New paper demonstrates that climate responds to short and long-term changes in solar activity

(Via the Hockey Schtick) A new peer reviewed paper published in The Holocene finds a significant link between solar activity and climate over the past 1000 years. According to the authors:

“Our results suggest that the climate responds to both the 11 yr solar cycle and to long-term changes in solar activity and in particular solar minima.”

The authors also find “a link between the 11 yr solar cycle and summer precipitation variability since around 1960″ and that:

“Solar minima are in this period associated with minima in summer precipitation, whereas the amount of summer precipitation increases during periods with higher solar activity.”

IRBSi is the proxy for precipitation/climate change and shows good agreement with solar activity. Figure 12. The comparison between the graphs of the IR-BSi and that of the solar cycles shows good agreement between the percentage of mineral materials of allochthonous and solar cycles reconstructed on the basis of changes in concentrations of 14 C in macrofossils. A good agreement is also evident between the concentrations of 18 O of foraminifera in the Norwegian Sea and the index IR-BSi.

Solar forcing of climate during the last millennium recorded in lake sediments from northern Sweden

U Kokfelt   University of Copenhagen, Denmark

R Muscheler Lund University, Sweden

Abstract

We report on a sediment record from a small lake within the subarctic wetland complex Stordalen in northernmost Sweden covering the last 1000 years. Variations in the content of minerogenic material are found to follow reconstructed variations in the activity of the Sun between the 13th and 18th centuries. Periods of low solar activity are associated with minima in minerogenic material and vice versa. A comparison between the sunspot cycle and a long instrumental series of summer precipitation further reveals a link between the 11 yr solar cycle and summer precipitation variability since around 1960. Solar minima are in this period associated with minima in summer precipitation, whereas the amount of summer precipitation increases during periods with higher solar activity. Our results suggest that the climate responds to both the 11 yr solar cycle and to long-term changes in solar activity and in particular solar minima, causing dry conditions with resulting decreased runoff.

============================================================

Recall that a paper published last year in Astronomy & Astrophysics shows solar activity at end of 20th century was near highest levels of past 11,500 years.

A paper published by a researcher at Max-Planck-Institute in Astronomy & Astrophysics reconstructs solar activity over the Holocene and finds solar activity at the end of the 20th century was near the highest levels of the entire 11,500 year record. The reconstruction spans the past 2,500 years, and the paper shows a ‘hockey stick’ of solar activity, following the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1800’s.

TSI_weighted_Fig11
Fig. 11. TSI weighted reconstruction since approximately 9500 BC. In order to provide a better visualization, the evolution since 1000 BC is displayed in panel (b). The filled gray band represents region limited by the KN08-VADM and KC05-VDM reconstructions.
For reference, the red lines represent the 10-year averaged reconstruction by Krivova et al. (2010a).

Evolution of the solar irradiance during the Holocene

L. E. A. Vieira1,2, S. K. Solanki1,3, N. A. Krivova1 and I. Usoskin4

Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Max-Planck-Str. 2, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
Laboratoire de Physique et Chimie de l’Environnement et de l’Espace (LPC2E/CNRS), 3A, Avenue de la Recherche, 45071 Orléans Cedex 2, France
School of Space Research, Kyung Hee University, Yongin, Gyeonggi, 446-701, Korea
Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory (Oulu Unit), POB 3000, Universiy of Oulu, Finland

Abstract

Context. Long-term records of solar radiative output are vital for understanding solar variability and past climate change. Measurements of solar irradiance are available for only the last three decades, which calls for reconstructions of this quantity over longer time scales using suitable models.

Aims.

We present a physically consistent reconstruction of the total solar irradiance for the Holocene.

Methods. 

We extend the SATIRE (Spectral And Total Irradiance REconstruction) models to estimate the evolution of the total (and partly spectral) solar irradiance over the Holocene. The basic assumption is that the variations of the solar irradiance are due to the evolution of the dark and bright magnetic features on the solar surface. The evolution of the decadally averaged magnetic flux is computed from decadal values of cosmogenic isotope concentrations recorded in natural archives employing a series of physics-based models connecting the processes from the modulation of the cosmic ray flux in the heliosphere to their record in natural archives. We then compute the total solar irradiance (TSI) as a linear combination of the jth and jth + 1 decadal values of the open magnetic flux. In order to evaluate the uncertainties due to the evolution of the Earth’s magnetic dipole moment, we employ four reconstructions of the open flux which are based on conceptually different paleomagnetic models.

Results. 

Reconstructions of the TSI over the Holocene, each valid for a different paleomagnetic time series, are presented. Our analysis suggests that major sources of uncertainty in the TSI in this model are the heritage of the uncertainty of the TSI since 1610 reconstructed from sunspot data and the uncertainty of the evolution of the Earth’s magnetic dipole moment. The analysis of the distribution functions of the reconstructed irradiance for the last 3000 years, which is the period that the reconstructions overlap, indicates that the estimates based on the virtual axial dipole moment are significantly lower at earlier times than the reconstructions based on the virtual dipole moment. We also present a combined reconstruction, which represents our best estimate of total solar irradiance for any given time during the Holocene.

Conclusions. 

We present the first physics-based reconstruction of the total solar irradiance over the Holocene, which will be of interest for studies of climate change over the last 11 500 years. The reconstruction indicates that the decadally averaged total solar irradiance ranges over approximately 1.5 W/m2 from grand maxima to grand minima.

===============================================================

What I find interesting is that the 1.5 W/m2 isn’t far from the value for CO2 forcing reported by CDIAC here:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

CDIAC_CO2_forcigs_table

About these ads
This entry was posted in Solar and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

143 Responses to New paper demonstrates that climate responds to short and long-term changes in solar activity

  1. Stevo says:

    The case against AGW just gets stronger and stronger. Love it.

  2. Doug Proctor says:

    An article of great interest, but not useful in the CAGW debate, unfortunately.

    Variations in TSI as noted are sufficient but not necessary for the late 20th century warming: this is the problem of combating CAGW. It’s the “many roads to Mecca” problem. CO2 by IPCC narrative is sufficient to account for modern warming. Other possible means of warming, even if of historical importance, once discounted for the present, are not considerations in the argument.

    So far the unique attributes of CO2 warming, the mid-tropospheric “hotspot”, the temperature rise in conjunction with CO2, are staggering around in the minimal range, allowing the warmist to believe that, with time, the comparison of expectations to observations will improve. To date, there are no unique TSI or (as I suspect) heat redistribution or other, non-CO2 signs we can point to for the skeptical defense.

    We need something in this line.

  3. RHS says:

    Wasn’t the CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere at 100 years dropped/debunked to something closer 5, maybe 10?

  4. rgbatduke says:

    Counting down for Lief to come in and comment … 3, 2, 1…

    The question as to whether or not the 20th century is really a grand solar maximum as indicated by at least sunspot count is (apparently) open and debatable, given that Ushokin and colleagues steadfastly seem to disagree with Lief in this regard. The paper above seems to be quite recent and appears to (again) rely on radioactive proxies, with some control for our lack of certainty concerning the relative contribution from solar magnetic and geomagnetic screenings.

