of Science Vol 95, Art 1 pps 1 to 740 October 5, 1961.
Bandeen, William R., and Maran, Stephen P., Possible Relationships between Solar Activity and Meteorological Phenomena Proceedings of a Symposium held November 7 8, 1973 at the Goddard Space Flight Center February 15 1974. This symposium was dedicated to Dr Charles Greeley Abbot, a pre-eminent pioneer worker in the field of the measurement of the Sun’s output and the identification of Sun climate relationships. Dr Abbot, who was aged 101 at the time, addressed the conference, only to die five weeks later.
John R Herman and Richard A Goldberg Sun, Weather and Climate NASA 1978.
McCormac, Billy M., and Seliga, Thomas A., Solar Terrestrial Influences on Weather and Climate. Proceedings of a Symposium/Workshop held at the Fawcett Center for Tomorrow, The Ohio State University, Columbia, Ohio, 24 28 August 1978. D. Reidel Publishing Company 1979.
Elizabeth Nesme-Ribes (editor) The solar engine and its influence on terrestrial atmosphere and climate. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop held in France October 25-29 1993. Published by Springer 1994. For some more history see http://www.agu.org/history/sv/articles/ARTL.html

Grant Hodges: TSI stands for Total Solar Irradiance.

@ Grant Hodges-
TSI= Total Solar Irradiance

Scafetta and Wilson findings coincide with those of Dr Nahle’s in Amplitude of Solar Irradiance and Change of Temperature:
“Last week, Nicola Scafetta and Richard C. Wilson published a peer reviewed paper in which they revealed a considerable Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) increase of 0.033 % per decade between the solar activity minima of 1986 and 1996, which is comparable to the 0.037 % found in the ACRIM composite. The data gathered by satellites, which were reported by Scafetta and Wilson, coincide with my theory of a correlation between the Amplitude of TSI and the Change of the Earth’s Tropospheric Temperature until 1998. In my article “Heat Stored by Greenhouse Gases”, I concluded that the fluctuation of the TSI of the last 300 years had been 1.25 W/m^2, causing a change of the Earth’s temperature of 0.56 °C, which is the maximum averaged change in tropospheric temperature achieved in the 1990s (the average of change of temperature in 1998 was 0.51 °C). The correlation resides in the total change since 1610 AD, which I had calculated was 1.25 W/m^2. The new findings fix the change at 1.32 W/m^2 which would produce a change of temperature of 0.594 °C, while the change I had calculated would produce a change of temperature of 0.56 °C. Nonetheless, both calculations of the changes of temperature based on the fluctuation of the TSI coincide with the natural change observed in 1998 (0.52°C) and with the total natural oscillation of temperature of -3 °C to 3 °C in the Holocene Period.”
http://biocab.org/Heat_Storage.html
http://biocab.org/Amplitude_Solar_Irradiance.html

And it should be TLA (Three Letter Acronym), but what’s a TCN?

Dorlomin,
Please read the paper Lindsay cited. I, also, was willing to concede some CO2 greenhouse effect until I just recently went through this paper. I found the paper to be well done and very thorough in its treatment.
Side note to George Smith from a previous thread: Yes, the 2nd Law was initially formulated dealing with cyclic engines, but the more modern formulation deals with the net increase in entropy by counting accessible microstates. I totally agree a single photon re-radiated from a CO2 molecule can approach the sun and be absorbed, thereby giving the appearance of violating the 2nd Law. However, a more appropriate model is that of two blackbodies at two different temperatures separated from each in the vacuum. They will each radiate and absorb photons from each other. However, the higher temperature BB will have a greater proportion of higher energy photons in its emission spectrum. The number of accessible microstates for the higher energy photons is greater when they are absorbed by the lower temperature BB. Eventually both will reach the same equilibrium temperature as required by the 2nd Law. As the above cited paper argues, to have a net flow of energy (heat) from a cooler object, atmospheric CO2, to a warmer object, the earth’s surface, without adding work to the system is essentially the same as the two BB model I just looked at. The one objection that I could see being raised here is that perhaps the net incoming solar flux could provide the “work” to run this refrigerator.
The paper has many more other lines of attack as Lindsay mentioned.

aron, to be fair, that comment by Gore is a compliment not an insult. it is an old joke to say “that guy has forgotten more than i will ever learn” meaning that they are so learned that they have forgotten more than most will ever even have the chance to learn.

OT
another cycle twenty three tiny tim has formed.