    The other interesting thing to do would be to plot Ushokin’s result above against global temperature estimates over the Holocene, and then look at multivariate linear models (at least) including at least a few computable functions, such as the precession of the axis of rotation over that same timescale.

    Anybody got any popcorn?

    rgb

  5. lsvalgaard says:

    As usual, people are willing to paper over the obvious discrepancies to support whatever cause they adhere to. Overlaying the two reconstructions of solar activity shown in this post shows the problem:

    The brown curve [Muscheler] shows no long-term trend since 1700 consistent with sunspot and geomagnetic data. The 18th century was as active [or even more] as the 20th. The red curve [Solanki] shows the ‘most active in 10,000 years’ myth. Clearly both curves cannot be correct, yet both are taken as support. Go figure.

    There is substantial evidence that some of the ‘dips’ in solar activity measured with radionuclides are not representative of solar modulation but:
    “This is a particular problem for historical projections of solar activity based on ice core measurements which assume a 1:1 correspondence. We have made other tests of the correspondence between the 10Be predictions and the ice core measurements which lead to the same conclusion, namely that other influences on the ice core measurements, as large as or larger than the production changes themselves, are occurring. These influences could be climatic or instrumentally based.”

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf

  6. Johanus says:

    Anthony Watts:
    “… the paper shows a ‘hockey stick’ of solar activity, following the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1800′s.”

    I see an equally large ‘hockey-stick’ jump at 9000BC. Also smaller ones around 8000BC, 7000BC, 3500BC, 700BC and 350BC etc. I think these multiple occurrences, if valid, dismantle all of the AGW/CAGW “what-else-could-it-be?” arguments, because it would no longer be possible to characterize any modern hockey-stick as “unprecedented”.

  7. rgbatduke says:

    Wasn’t the CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere at 100 years dropped/debunked to something closer 5, maybe 10?

    According to who? There are many models that can fit the data (including the Bern model with its long lifetime). The problem is once again the difficulty of resolving the models. Fluctuation-dissipation is really the only possible way to do so, and sadly global CO_2 increases like a very nearly smooth function with a small annual/seasonal sawtooth. To get good measurements one would have to do something like inject a huge bolus of CO_2 into the atmosphere all at once and then watch how long it takes to decay back to quasi-equilibrium, or introduce in some other way a large enough fluctuation that the dissipation information would tell you something about timescales of the underlying equilibration ODEs.

    Bart and Richard have done something of that (and I dabbled with it too, using octave to generate simple model fits) on another thread a year or so ago. I’d say that it is fair(er) to say that the Bern model is neither verified by any particular set of observations nor falsified by others; it remains a candidate, but there are indeed other models that make a fair bit of physical sense that would produces a much shorter equilibration time and indicate a much shorter effective lifetime.

    Part of the difficulty is knowing exactly how to set the parameters that indicate what the ocean is doing. as it is the great CO_2 source/sink that keeps CO_2 levels roughly stable. It is assumed that it takes a very long time for CO_2 absorbed in the warmer surface waters to be transported to the colder waters underneath and/or biologically or chemically sequestered, but I’m not sure how much experimental evidence there is for the rates that they assign. It is a problem of the same sort as plagues the GCMs (and indeed, is an implicit plaguey component of the GCMs). If you assume that you know what is going on, you can probably find a model that works decently because CO_2 is monotonically and smoothly increasing, so that many systems of ODEs describing CO_2 uptake and release can reproduce the base shape of the increase within reasonable ranges of their parameters. But the lack of uniqueness or even similarity of the models that can reproduce the observations, and the very different interpretations of the important physics and chemistry of those models, complicate the confirmation or rejection of any of them.

    rgb

  8. fretslider says:

    This is a little O/T, but every time I have asked an AGW believer what they think the optimum range for CO2 in the atmosphere is they have ducked it. They want to reduce CO2 levels, but they have no idea to what.

    My understanding (as an ecologist) is that below 220ppm a slow-down in plant growth is significantly noticeable and below 150ppm most plants stop growing.

  9. John Finn says:

    RHS says:
    January 2, 2013 at 11:39 am

    Wasn’t the CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere at 100 years dropped/debunked to something closer 5, maybe 10?

    No. There is, however, a great deal of confusion on this issue. It is true that the average lifetime of an individual molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 5 or so years but that is not is not really the point of interest. The key statistic is the time taken for the atmospheric CO2 concentration to return to a previous level following a ‘pulse’ of increased CO2 such as that we have seen over the past 100 years or so. The basic relevant question is: how long would it take for CO2 concentrations to return to pre-industrial levels (280 ppm) if human contributions ceased.

    Peter Dietze provides a reasonable estimate on the John Daly site. He finds the half lifetime of the pulse is ~38 years and that around 37% would remain in the atmosphere after 55 years. Theoretically, some of the added CO2 (see ** below) could still be present after 100 or even 200 years but this will only be a few ppm above the pre-industrial ‘equilibrium’ level.

    ** the “added CO2″ won’t necessarily be human produced CO2. It may well be naturally emitted CO2 which hasn’t been re-sequestered because the natural uptake limit has been ‘satisfied’ by the human (+ natural) contribution.

  10. Sean says:

    Impossible…the UN has already declared that the sun has nothing to do with climate.

  11. Doug Huffman says:

    “As usual, people are willing to paper over the obvious discrepancies to support whatever cause they adhere to. (Dr. Svalgaard) Epistemologists that I read note the post-modern conception of logic as arguing from the conclusion to the supporting premises only.

  12. mpainter says:

    lsvalgaard says: January 2, 2013 at 11:59 am
    =======================
    So how reliable is 10 Be as a proxy?

  13. lsvalgaard says:

    mpainter says:
    January 2, 2013 at 12:38 pm
    So how reliable is 10 Be as a proxy?
    10Be is a reliable proxy for the combined effect of the Earth’s magnetic field, Climate [atmospheric circulation], and Solar Activity. Separating the three sources is very hard. Many more ice cores from different locations may be needed. Another problem is that the theoretical underpinning for turning cosmic ray modulation into solar activity is on shaky ground. On danger of being too technical, the so-called ‘modulation parameter’ is computed based on an assumption we know is wrong, namely that the solar wind is spherical symmetric [i.e. the same in all directions from the sun]. This assumption may be reasonable at high solar activity [e.g. at solar maximum], but is demonstrably wrong at low activity, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields,%20the%20Solar%20Corona,%20and%20the%20Solar%20Wind%20in%20Three%20Dimensions.pdf

  14. lsvalgaard says:

    Doug Huffman says:
    January 2, 2013 at 12:37 pm
    Epistemologists that I read note the post-modern conception of logic as arguing from the conclusion to the supporting premises only.
    and even accepting conflicting premises as being equally valid…

  15. TerryS says:

    Re: rgbatduke

    There is a problem with the bern model and that is CO2 mixing. The model assumes that CO2 is well mixed to begin with (no problem with that), but from then on there is no mixing of CO2 whatsoever. According to model the CO2 stays with whatever sink it happens to be at at the start. This leads to the ridiculous situation whereby 13.7% is supposed to remain in the atmosphere forever. (see http://unfccc.int/resource/brazil/carbon.html).

    To get good measurements one would have to do something like inject a huge bolus of CO_2 into the atmosphere all at once and then watch how long it takes to decay back to quasi-equilibrium

    Everything you need to know is already there. You know approximately how much CO2 enters the atmosphere from natural sources every year (about 770Gt), and what the equilibrium point is (278ppm or 2173Gt). From these two numbers you can calculate the half life:

    2173 * ln(2)/770 = 2 years.

    Of course the 2 year half life will be affected by temperature and probably many other factors but it shouldn’t vary much from the 2 years.

    One final point, if you use the equations from the bern model to calculate how much CO2 is left after 1 year and then feed that back into the equations as a starting point (in other words remix the CO2 every year) you get a half life of about 6 years.

  16. Tom in Florida says:

    Looking at the scale, are we really talking about a difference of just over 1 w/m2?

  17. lsvalgaard says:

    Tom in Florida says:
    January 2, 2013 at 1:01 pm
    Looking at the scale, are we really talking about a difference of just over 1 w/m2?
    Yes, but remember that the faithful invoke an unknown mechanism to amplify the impact of that tiny difference by ten times in their attempts to make it fit the observed temperature fluctuations.

  18. Gail COmbs says:

    fretslider says:
    January 2, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    This is a little O/T, but every time I have asked an AGW believer what they think the optimum range for CO2 in the atmosphere is they have ducked it. They want to reduce CO2 levels, but they have no idea to what.

    My understanding (as an ecologist) is that below 220ppm a slow-down in plant growth is significantly noticeable and below 150ppm most plants stop growing.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes that is certainly the fly in the ointment the zealots try to ignore. Check out the paper: Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California. and Chemical Laws for Distribution of CO2 in Nature

    …if the water temperature increases, the water cannot keep as much CO2 in solution, resulting in CO2 degassing from the water to the atmosphere. According to Takahashi (1961) heating of sea water by 1 degree C will increase the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2by 12.5 ppmv during upwelling of deep water. For example 12 degrees C warming of the Benguela Current should increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 150 ppmv.

    Volk & Liu (1988) modelled the CO2 flux between atmosphere and oceans, and concluded that approximately 70% of the flux was governed by this “thermal solubility pump”, while approximately 30% was governed by the organic nutrient “biological pump”. Faure (1990) estimated that ca. 4000 GT (Gigatonnes = billion metric tonnes) of CO2 is transferred by degassing of the ocean via the atmosphere to the continental biosphere from the end of a glaciation to an interglacial stage….

    Given the earth is cooling over the long term not warming, I much prefer more CO2 to less CO2.

    The fact we can now grow twice the wheat or corn on the same acreage is a CO2 benefit that should normally be greeted with glee instead of squirming to negate it.

  19. more soylent green! says:

    If you want to be taken seriously, don’t name your model SATIRE.

  20. RHS says:
    January 2, 2013 at 11:39 am

    Wasn’t the CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere at 100 years dropped/debunked to something closer 5, maybe 10?

    Two different lifetimes: the around 5 years lifetime is the average time that a CO2 molecule of any origin resides in the atmosphere before being exchanged with a CO2 from another reservoir (mainly oceans and vegetation). The 100 years (Bern model for the bulk of CO2) is how long it takes for some extra CO2, whatever its origin, above equilibrium to return halfway back to equilibrium. In the first case, the throughput of CO2 is important: some 150 GtC/year of CO2 is exchanged back and forth between the oceans/vegetation at one side and the atmosphere. Partly continuous (warm equatorial upwelling, cold polar downwelling), partly seasonal in the mid-latitude oceans and vegetation. That gives a turnover of 150/800 or ~20%/year or a residence time for any CO2 molecule of about 5 years. In the second case, the current sink rate is ~4 GtC/year, partly into vegetation, partly into the (deep) oceans. That is caused by an increased pressure of CO2, currently some 210 GtC (100 ppmv) above the long term temperature dictated equilibrium. That gives an e-fold time of 210/4 or 52.5 years or a half life time of the extra CO2 of ~40 years. Quite a difference with the 5 years residence time or the 100 years from the Bern model. The latter includes saturation of the deep oceans. That may be right when we reach 3000-5000 GtC releases (currently we are at 370 GtC accumulated fossil fuel use). But there are no signs that the deep oceans are saturated and certainly no signs that vegetation growth is saturated or will be saturated in the foreseeable future…

  21. Stephen Richards says:

    Stevo says:

    January 2, 2013 at 11:35 am
    The case against AGW just gets stronger and stronger. Love it.

    This does nothing to negate the case for AGW. It merely suggest that there is a noticable solar influence on global temps, maybe.

  22. FerdiEgb says:

    TerryS says:
    January 2, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    You know approximately how much CO2 enters the atmosphere from natural sources every year (about 770Gt), and what the equilibrium point is (278ppm or 2173Gt). From these two numbers you can calculate the half life: 2173 * ln(2)/770 = 2 years.

    Sorry, but you are confusing the inflow with the difference between actual and equilibrium CO2 levels. It is that difference which is the driving force to remove extra CO2 out of the atmosphere. That is currently about 100 ppmv or about 210 GtC. The natural inflow is more than compensated by the natural outflow, only the difference between the two is important, which is only 4 GtC more sink than source, that is caused by the 210 GtC extra in the atmosphere. So the half life time is ~40 years…

  23. vukcevic says:

    The solar climate link is more likely in the higher latitudes since the strength of both the Earth’s and the solar induced magnetic fields changes are strongest there. Result of the combined effect is: the temperature natural variability

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GYCR.htm

  24. LKMiller says:

    Gail COmbs says:
    January 2, 2013 at 1:09 pm

    “…The fact we can now grow twice the wheat or corn on the same acreage is a CO2 benefit that should normally be greeted with glee instead of squirming to negate it.”

    I have seen statements such as the above occur occasionally on WUWT posts over the past few years (sometimes also applied to tree growth rates), and believe it necessary to challenge the not-so-veiled implication that, were it not for increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, we would not be enjoying the significant increases in crop and forest production rates of the past 80-90 years.

    My apologies up front if this is not what you mean to say. However, it is provable that increased per acre production rates (food crops and timber) are due more to decades of applied plant and tree breeding, and to improved crop and silvi-culture. If we take just corn as an example, the number of ears per plant, ear size, and number of kernels per ear haven’t changed much since the 1920’s. However, breeding and selection programs have drastically changed the architecture of the corn plant, such that farmers now plant at nearly 3X the density their grandfathers did.

    For trees, developed western economies have had intensive applied breeding programs for nearly 60 years. In the US alone, tree breeding programs in loblolly pine and Douglas-fir are responsible for significantly increased rates of growth.