There is consensus across the scientific community regarding climate change….
Oh really? There isn’t even consensus in the AGW community about it.
At the recent Copenhagen conference they were raving about the increasing and accelerating sea-level rise attributable to Greenland ice melting faster than ever and faster than previously feared. Yet, at the same Conference they were presenting calm data that showed that an alleged “melting tipping point” was actually much further away than previously thought as Greenland’s ice is NOT as susceptible to warming as previously assumed.
Both stories carried in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/08/climate-change-flooding (sunday 8th March 2009)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/10/greenland-ice-sheet-climate-change
(Tuesday 10th March 2009)
No points or prizes for guessing which of the two above stories coming out of the Copenhagen conference the BBC reported and which one they ignored!

So when are urban heat islands going to be brought up as a main driver of surface measurement data? I know they say they correct for it, but wouldn’t it be better to move the stations to a proper spot with proper data collection?
The surface stations could be operated remotely now, if it can be done with buoys(JASON) it can be done with surface stations. With the billions being wasted trying to prove a hoax, why not do the simple science stuff first. It would be interesting to see what the results would be if only surface stations that still could achieve accreditation were used.
Unless the obvious answer, you don’t want to know.

“Mike Monce (05:42:26) :
Dorlomin,
Please read the paper Lindsay cited. I, also, was willing to concede some CO2 greenhouse effect until I just recently went through this paper. I found the paper to be well done and very thorough in its treatment.”
Then read one of the rebuttals.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
And while your at it may I suggest drafting a couple of letters, one to Richard Lidzen who famously wrote this….
“”… [T]he impact of CO2 on the Earth’s heat budget is nonlinear. What this means is that although CO2 has only increased about 30% over its pre-industrial level, the impact on the heat budget of the Earth due to the increases in CO2 and other man influenced greenhouse substances has already reached about 75% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2, and that the temperature rise seen so far is much less (by a factor of 2-3) than models predict (assuming that all of the very irregular change in temperature over the past 120 years or so—about 1 degree F—is due to added greenhouse gases—a very implausible assumption).”.”
And another to Freeman Dyson who wrote this widely published piec
“Everyone agrees that the increasing abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has two important consequences, first a change in the physics of radiation transport in the atmosphere”
Id be grateful if you would post any responce from Freeman Dyson suggesting he does not understand basic physics.

Hans Erren (01:12:38) : Here is a comparison of Frolich and lean with Willson(1997) TSI reconstruction. http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/TSI_FLvsW.gif

Is there an explanation for Fröhlich’s reconstruction appearing to be about ten times less variable than Willson’s? One also wonders about the level change before and after 1990 in Fröhlich’s data when compared to Willson’s.

So why does the top graph say “LEIF2007” and not “SVALGAARD2007”? Is Leif the only scientist referred to only by his first name in the literature? 😉

My own pontification in the matter is that while the science may not be settled the politics almost certainly are.

Well, since they at least claim that the science is settled, why should we be expected to continue to fund it? There’s better ways to spend that money right now than on staring at a supposedly already well-established fact. I have a strange feeling that if the issue were approached in that manner, more questions than answers would suddenly appear and require further research.

Mike Monce says:

Please read the paper Lindsay cited. I, also, was willing to concede some CO2 greenhouse effect until I just recently went through this paper. I found the paper to be well done and very thorough in its treatment.
…
As the above cited paper argues, to have a net flow of energy (heat) from a cooler object, atmospheric CO2, to a warmer object, the earth’s surface, without adding work to the system is essentially the same as the two BB model I just looked at. The one objection that I could see being raised here is that perhaps the net incoming solar flux could provide the “work” to run this refrigerator.

No, there is a more fundamental objection, which is that the greenhouse effect does not posit a net flow of heat from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface. This may seem counterintuitive to you since you might think that such a net flow is necessary to get the warming of a greenhouse effect. However, it is not because the situation that we are comparing to is the case of an IR-transparent atmosphere. In that case, all of the energy that the earth radiates according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law goes directly out into space and thus none of it returns to the earth’s surface. So, the fact that in the case of a greenhouse effect, some of the heat that the earth radiates can be absorbed by that atmosphere and then returned to it means that it will be warmer than the IR-transparent case. It is not necessary…and is indeed not the case…that the NET flow of heat be from the atmosphere to the earth.
Hence, the atmospheric greenhouse effect does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
The paper that Dorlomin cited by Arthur Smith rebuts at least one of the other major points of the G&T paper, namely their claim that there is no well-defined average surface temperature (or at least an upper bound on the average surface temperature) of the earth in the case of an IR-transparent atmosphere. (I.e., they claim that it is not correct to claim that the earth, with its current albedo, would be 33 C colder in average surface temperature in the absence of the greenhouse effect…and Arthur shows that indeed this is true, with the only correction being that it would have to be AT LEAST 33 C colder. The 33 C value is if the earth is at uniform temperature…with the number being larger…i.e., more than 33 C colder…due to any non-uniformity in temperature. [My guess is that the earth’s temperature is close enough to uniform that the 33 C value is still pretty close to correct…although admittedly this uniformity itself is due in large part to the greenhouse effect.])

Dorlomin,
“Then read one of the rebuttals.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf”
Thanks for the link. I will read this.

Joel Shore – I understand, the trouble is this illusion that “the science is settled” and states as a fact that the only way to save the world is through extremely unwise policies tailored specifically to suit only one set of ideologies. To present it that way is both unethical and counterproductive, but I realize you’re already aware of that. The real disaster is going to occur when such policies are already causing hardship, leading more people to examine the facts for themselves. As hard is it may be to get people to act on an uncertain risk, the results would be much better in the long run. If one wishes to make sensible policies based on what we believe we understand, that is fine, but if certain people are going to use what they claim to be irrefutable fact as a means to reshape society according to their own vision, the least they could do to maintain their charade is to stop researching what they expect everyone to believe is already beyond dispute. To make matters even worse, I don’t even see how anything being seriously considered right now is going to resolve the alleged problem, which wouldn’t count for very much were I not in the company of far better minds than my own in that regard. If they’re so concerned about it, why turn it into a cash cow instead of actually dealing with it? Combined with the dishonesty, it all paints an extremely revolting picture.

“Joel Shore (10:13:55) :
And technically, no subject in science is settled since science is inductive and can never prove things to absolute certainty. After all, there are still people trying to understand gravity…particularly how to unify what we understand about gravity with quantum mechanics. However, I don’t think many people would argue that we should not base our public policy and other decisions on what we do believe we understand about gravity.”
I’d be interested to hear some broad public policy enacted on the basis of our current scientific understanding of gravity.

“Basil (06:31:46) :
Stephen Wilde (00:54:36) :
Interesting to note that even Leif’s TSI track albeit much reducing TSI variability from previous estimates still preserves the match between lower TSI and observed cool periods.
I accept that the match is not perfect but the lack of perfection could well, in my opinion, be a result of ocean cycle variability.
Stephen,
If you understand where the numbers that show Leif’s TSI come from — sunspot numbers — then the match between Leif’s and the others is not surprising. The dispute, as I understand it, between Leif (and others?) and Lean (and others) is how to relate historical SSN’s to TSI. Regardless of whether you think you can see a match to ocean cycle variability, what you’ve got is more or less a perfect match to solar cycle variability — sunspot numbers — converted to estimates of TSI based on sunspot numbers.”
Interesting point, Basil.
Leif and others have prepared their TSI reconstructions by estimating from sunspot numbers. They are therefore bound to be sinilar in shape but the amount of variation is a matter of personal judgement for each of them.
The colder periods clearly align with lower TSI/sunspot numbers subject to a variable lag from another factor.
I see the oceanic cycles as shifting the climate response to changes in TSI/sunspot numbers around in time, sometimes enhancing and sometimes offsetting the solar influence but overall, given enough time, following it and that is why we see the cooler spells approximately coincident with the lower TSI/sunspot numbers.
I suggest that the oceanic variability is capable of enhancing or reducing the size of the solar variability by multiples of 5 to 10 times depending on the netted out influence of all the various ocean cycles which most of the time are not in alignment. When they are in alignment with each other and with solar changes then large and rapid temperature changes are possible such as from 1975 to 2000.
The small size of the solar variability is not important. The charts show that the climate is sensitive to it regardless and that variability is filtered through the oceans in a very variable manner but when one sees a 400 year chart the connection is obvious.