    We know that CO2 is used to enhance growth in commercial greenhouses, and controlled studies have shown that higher CO2 increases tree growth. However, most of the increases of the last 80+ years are due to breeding and culture, not CO2.

  25. John West says:

    Doug Proctor says:
    “To date, there are no unique TSI or (as I suspect) heat redistribution or other, non-CO2 signs we can point to for the skeptical defense.

    What? How about the missing hot spot? How about a inexplicable warming pause while CO2 increases? How about stratospheric cooling pause? How about ocean heat content increase pattern not matching the CO2 increases causing warming pattern? How about the warming pattern matching PDO cycles? How about warming matching solar spectral variation patterns (not just TSI, i.e.: Bond Cycles)?

  26. Stevo says:

    Stephen Richards says:
    January 2, 2013 at 1:37 pm
    This does nothing to negate the case for AGW. It merely suggest that there is a noticable solar influence on global temps, maybe.

    I’m happy to call it as another nail in the coffin. !!

  27. Quinn the Eskimo says:

    Ferdinand – How does a molecule of CO2 know whether it is governed by the first case or the second?

  28. TomRude says:

    Leif writes: “Yes, but remember that the faithful invoke an unknown mechanism to amplify the impact of that tiny difference by ten times in their attempts to make it fit the observed temperature fluctuations.”

    1) Leif, do we observe tiny difference in solar output during a winter for instance?

    2) Because for a given winter, we observe certain synchronous periods of extreme cold ejections over the entire hemisphere followed by periods of relatively milder cold air coming from the pole, then back again to strong cold. It cannot be related to planetary position nor if I understand Leif’s point correctly, to solar output difference. So what mechanism is responsible for these synchronous short term fluctuations in cold air polar ejections?

    Thanks

  29. Gail Combs says:

    Tom in Florida says:
    January 2, 2013 at 1:01 pm

    Looking at the scale, are we really talking about a difference of just over 1 w/m2?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    There is a lot of sleight of hand going on in the climate debates.

    Paraphrased from WUWT link

    Take a look at the radiative forcing table from the IPCC reports, where the explanatory variables that get included in the IPCC computer models are laid out. You will see that the only solar forcing effect listed is “solar irradiance.” In AR5 this table is on page 8-39:
    The Graph

    Also take a look at the water forcing effect compared to that of CO2. In actuality the forcing of water is rolled into that of CO2 because of the assumption that
    1. CO2 causes warming.
    2. Warming causes increased water vapor
    3. Water vapor causes more warming.

    But the evidence shows this is not what is happening. A graph and a WUWT link

    Then look at CO2 vs Solar. Again there is sleight of hand. Look at these graphs:
    The relative strength of the energy of a specific wavelength from the sun vs earthshine: graph 1
    The absorption of various wavelengths of sun energy at TOA, surface and under the ocean: graph 2
    A closer view of the energy absorbed by the ocean at various depths: graph 3

    Oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface and earthshine reflected back to earth by CO2 has no real effect on the ocean heat content. Ocean Heat Content from 1955 to 2011 (Joules 10^22) graph 4

    The other bit of information that is left out is although TSI may remain relatively constant over the short term the distribution of energy among various wavelengths does not and neither do other attributes of the sun. Despite claims to the contrary science really has no idea what the various changes might cause.

    The fact we see all sorts of papers about the sun’s effect on the earth from Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman and Yuk Yung’s Does the Nile reflect solar variability? and The pattern of northern hemisphere surface air temperature during prolonged periods of low solar output (“We show that the reconstructed sensitivity of the sea level temperature to long term solar forcing in the Northern Hemisphere is in very good agreement with the empirical temperature pattern corresponding to changes of the North Annular Mode (NAM). This implies that long-term variations of solar output affect climate predominantly through the NAM that extends throughout the stratosphere and troposphere.)

    To the “Shiva Hypothesis” show just how active this area of research really is despite the IPCC’s efforts to shut down this avenue of research with TSI is constant, nothing to see here move along, CO2 explains Climate Change and YOU are to blame.

  30. lsvalgaard says:

    vukcevic says:
    January 2, 2013 at 2:01 pm
    The solar climate link is more likely in the higher latitudes since the strength of both the Earth’s and the solar induced magnetic fields changes are strongest there. Result of the combined effect is: the temperature natural variability
    None of these have anything to do with the climate. There is no historical data to compare and the polar regions are but a very small part of the globe.

  31. John West says:

    lsvalgaard says
    “Yes, but remember that the faithful invoke an unknown mechanism to amplify the impact of that tiny difference by ten times in their attempts to make it fit the observed temperature fluctuations.”

    The CO2 faithful just ignore that components of TSI can vary 10 times more than TSI itself. Varying the area under the curve is not the only way solar activity can effect climate, see Bond Cycles.

    We’re all about to find out one way or the other anyway. Obviously, if CO2 dominates then global average temperature will resume it’s rise, if solar spectral variation that sunspots proxy dominate then global average temperatures will begin to decline, but if neither dominates (ie: close to 50/50) then global average temperatures will continue this sideways trend.

  32. Neil says:

    “What I find interesting is that the 1.5 W/m2 isn’t far from the value for CO2 forcing”

    Just because something is in the same unit it doesn’t mean it is the same thing. The radiative forcing associated with a TSI change of 1.5 W/m2 is 1.5*0.7/4 = 0.26 W/m2 once you account for geometry and the albedo.

    Not so interesting perhaps?

  33. lsvalgaard says:

    John West says:
    January 2, 2013 at 2:06 pm
    How about warming matching solar spectral variation patterns (not just TSI, i.e.: Bond Cycles)?
    Yeah, how about them? The spectral variation has only been measured [with large error bars] for about a decade, and Bond Cycles don’t exist.

  34. lsvalgaard says: Yes, but remember that the faithful invoke an unknown mechanism to amplify the impact of that tiny difference by ten times in their attempts to make it fit the observed temperature fluctuations.

    1. Hardly. Per the IPCC formula, which includes alleged [but false] positive feedback from water vapor, the alleged forcing from CO2 + feedbacks from preindustrial times to the end of the 20th century is 5.35*ln(370/290) = 1.3 Wm-2 at the top of the atmosphere or about 1.3/3.7 = 0.35 Wm-2 at the Earth surface. The above paper is reconstructing solar activity at the Earth surface and shows a change of ~1.2 Wm-2 over the same period, even without any amplification.

    2. What is the “unknown mechanism” that the faithful believers of the “Solar activity doesn’t change” religion you subscribe to that accounts for the climate change shown in the 1st paper above and countless others showing a link between solar activity and climate change over relatively short timescales?

  35. Ian Holton says:

    “lsvalgaard says:

    January 2, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    Tom in Florida says:
    January 2, 2013 at 1:01 pm
    Looking at the scale, are we really talking about a difference of just over 1 w/m2?
    Yes, but remember that the faithful invoke an unknown mechanism to amplify the impact of that tiny difference by ten times in their attempts to make it fit the observed temperature fluctuations.”