Leif Svalgaard (06:22:22) :
with TSI derived from Krivova et al.’s (2007) proxy model based on variations of the surface distribution of solar magnetic flux.
The solar magnetic flux during solar cycle 23 was very much the same as in solar cycle 13, see e.g. the resulting Interplanetary Magnetic Field: http://www.leif.org/research/IMF-SC13-and%20SC23.png The blue diamonds show IMF observed by spacecraft for the current cycle shifted 107 years back, the green circles and curve show IMF inferred from geomagnetic observations for SC23 shifted, and the red curve shows IMF inferred the same way for SC13.
And if that were the basis for TSI, then TSI for SC13 [a hundred years ago] would also be similar to TSI during the last decade, and if that in turn drives the temperature, then the temperature back then should also be similar to 1996-2008. So, two things:
1) TSI has not changed since then
2) TSI does not drive the climate significantly [and please – no silly comments about turning off the Sun
I don’t think one should simply compare one solar cycle with another taking each in isolation.
The oceanic filtering which I referred to above is highly variable over several solar cycles because of the variable mismatch between all the seperate oceanic cycles.
Additionally the earlier and later solar cycles are relevant to the observed effect of any single cycle.
It most certainly does not follow that because cycle 13 looks like cycle 23 then the global temperatures should be similar.
The level of complexity arising from multiple variable ocean cycles combining with multiple variable solar cycles is what lies at the heart of climate debate and the sooner the professionals get a grip on that the sooner all the AGW nonsense can be dispensed with and the sooner we can start making really useful decisions for the benefit of humanity and the environment.
Wrong diagnosis plus wrongheaded treatment for our ills is the worst of all possible worlds.

Leif Svalgaard (06:22:22)
“1) TSI has not changed since then
2) TSI does not drive the climate significantly”
I don’t know enough to argue point 1, but point 2 is unknown since the earth’s climate is a nonlinear system, chaotic. For a linear system, like a network of resistors, capacitors, and inductors, or simple quantum mechanical systems, the same input produces the same out. Superposition works. This is manifestly not true for nonlinear systems. The response depends not only on the input but also on the state of the system.
Using the Lorenz attractor as an example, if the system trajectory is out in either wing, even very large perturbations of a trajectory produce almost no change in future evolution of the system. If the system state is close to where the trajectories cross from one wing to the other, it becomes extremely sensitive to small perturbations.
Even with your minimalist reconstruction of TSI, it does vary by 1 w/m^2. If the state of the global climate is on the correct piece of its “attractor” there is every reason to think that even these small perturbations could produce large climate changes. If the relative time scales are right it’s possible that the 11 year solar cycle could produce multiple perturbations of the climate that all act in phase.

I too read both the Gerlich/Tscheuschner paper and the Smith paper. Understanding either paper requires multiple readings; and even then “holes” in understanding exist (at least in my understanding). However, weaknesses of the Smith paper are (a) its disregard of heat transfer from the surface of the earth to the atmosphere via convection and conduction, and (b) the resulting loss of thermal energy to space via radiation by that atmosphere. According to Gerlich/Tscheuschner, the Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn’t apply to gases. This makes sense to me if for no other reason than for a gas whose pressure changes with altitude, there is no “definable surface” at which to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law. For a paper that purports to model energy leaving/impacting earth, to exclude the thermal radiation/absorption properties of an atmosphere is a major weakness.
When Smith’s paper argues that in the absence of IR-absorbing gases the earth would be at least 33 degrees cooler, he bases that argument on a radiation model where only the earth’s surface radiates energy that is lost to space. Such a model can’t be correct because all matter above zero degrees Kelvin radiates energy; and for an atmosphere surrounding a black body, some of that energy will escape into space. Since an atmosphere that surrounds a black body will via conduction and convection receive heat from the black body surface, to ignore such atmospheric convection/conduction transfer and the resulting radiation of energy into space by the atmosphere renders Smith’s model of the earth suspect.
I can envision several models for the earth’s loss of heat to space that I think are superior to Smith’s model. Unfortunately, I don’t have the knowledge to determine the temperature properties of those models–but I’d sure appreciate it if someone whose has such knowledge determined that temperature behavior. The simplest model is a spherical black body surface (thin shell whose radius is approximately equal to the earth’s radius, and whose mass is approximately equal to the earth’s mass) surrounded by a non-IR-absorbing ideal gas of constant mass comparable to the total mass of the earth’s atmosphere. For each square meter of the black body surface, thermal energy at a rate of approximately 342 Watts (the approximate power received from the sun averaged over the surface of the earth) is being generated. This energy (a) heats up the surface of the black body, which (b) via convection and conduction heats up the non-IR-absorbing ideal gas until the system comes to radiation equilibrium–i.e., until the total energy per unit time escaping into space equals the total energy per unit time generated at the black body’s surface. In addition to computing the temperature of the surface of the black body, such a model would include profiles (as a function of altitude above the surface of the black body) of (a) the density of the non-IR-absorbing ideal gas, and (b) the temperature of the non-IR-absorbing ideal gas.
By symmetry, once such a system achieves “radiative balance” (assuming radiative balance is possible), all heat transfer via convection away from the black body surface will have ceased. However, heat will still leave the surface of the black body via both radiation and conduction. Furthermore, the non-IR-absorbing ideal gas will radiate thermal energy, some of which will escape into space. In such a model, the thermal energy input at the surface of the black body can leave that surface via both radiation and conduction; and as such, I have to believe the temperature of the black body surface would be different in the absence/presence of the non-IR-absorbing ideal gas. It may be that in the presence of a non-IR-absorbing ideal gas the temperature of the surface of the black body would be lower than in the absence of the non-IR-absorbing ideal gas. If so, the argument that IR-absorbing-gases are responsible for the earth’s surface temperature being 33 or more degrees higher than in the absence of IR-absorbing-gases. However, if in the presence of a non-IR-absorbing ideal gas, the temperature of the surface of the black body is higher than in the absence of the non-IR-absorbing ideal gas, then the argument that the presence of IR-absorbing-gases keeps the surface of the black body surface 33 degrees higher than would be the case in the absence of all IR-absorbing-gases is weak.
Because, this post is probably too long as is, I’ll refrain at this time from describing more complex models which I believe are improvements to the model in Smith’s paper.
Best, Reed Coray

Small correction. The words I attributed to Stephen Wild actually were from Leif Svalgaard’s message. I apologize…

Leif Svalgaard (05:55:36)
much better calibrated SORCE TSI]
The TIM instrument is yet to pass calibration as far as I am aware.It failed NIST verfication,Has this been Reebaluated

Basil (11:50:14) :
“Stephen Wilde (11:35:02) :
Stephen,
My gut says you are right…that the solar influence is being buffered and modulated by ocean dynamics. But coming up with a convincing demonstration of the relationship is no mean feat.
Basil”
Thanks Basil, and of course the matter of a convincing demonstration is indeed the key. Earlier technology is not up to collecting the relevant data.
I’m confident that modern techniques are up to it and I just have to wait and see what transpires over the next 5 to 10 years.
Hopefully I will prove that an experienced and well informed human brain is better at pattern recognition than a computer model.

Leif; did the temperature 100 years ago in SC 13 start from the same base? If the starting point was different there would be no reason to expect the end point ot be the same. Just asking.

Ventana,
I’m guessing that TCN stands for Totally Clueless Newbies.
It would apply to me, anyway.

Neil Crafter (12:41:12) : DAV, of course that wouldn’t disprove it! I don’t think it can be disproved in their minds
I’m afraid that’s where this is headed. I’m getting tired of the it’s obvious, everybody says so and other specious claims. It’s time we started pinning them down to falsifiable specifics and stop letting them move the goal posts or give orthogonal answers to direct questions.
Our claim is that the climate to date is natural. It’s the default position by definition. It’s not our job to supply theories for natural climate. Asking otherwise is plain misdirection. It should be remembered the AGW proponents need to supply proof of any non-natural claim, including the means of its disproof.
Lets stop letting them wriggle out of this.

A Glossary of terms would be helpful.
Exactly what is TSI ?

Leif, Stephen, Joel, Nasif, et al,
I appreciate the effort you all appear to put into your research and analyses, but one thing continues to be clear as I read these posts. As I have posted in the past, the vast myriad of variables, many of which are yet unidentified, and the fact that the variability of many or perhaps most that are known has yet to be determined, clearly means THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED NOR WILL IT BE ANY TIME SOON!!! But keep working on it folks. You do make this site so very interesting.
I just hate to see politicians trying to make decisions that impact the health, wealth and well being of billions of people based on what many erroneously believe is settled science.