    Yes well the unknown mechanism is not TSI but some of the obvious known affecting solar outputs of such as, proton flux, UV, magnetic, etc with react with ozone, upper level areas, earths magnetic structure, electric fields. pressure patterns, jetsreams, yes unknown, but plenty of papers setting out the effects that occur…and if they regularly occur, then they are real, njo matter if we know the real connections or not. If the solar different outputs change andn the weather-climate changes at the same time always then there is a true connection, whether we know it or not yet.
    If we waited for all things to be fully proven, then mankind would never have advanced. We used fire, elecrocity, bread mold,, gravity, etc etc etc well before we really understood them. I use solar outputs every day and month and year to predict weather, together with the ussual oceans etc, and they work every time, so I know that the solar weather/climate connections are real. The mechanisms, well they may be many years off finding,, but if I wait that long I will never get to use them all very successfully. So why wait, if it works, it works, if I said they did not I would be lying.
    People get so hung up on having to know exactly how something works. If it works well and consitently then use it. The truth will eventually come out and be found. We still are only scratching the surface of all knowledge and science.

  36. lsvalgaard says:

    TomRude says:
    January 2, 2013 at 2:18 pm
    1) Leif, do we observe tiny difference in solar output during a winter for instance?
    Weather is not climate. And yes there are those tiny differences on top of a huge variation [70 times as large] due to the variation of the distance to the Sun. We are closest in January and thus gets the most then.

    Hockey Schtick says:
    January 2, 2013 at 2:32 pm
    The above paper is reconstructing solar activity at the Earth surface and shows a change of ~1.2 Wm-2 over the same period, even without any amplification.
    and that 1.2 W/m2 yields a temperature of less than 0.1 degree. That I can endorse.

    countless others showing a link between solar activity and climate change over relatively short timescales?
    Equally many invoke the great thermal inertia of the oceans to explain why there are no short time scales involved.

    Ian Holton says:
    January 2, 2013 at 2:34 pm
    Yes well the unknown mechanism is not TSI but some of the obvious known affecting solar outputs of such as, proton flux, UV, magnetic, etc with react with ozone, upper level areas, earths magnetic structure, electric fields…
    All of which vary the rhythm of TSI.

    I use solar outputs every day and month and year to predict weather,
    Some people consult their daily horoscope to decide what to do or expect.

  37. Auto says:

    Stevo says:

    January 2, 2013 at 2:07 pm

    Stephen Richards says:
    January 2, 2013 at 1:37 pm
    This does nothing to negate the case for AGW. It merely suggest that there is a noticable solar influence on global temps, maybe.

    I’m happy to call it as another nail in the coffin. !!
    ======================

    Well, to a simple seafarer, it looks like someone thinks that changes in the (relative) location, behaviour, and temperature of the Sun may – may, I said – have an effect on the Earth’s temperature; [Average, mean/mode/median – howsoever arrived at).
    I think they might be right.
    I mean – it’s nearly a million miles across, and is at over five thousand Centigrade.
    [Argument from incredulity?] – no, not so; have you noticed the difference between summer and winter warmth?

    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh –
    Does the Sun alone affect our climate?
    Probably not.
    Not alone, I think,.

    It does affect it, I guess/understand, but – alone – I think not!!!
    Arrangement of the continents; mountain range elevation; distribution of shallow seas; albedo [with/without clouds - and what affects cloud cover? Huh?]; orbital parameters; and vulcanism all seem likely to cause local, regional and – possibly – global climate effects.
    I believe that there are many other variables that affect local temperaures [and so, over decades and centuries and millenia - our climate].
    We could paint all our roofs white.
    Car roofs, too, I suppose.
    And umbrellas – and hats ( and line them with tin foil?).
    A possible reduction in UHI effects.
    But there is a lot more to this climate lark . . .

    For what it’s worth – not being a crimatologist [a truly magnificent neologism!] – I suggest

    We don’t really know what affects climate – WUWT has a list of things that may [and I bet it's not exhaustive for 2053!] – we know some of the variables [possibly most of them], but mostly do not fully understand their effect [short, medium and long term - even taken singly] on our planet’s climate. Even taken singly.
    Now I think that interaction betwen any two factors is not really understood, generally. And we have – what? – scores? A very, very, complex stew here I fear.

    I would like a little more warmth in the next twenty years. I fear more cooling.
    And I don’t have a blind idea what to expect.

  38. vukcevic says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 2, 2013 at 2:23 pm
    vukcevic says:
    January 2, 2013 at 2:01 pm
    The solar climate link is more likely in the higher latitudes since the strength of both the Earth’s and the solar induced magnetic fields changes are strongest there. Result of the combined effect is: the temperature natural variability

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GYCR.htm

    None of these have anything to do with the climate. There is no historical data to compare and the polar regions are but a very small part of the globe.
    ———————————————————
    Have you heard of polar amplification, main contributor to the GW ?

    NASA: Temperature pattern is a manifestation of “Arctic Amplification”, which is characterized by temperature increases 1.5°C greater than (more than double) the increases at lower latitudes (Overland et al., 2011; Stroeve et al., 2012).

  39. John West says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    “The spectral variation has only been measured [with large error bars] for about a decade”

    So, you’ve excluded it as a potential cause or even a significant contributor of recent warming (that happened over a decade ago) based on this paltry data?

  40. DocMartyn says:

    rgbatduke, we did the bolus addition of 14C using the atmospheric H-Bomb tests. The pseudo-first order decay is approximately a decade. The only fly in the ointment is that the steady state level of 14C changes with cosmic ray flux, means that natural abundance is hard to calculate.
    The models suck, mostly because they are exquisitely sensitive to the rate at which 14C fixed by plankton falls to the bottom of the sea bed as organic particulates and then returns to the surface as 14C gasses,CO2 and CH4, the latter is a pig to model as {CH4} is inversly proportional to [O2].

    One would expect, a prior, that if cosmic rays had a large impact on the climate then one could look for the relative 14C abundance in tree rings vs. tree ring width.

  41. Steve Keohane says:

    Overlaying the 11.5K year TSI reconstruction, Fig. 11, on the GISP2 temperature reconstruction doesn’t do much for me. Didn’t see an obvious offset in x-axis either.

  42. fretslider says:

    Thanks for that reference, Gail

    fret

  43. lsvalgaard says: Hockey Schtick says: January 2, 2013 at 2:32 pm
    The above paper is reconstructing solar activity at the Earth surface and shows a change of ~1.2 Wm-2 over the same period, even without any amplification.
    and that 1.2 W/m2 yields a temperature of less than 0.1 degree. That I can endorse.