Some Comments on Comments I Liked:
anna v (07:09:53) said : OT another cycle twenty three tiny tim has formed.
WHAT? WHERE? DID I MISS IT?? I am starting to post the now-mensual sunspots in my office, and I sure didn’t want to miss one. Really, I can’t find it.
tarpon (07:51:56) said:
With the billions being wasted trying to prove a hoax, why not do the simple science stuff first. It would be interesting to see what the results would be if only surface stations that still could achieve accreditation were used.
I AGREE COMPLETELY. OCCAM’S says look for the simplest fix first.
Parenthetically THIS REMINDS ONE of the DDT Scare of the 1960’s; everybody got frothed up and banned the stuff completely. The chemical companies gleefully cooperated, since DDT was off-patent, and other, less effective, PATENTED pesticides could be substituted for higher profits (ANY idiot could make DDT). Consequently, DDT was banned worldwide and disease (esp. malaria) in Africa skyrocketed. No need to get hyperbolic about the deaths there due to this decision suffice it to say it’s almost always stupid to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
In the AGW case, the oil companies realized that only THEY have the wherewithal to sequester HUGE amounts of CO2 quickly (by injecting it into depleted oil & gas reservoirs; “CO2 flood” is a well characterized but expensive “tertiary” production technique. Look it up), and they calculate that the gains (including increased oil & gas production essentially for FREE) would more than offset the Carbon Taxes.
As we say in Texas, y’all are fixin’ to be had, people. Again.
Joel Shore (10:13:55) :
And technically, no subject in science is settled since science is inductive and can never prove things to absolute certainty. After all, there are still people trying to understand gravity…particularly how to unify what we understand about gravity with quantum mechanics. However, I don’t think many people would argue that we should not base our public policy and other decisions on what we do believe we understand about gravity.”
Joel, I assume that you aren’t an engineer or an “applied” scientist (e.g. industrial chemist, etc). What you are describing is the difference between “pure”or “theoretical” science and “applied” or “engineering” sciences.
The WHOLE problem with AGW is that folks have carried the AGW THEORY, whole cloth, across the divide between theoretical and applied science before it was “ready”, that is, actually proven with a reasonable confidnece interval, predictive, and economically quantifiable.
AGW models remind me of CFD (computational fluid dynamics) models for erosive slurry flows. The vector maps look pretty, but if you ask the CFD folks to predict WHERE a pipe or valve will erode, they can’t tell. If you look at an eroded part next to the model, it becomes obvious what the vectors were trying to tell you, but then the next one isn’t predictive EITHER. We just don’t understand the cumulative effects (things like cushioning effect, angle of incidence, particle “sharpness” & friability, stuff like that). A lot like AGW, I’d say.
When an AGW model actually (a) relies on good data and (b) actually PREDICTS climate within a reasonable confidence interval, THEN we should START talking about the cost-benefit ratio of different policies. In the meantime, suggest you buy coal stocks, they’re really really cheap.

Leif Svalgaard (16:46:58) :
Even Bob knows that the Lean2000 TSI is obsolete, so DJ cannot ’see’ that a debate is going on. Perhaps you will also learn that TSI did not behave as in your 2nd ‘click’. Like it or not 🙂
That’s why I included your database in my assessment. However, when I considered only amplitudes, there are not substantial differences. The change is 1.32 W/m^2.

Leif
As I understand Michael’s argument it is simply the difference in the warming pattern that is the indication that it is the sun that has the greater influence in the early 20th century.
I have sent you the pages of the book. The second paragraph on page 19 may make the context clearer also.
Now just for the sake of argument, if the sun is causing a greater portion of the warming in the early 20th century, how do we know what pattern it might cause since we don’t have a plausible mechanism for the sun’s influence?

I thought AGW also relied at least partly on larger fluctuations of TSI in order to account for the portion of the upward temperature trend prior to around the mid twentieth century, so what happens when that gets removed?

hareynolds (17:30:35) :
It was a real tiny tim, it did not last more than 12 hours and it was not bigger than the pixel . Some people on solarcycle24 also saw it :). Now onlythe magnetic footprint shows. It was from the one on the left, seen at the time I posted anna v (07:09:53yesterday) :

Wonder what Leif thinks of this (recent published work by W Soon))
“The most recent scientific evidence shows that even small changes in solar radiation have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate. In 2005, I demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, I have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the US mainland and China.”
“There is no such match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic. I recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature, and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic, cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later.
These previously undocumented results have been published in the journal Physical Geography. They make it difficult to maintain that changes in solar activity play an insignificant role in climate change, especially over the Arctic.”

I don’t know what he’ll say, but this looks mighty fishy even to my untrained eye:

cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later

Some random number varying between 5 and 20 hardly seems like a “strong correlation.” If it were some fixed number that would be interesting, but I sense voodoo at work…