    1. According to the IPCC, a doubling of CO2 results in an increase of 3.7 Wm-2 at the TOA and about 1 Wm-2 at the surface, allegedly resulting in 3C global warming at the surface. So which is it Leif:

    a. An increase of [1.2 Wm-2]/4 = 0.3 Wm-2 at the surface causes an increase of surface temperature of << 0.1 degree as you claim

    or

    b. An increase of 0.3 W/m2 at the surface causes an increase of surface temperature of ~ 0.9 C

    2. I see you prudently avoided answering my question #2 above, so I'll restate it again:

    What is the “unknown mechanism” that the faithful believers of the “Solar activity doesn’t change” religion you subscribe to that accounts for the climate change shown in the 1st paper above and countless others showing a link between solar activity and climate change over relatively short timescales? So Leif, what is the “unknown mechanism”?

    3. Leif also says:
    countless others showing a link between solar activity and climate change over relatively short timescales?
    Equally many invoke the great thermal inertia of the oceans to explain why there are no short time scales involved.

    a. Only shortwave solar radiation can heat the oceans, not changes in IR from GHGs

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/realclimate-admits-doubling-co2-could.html

    b. Many papers have demonstrated a link between solar activity and ocean oscillations, which brings us back to question #2 above.

  44. lsvalgaard says:

    vukcevic says:
    January 2, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    Have you heard of polar amplification, main contributor to the GW ?
    Which has nothing to do with the cycles you are peddling. There is still no data from the polar regions to determine any cycles.

    NASA: Temperature pattern is a manifestation of “Arctic Amplification”, which is characterized by temperature increases 1.5°C greater than (more than double) the increases at lower latitudes
    The ‘effect’ goes the wrong way. You want to polar regions to control the rest, but clearly they do not.

    John West says:
    January 2, 2013 at 3:18 pm
    So, you’ve excluded it as a potential cause or even a significant contributor of recent warming (that happened over a decade ago) based on this paltry data?
    Would be base policy on paltry data?

  45. Will says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 2, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    “Hockey Schtick says:
    January 2, 2013 at 2:32 pm
    The above paper is reconstructing solar activity at the Earth surface and shows a change of ~1.2 Wm-2 over the same period, even without any amplification.
    and that 1.2 W/m2 yields a temperature of less than 0.1 degree. That I can endorse.”

    With a natural trend in place of 0.5-0.6º C per century since the LIA, this extra 1.2 Wm-2 gives us the 0.7º C for the last hundred years.

    Its the Sun, stupid!

  46. TomRude says:

    Thank you Leif. So indeed we observe during a winter tiny differences of output. I noticed you did not comment on my point #2…

  47. TomRude says:

    BTW Leif, weather is not climate except that climate expresses itself through the succession of weather events over the years. Thus explaining these weather variations within a season is key in deconstructing the various elements at work rather than plastering CO2 everywhere.

  48. Gail Combs says:

    LKMiller says:
    January 2, 2013 at 2:01 pm

    …..I have seen statements such as the above occur occasionally on WUWT posts over the past few years (sometimes also applied to tree growth rates), and believe it necessary to challenge the not-so-veiled implication that, were it not for increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, we would not be enjoying the significant increases in crop and forest production rates of the past 80-90 years…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Response curve for C3 and C4 plants Graph Note Wigley (1983) claims a pre-industrial CO2 level of 270ppm.

    Actually it is both. Given enough nutrients and water, CO2 is going to be the limiting factor in plant growth. That is why greenhouses use 1000 to 2000 ppm CO2 and air fans. C3 plants are much more sensitive to CO2 compared to C4 and C3 plants also become more drought resistant at higher levels of CO2. However remember carbon/petrochemical based products/energy is also responsible for the fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, tractors and other machinery that went into that increase in harvest so it is CO2 coming and going. (Grin) The increase in drought resistance would play a part in the yields of non-irrigated fields and fields at the upper northern limit in the Northern hemisphere.Wind (air circulation) will also have a significant effect.

    photo and link

    The Earth’s biosphere is booming, data suggests that CO2 is the cause, part 2

    CO2 depletion

    As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels – below 200 PPM – will cease to grow or produce. …Plants use all of the CO2 around their leaves within a few minutes leaving the air around them CO2 deficient. Without air circulation and ventilation the plant’s stomata are stifled and plant growth stunted…. https://greenair.com/old/pdf/efs/co2-efs.pdf

    Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the CO2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm… I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) … photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration aproaches 200 ppm… (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusion… Source

    EXPERIMENTS: Percent Dry Weight (Biomass) Increases for 300, 600 and 900 ppm Increases in the Air’s CO2 Concentration

    About 430 observations of the yields of 37 plant species grown with CO2 enrichment increased agricultural weight yields by 36%. Additional analysis of 81 experiments which had controlled CO2 concentrations showed that yields will probably increase by 33% with a doubling of CO2 concentration. Another 46 observations of the effects of CO2 enrichment on transpiration were extracted and averaged. These data showed that a doubling of CO2 could reduce transpiration by 34%, which combined with the yield increase, indicates that water use efficiency may double.

    Kimball,B.A. and Idso, S.B. 1983. “Increasing atmospheric CO2 : effects on crop yield, water use and climate. Agric. Water Manag., 7:55-72

    video

  49. John West says:

    Anthony, I don’t know why you just don’t tell people the truth!

    The real reason for 20th century global warming is actually CCF (Cricket Chirp Frequency). Yes, CCF slightly lags temperature but this is merely because CCF is both a feedback and a forcing. You get a little bit of warming and that increases CCF, which increases temperature, which increases CCF and so on and so forth. Luckily for us there’s a limit to how fast and how long crickets chirp or they would have boiled away the oceans long ago. Also, different species of crickets have different chirp frequencies as well as varying stamina and season (as in mating, etc.) frequency variations. For example, the snowy tree cricket of the north has a slower chirp frequency than his more southerly cousins. This is actually why we have daily, seasonal, and geographic temperature variations; it has absolutely nothing to do with the Sun or Earth’s rotation or tilt or any of that fictional stuff they teach in school, it’s simply the average CCF of the crickets in the area. The 20th century simply saw an expansion of higher frequency chirping crickets. To combat this all we have to do is institute programs that retards expansion of faster chirping crickets and aids expansion of slower chirping crickets. But we have to be careful, slow chirping cricket population explosions cause ice ages.

    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~genchem/0102/spring/6winn/cricket.html

    In order to develop and implement the best possible program before it’s too late I’ll need funding right away.

    [Just in case ….. /sarc]

    In case you haven’t been following the “debate” long, the standard CS (BS) answer to why CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years in the ice core records is basically because CO2 is both a feedback and a forcing. You get a little bit of warming and that increases CO2, which increases temperature, which increases CO2 and so on and so forth. Apparently, that explanation works for CO2 or CCF. Actually, it works a little better for CCF, at least CCF has a mechanism to keep it from going to runaway global warming.

  50. John West says:

    lsvalgaard says:

    John West says:
    “So, you’ve excluded it as a potential cause or even a significant contributor of recent warming (that happened over a decade ago) based on this paltry data?”