I find the above-stated idea, that the TSI could have different effects at different times, very intriguing. If an oceanic oscillation was rushing full speed from a warm phase to a cold phase, it makes sense to me that a slight effect from the sun would be less obvious, than the sun’s slight effect would be when the oscillation was hesitating indecisively, in a sort of precarious balance.
I do like things neat and tidy, and was somewhat annoyed when I discovered that the warm phase of the AMO didn’t adhere to a thirty-year schedule like clockwork. However it doesn’t. In fact the AMO is likely impossible to predict, using past statistics. Something external is likely switching the AMO from cold to warm to cold again.
I don’t discount the TSI, though it’s effect may seem weak, for it tends to be a persistent force, and a weak and flabby starfish can open a tough oyster through steady persistence. Also, at the right time in the right place, a little pebble can stop a mighty river, (when the pebble rattles down a slope and starts an avalanche.)
The fact the TSI changes slightly during the sunspot cycle suggests its effect might switch from one way to another, perhaps cancelling itself out, however when a minimum is extended, the admittedly slight effect might become more obvious.
The slight effect that the TSI would have would seemingly be quite different if the minimum began when the AMO was in full flood from cold to warm, than it might be if it was in full flood from warm to cold.
I find this stuff engrossing and intriguing. It involves the study of chaos.
I far prefer attempting to sort out the atmosphere to sorting out my desk and the chaotic system I call “my finances.” However I actually can sort out my desk, (and in fact must, with tax deadlines approaching.) Sorting out the atmosphere is another matter. But it is fun to try, even if it is impossible.

I find it interesting that some think the science is settled on the TSI minimum. All current estimates are based on proxy records. Even more interesting is that we wont be able to prove where the TSI floor might be for several hundred years.
The Upcoming grand minimum is just a baby, nothing like the Sporer or Maunder, but we may get a little insight….will Lean regret moving her 2000 TSI baseline?
Also it seems we can have all sorts of random events associated with the Solar dynamo theories, but if we use that logic with our oceans and atmosphere it doesn’t cut it?

Leif Svalgaard (21:29:42):
…and he does not show> that the Sun is responsible, but instead assumes that it must be [the “what else” argument]:
Dear Leif,
The correlation iron stained grains (ISG)-TSI has been demonstrated systematically and many researchers from diverse areas use ISG for assessing paleoclimate:
http://www.agu.org/inside/awards/bios/bond_geraldc.html
Bar-Matthews M., Ayalon A., Kaufman A., Wasserburg G. J. (1999) The eastern Mediterranean palaeoclimate as a reflection of regional events: Soreq Cave, Israel. Earth Planet Sci Lett 166:85–95.
On the Medieval Global Warming:
Schilman, B., Bar-Matthews, M., Almogi-Labin, A., Luz, B. (2001) Global climate instability reflected by Eastern Mediterranean marine records during the Late Holocene. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology. 176:157–176.
D. Kaniewski, E. Paulissen, E. Van Campo, M. Al-Maqdissi, J. Bretschneider
, and K. Van Lerberghe. Middle East coastal ecosystem response to middle-to-late Holocene abrupt climate changes. 2008. PNAS. Vol. 105. No. 37. Pp. 13941-13946.
There are substantial differences between volcanic iron stained grains and SI iron stained grains.

In the video linked by Bill Illis, I believe Judith Lean mentioned the difference between the HadCRUT and the MSU lower troposphere temperature data. Tough to tell because she was talking so fast. For those who aren’t aware of it, a “chunk” (technical term) of the difference results from the Hadley Center’s switch to NCEP SST data in 1998. The NCEP data was incompatible with Hadley’s former COADS SST data, causing an upward step change in the HADSST data. Discussed here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/step-change-in-hadsst-data-after-199798.html
Yet researchers continue to use the HadCRUT data and try to come up with some other plausible explanation for the difference between it and MSU TLT data. Go figure.

From our article on Amplitude of Solar Irradiance and Global Temperature: Standard Temperature is the temperature and pressure where the equilibrium constant for the auto-ionization of water is 1.0×1014. For the Ambient Standard Temperature (AST) the value is 300.15 K (27 °C).
On the other hand, applying the results from Leif calculation, the outcome is as follows:
* The change of TSI in four years was 0.1%, that is 0.025% /year.
* 0.025% /year means 3.41 W/m^2 per year.
* alpha for TSI = 0.1 °C per (W/m^2) on the surface.
* Consequently, the change of T on the surface is 0.34 K.
I think this simply is not true. Multiply the result by 10 and one will have a more realistic value.

pyromancer76 (09:33:28):
There seem to be so many climate variables, and no one can predict anything at this time.
There are three streams:
1. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
2. Natural Global Warming (NGW).
3. Indecipherable Global Warming (UGW).

Juraj V. (07:54:49) :
I think it´s clear that when the Sun switched off, we ended with Maunder and Dalton minimum. So if it heats up more, there should be also visible effect. Btw, does anybody know the reason for MWP, when based on sunspot reconstructions the Sun was not stronger than nowadays?
The MWP is a transition stage and stands out as one of the very few era’s in the past 11000 years that didn’t experience a solar grand minimum over several hundred years. Normally we have grand minima of varying strength around every 172 years avg, If we miss this event temperature’s naturally stay higher. When it comes to grand minima most people accept the planet cools.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/c14nujs1.jpg
The MWP is around 1100AD on the graph, notice how previous periods are a lot more active.