    ”Would be base policy on paltry data?”
    Perhaps for politicians/lawyers it’s ok to exclude possibilities just on the basis of not having enough evidence to draw a conclusion, but not scientists. As skeptical as I am of CO2 induced dangerous climate change, I still haven’t excluded it even though the weight of the evidence is against it at the moment, conclusive evidence one way or the other isn’t in yet.

  51. Camburn says:

    LKMiller says:
    January 2, 2013 at 2:01 pm

    We know that CO2 is used to enhance growth in commercial greenhouses, and controlled studies have shown that higher CO2 increases tree growth. However, most of the increases of
    the last 80+ years are due to breeding and culture, not CO2.

    Correct as the level of CO2 has not materially risen until the last few decades.

    The 1st large scale test of yield increase was in the USA during the 2012 production year. Current production models indicated the drop in yields should have been over 1/3 more than that observed. The only variation of substance in 2012 was the level of CO2 verses the level of CO2 during the drought of 1988.

    This was probably the 1st recordable function on a large scale of the benefit of additional CO2.

  52. ferd berple says:

    TomRude says:
    January 2, 2013 at 2:18 pm
    nor if I understand Leif’s point correctly, to solar output difference.
    =============
    It depends on what you define as “solar output difference”. Leif has stated above that the solar wind is not constant, most noticeably at times of low solar activity. The question then becomes what effect does the solar wind have on climate.

  53. Ian Holton says:

    Leif says “Ian Holton says:
    January 2, 2013 at 2:34 pm
    Yes well the unknown mechanism is not TSI but some of the obvious known affecting solar outputs of such as, proton flux, UV, magnetic, etc with react with ozone, upper level areas, earths magnetic structure, electric fields”
    All of which vary the rhythm of TSI.”

    Yes, they do but do you use the total atmosphere to see what Co2 does? nNo of course not, so why use bulk TSI, when there are so many individual solar outpuits that have different known consequences?!

    Leif says “Ian Holton says..”I use solar outputs every day and month and year to predict weather,”
    Some people consult their daily horoscope to decide what to do or expect

    Yes, but they are not correct! My forecasts have a high success rate. Otherwise I would not be in business helping farmers, etc, they would not stay if the forecastys did not have a high success rate…..There is a marked difference…not a valid comparison at all, ortherwise we could say your solar forecasts are like horoscopes but they are not, neither are mine…and I use all ocean data in addition and I am a qualified weather forecaster by trade.

  54. Willis Eschenbach says:

    DocMartyn says:
    January 2, 2013 at 3:22 pm

    rgbatduke, we did the bolus addition of 14C using the atmospheric H-Bomb tests. The pseudo-first order decay is approximately a decade.

    What you are looking at there, Doc, is the “residence time” of a molecule. How long does the average CO2 molecule stay in the atmosphere? You are right, it’s short, about 5-8 years.

    That’s not the measurement Robert Brown (rgbatduke) is discussing. He is looking at what is called the “e-folding time”, or perhaps the half-life. Suppose we add a large bolus (a big bunch) of CO2 to the atmosphere. It will increase the CO2 concentration.

    Other things being equal, over time the CO2 concentration will decay back down to the equilibrium CO2 level. We can measure the decay in a couple of ways. First is “half-life”, how long it takes to drop by half. The other way is “e-folding time”, how long it takes to drop to 1/e = 0.37 of its original value.

    That is the number over which there is dispute. My own calculations put it at around 32 years. The problem is that the time frame is way too short to reliably differentiate between the standard “Bern Model”, and other calculations. It will take some more years before we can see who is right.

    w.

  55. not being a crimatologist [a truly magnificent neologism!]

    Here’s one I came up with: Climbatologist

  56. S. Meyer says:

    @John West says:
    Priceless!

  57. Steven Mosher says:

    “Despite claims to the contrary science really has no idea what the various changes might cause.”

    Therefore, we conclude from this ignorance that changes we see in the climate must be caused by the things we dont understand.

    That is the sun nut case in a nutshell.
    The climate is complex and changes.
    The sun has various changes we dont understand.
    Ignorance explains ignorance
    QED.
    The little understood sun, explains the complex climate.

    Leif, that about sums up the gist of all your opponents arguments.

  58. Lance Wallace says:

    to rgbatduke

    Your request for a bolus addition of CO2 followed by a decline to zero has been answered by the CMIP5 people: http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/
    They provide an estimate of anthro emissions and resultant CO2 increments (above the 280 ppm pre-industrial background) all the way out to 2500. The first of their four scenarios (RCP3) envisions an increase of emissions up to about 2080 and then a sharp fall to zero (actually slightly negative–CO2sequestration, I guess) by 2100. The associated delta CO2 reaches a peak of 162 ppm in about 2040, dropping off to 58 (162/e) in about 2440. So a 400-year e-folding time tau.

    I tried fitting the four scenarios using a single parameter (tau) for each, with indifferent results. (Actually I used two parameters, the volume V of the troposphere being the other one, just to see if it would come out anywhere close to 8 * 10^18 m^3. Which it thankfully did, with errors of 1%, 11%, -35% and -38%.) Some very nice fits out to 2050, but not too good out to 2250. Values of tau were in the range of 100-400 years for the first 3 scenarios, but the fourth one (RCP8.5) looks very strange and gives a negative value for tau.

  59. John West says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    “Therefore, we conclude from this ignorance that changes we see in the climate must be caused by the things we dont understand.”

    No!

    Therefore we conclude from this ignorance that it is premature to draw a conclusion.

    This is not that difficult to understand.

  60. TomRude says:

    @Ferd berple: thank you for that precision. Indeed understanding how solar wind variations can influence weather would help understand what drives climate since climate is the sum of weather.
    @Mosher, should we assume from your comments you have an answer to my initial point #2 and can describe for instance how solar wind variations affect the nature -colder/denser or not- of synchronous polar air ejection that control weather, or not and why? I guess we know that answer…

  61. George E. Smith says:

    Well I rely on the Mauna Loa data since 1957/8 IGY to estimate the CO2 lifetime.

    That data shows a p-p annual oscillation of 6ppm due due natural causes. The detail shows that th CO2 climbs 6ppm in about 7 months, and falls about 6ppm in five months.

    Assuming the present level is 395ppm, and for some unknown reason taking 280 ppm as a stable equilibrium level, then the CO2 excess driving the re-absorption natural processes is 115 ppm. which is (115/6)x5 months to remove ALL of the excess at the rate of 6ppm in 5 months, and that comes to 95.83 months. If the process of removal is a normal exponential decay process, then 95.83 months is the decay time constant (to 1/e of the starting excess).
    Then 95% of the excess is removed in three time constants, or 99% in five.
    So that is 24 years and 40 years respectively; BUT!!
    At the north pole, and for virtually all of the arctic, the annual p-p CO2 cycle amplitude is 18 ppm; not 6 as at ML.

    So at least in the arctic, where the oceans are colder, the uptake rate is three times what it is at ML, so those time constants may be as short as 8 and 13.3 years respectively.