Leif Svalgaard (14:46:22) :
This is likely not the case. There does not seem to be such a quasi-period.
Solanki and Usoskin’s own graph refutes that paper and statement. Where they both went wrong along with you is that they did not recognize events like the Dalton Minimum as a grand minimum. They assume only the very big events of >15 SSN to be grand minima.
The graph I referred to in my previous post is a reconstruction of Usoskin and Solanki’s graph and includes Dalton type events. It clearly shows 172 year avg recurring grand minimum events that vary in intensity. There is no point denying such obvious evidence….its time to get on board.

I told a friend that NASA hasn’t done or funded any studies into the suns effect on climate change that would go against AGW until recently:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/12/nasa-solicits-new-studie-on-the-current-solar-minimum/
They pointed to this paper by Scafetta as an example of why I was wrong.
Was I wrong? Or did Duke fund this study? Is there a way to find out how they got funding for a paper?

Leif Svalgaard (20:58:03) :
I don’t know what is ‘the averaged fluctuation of temperature’.>/i>
Sorry for my English. I meant “the average of the monthly fluctuations of temperature during 2008.” Isn’t 0.034 K a handy coincidence?

Thanks – guess time to eat crow.
But its always better to get it right than think your right and be wrong.
I assumed that since NASA bought into AGW and with peer review journals in Climate Science skewing in favor of AGW that the government did the same.
So now to try to refigure this in my head – we have Hansen head of GISS which is clearly AGW biased. We have Mann/Gore and friends that are AGW biased.
BUT not ALL of NASA and those in control of the US Government are AGW biased. Doesn’t look at bleak as it did before.

“”” Mike Monce (05:42:26) :
Side note to George Smith from a previous thread: Yes, the 2nd Law was initially formulated dealing with cyclic engines, but the more modern formulation deals with the net increase in entropy by counting accessible microstates. I totally agree a single photon re-radiated from a CO2 molecule can approach the sun and be absorbed, thereby giving the appearance of violating the 2nd Law. However, a more appropriate model is that of two blackbodies at two different temperatures separated from each in the vacuum. They will each radiate and absorb photons from each other. However, the higher temperature BB will have a greater proportion of higher energy photons in its emission spectrum. The number of accessible microstates for the higher energy photons is greater when they are absorbed by the lower temperature BB. Eventually both will reach the same equilibrium temperature as required by the 2nd Law.
Well I’m not in disagreement with any of that; and I wasn’t talking about a single photon going to the sun. But what I did say was that no single photon out of a stream can identify the temperature of the source which emitted it.
And you might be interested to know that the two black bodies at different temperatures is not any modern interpretation.
In fact it was also Clausius, who used that concept in first proving one of the fundamental precepts of Optics; namely that no optical system can form an image who’se irradiance is greater than the radiance of the object being imaged. This i s today embodied in concepts such as the Lagrange invariant, and the Optical sine theorem, and that French term “etendue”.
These ideas are often ascribed incorrectly to Optical workers, whereas they were all derived from the second law, by Clausius, a thermodynamicist.
My point was that it is plain silly to deny the process we call (perhaps incorrectly) the “greenhouse effect” is possible by calling on the second law of thermodynamics. The second law does not prohibit long wave radiation fromt the atmosphere from returning to the ground (which is hotter) and slowing down the rate of cooling.
I looked at some of those references cited; but didn’t get past the assumption they made that the earth was a blacl body and its emissivity is unity.
That’s not a good way to start off a paper trying to convince someone there isn’t any “greenhouse” effect, even if it is misnamed.
Likewise trying to argue that the Stefan- Boltzmann law is not applicable to gases, doesn’t fly; unless you try to use that to argue that the sun therefore is not a black body radiator.
Well nothing is a black body radiator, and nothing has unity emissivity.
But they are still useful concepts to approxijate real sources such as the sun, and the earth and its atmosphere. The BB radiation and spectrum does bound the possible thermal radiation from any real body, including gases.

The sun forces warming? Forces climate change? What a novel concept!
Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear Leif,
You know I never give up. The full explanation on the process o production of hematite stained grains is described in this book:
I. P. Martini (Editor), W. Chesworth. Weathering, Soils & Paleosols (Developments in Earth Surface Processes). Chapter 12, page 283-299.
Any advanced book on paleopedology (paleoedafology) describes the process, equivalences and algorithms.