    So no way is the residence time 200 years as some claim, or even 100. Natural processes are much faster than that, and if the atmospheric CO2 addition stopped, that 115 ppm excess would be cleared out in less time than it has been since we last had any significant global warming.

    In any case, I consider both CO2 and H2O to be PERMANENT COMPONENTS of earth’s atmosphere, and an H2O/CO2 molecule I just made in my body and exhaled, is just as good as one that Noah exhaled when he was building his ark.

  62. lsvalgaard says:

    Hockey Schtick says:
    January 2, 2013 at 3:32 pm
    a. An increase of [1.2 Wm-2]/4 = 0.3 Wm-2 at the surface causes an increase of surface temperature of << 0.1 degree as you claim, or
    b. An increase of 0.3 W/m2 at the surface causes an increase of surface temperature of ~ 0.9 C

    ‘a’ of course. You calculation is wrong. CO2 has nothing to do with it. It is much simpler. A percentage change of TSI of S%, leads to a change of temperature of S/4%. Since 1.2W/m2 is 0.1% of S, the change in temperature will be 0.1/4% = 0.025%. 0.025% of 288K is 0.07K, Tim.

    So Leif, what is the “unknown mechanism”?
    You tell me, Tim, as the known mechanisms are not effective enough. Believers claim ‘amplification’, ‘feedback’, etc, but can’t explain how that works and calculate what the amplification should be, Tim.

    a. Only shortwave solar radiation can heat the oceans, not changes in IR from GHGs
    GHCs have nothing to do with this. All radiation that is absorbed heats the oceans no matter the wavelength, Tim.

    b. Many papers have demonstrated a link between solar activity and ocean oscillations, which brings us back to question #2 above.
    Many papers have made that claim. Many papers make the claim the CO2 determines the temperature. Claims do not truth make, Tim.

    Will says:
    January 2, 2013 at 3:57 pm
    With a natural trend in place of 0.5-0.6º C per century since the LIA, this extra 1.2 Wm-2 gives us the 0.7º C for the last hundred years.
    That is backwards reasoning, since you are assuming the conclusion.

    TomRude says:
    January 2, 2013 at 4:00 pm
    I noticed you did not comment on my point #2…
    Do I have to comment on everythingthing. Here is one comment: weather is not climate. Here is another one: the ‘polar front’ is very ‘wavy’ so you see those [Rossby] waves roll by if you stay at a fixed position.

    TomRude says:
    January 2, 2013 at 4:48 pm
    BTW Leif, weather is not climate except that climate expresses itself through the succession of weather events over the years.
    Only if the weather events mostly go in the same direction. If they are cyclic [like the seasons] they don’t affect climate.

    John West says:
    January 2, 2013 at 5:01 pm
    “So, you’ve excluded it as a potential cause or even a significant contributor of recent warming (that happened over a decade ago) based on this paltry data?”
    As Willis always points out, you should be clear what you refer to. My interpretation of your ‘paltry’ data was that you meant the recent SIM measurements. They are so paltry that even scientists should not draw any firm conclusions from them, yet.

    ferd berple says:
    January 2, 2013 at 5:07 pm
    Leif has stated above that the solar wind is not constant, most noticeably at times of low solar activity.
    Don’t know what you refer to. Probably that the solar wind is not the same in all directions at solar minima, but since the Earth does not sample all directions, the solar wind we get at solar minima is pretty much the same in every minimum.

    Ian Holton says:
    January 2, 2013 at 5:28 pm
    so why use bulk TSI, when there are so many individual solar outputs that have different known consequences?!
    Because TSI is where almost all the energy is.

    Otherwise I would not be in business helping farmers [...]
    Many farmers go by the Farmer’s Almanac, too.

    I use all ocean data in addition and I am a qualified weather forecaster by trade.
    And that is why you often succeed. The solar stuff is just noise on top of what you otherwise do well. Now, I can understand that throwing solar variability into the mix may impress some people and give you a marketing edge.

    Roger Knights says:
    January 2, 2013 at 5:48 pm
    “The little understood sun, explains the complex climate.”
    Leif, that about sums up the gist of all your opponents arguments.

    If you don’t know anything, everything is possible.

  63. lsvalgaard says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    January 2, 2013 at 7:42 pm
    The climate is complex and changes.
    The sun has various changes we dont understand.
    The little understood sun, explains the complex climate

    Reminds me of a scene in a play by Holberg [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludvig_Holberg ]:
    “A stone cannot fly, you cannot fly, ergo: you are a stone.”

  64. Mark says:

    To reiterate what Neal states @ 2:26 pm:

    The comment:

    “What I find interesting is that the 1.5 W/m2 isn’t far from the value for CO2 forcing reported by CDIAC”

    is an invalid comparison.

    The TSI values mentioned in this paper are of solar irradiance impinging on the earth from space. To make a valid comparison with the CO2 forcing value, the 1.5 W/m2 TSI range value must be adjusted (downward) by a geometry factor of 4 and an albedo factor of 0.7. This makes the TSI radiative forcing range 1.5/4*0.7 = 0.26 W/m2, almost seven times smaller than the CO2 forcing (1.79 W/m2) reported by CDIAC.

    I’m surprised there have not been more comments pointing out this elementary error. Perhaps because Neal’s observation “Not so interesting perhaps?” pretty much hit the nail on the head.

  65. lsvalgaard says:

    TomRude says:
    January 2, 2013 at 8:44 pm
    Indeed understanding how solar wind variations can influence weather would help understand what drives climate since climate is the sum of weather.
    Apart from that not being precisely true [cyclic changes do not change the climate; imagine all solar cycles had the same size, then we would not claim that the Sun drives the climate] I have investigated the Sun-Weather connection. This ‘connection’ has been discussed for centuries and generally proceeds in a ‘boom-and-bust’ fashion. By 1970 the notion was practically dead, but then a series of papers [of which I am a coauthor] revived the field and S-W connection became almost an accepted fact [see e.g. NASA Special Publication 426, http://www.leif.org/EOS/Sun-Weather-Climate.pdf ]. Read at least the Foreword and the Introduction. Unfortunately the correlations turned out to be spurious [although to this day there are still people clinging to them] and the field died again. Now the field is reborn, mainly as an antidote to CO2-driven CAGW [regardless of the scientific merit of either].

  66. mpainter says:

    George E. Smith says: January 2, 2013 at 8:59 pm

    BUT!!
    At the north pole, and for virtually all of the arctic, the annual p-p CO2 cycle amplitude is 18 ppm; not 6 as at ML.
    ===================================
    Would you care to substantiate this? Please and thanks.

  67. John West says:

    @ Gail Combs
    I didn’t notice Mosher was commenting @ 7:42 pm on your excellent comment @ 2:22 pm until I got off the mobile, and now that I’ve read it I simply can’t resist using a tiny bit with a bit of WW (Willis Wisdom):

    @ Steven Mosher and Lief Svalgaard

    Are you really so confident in the conclusion that because TSI is constant(ish), CO2 explains Climate Change and humanity is to blame in light of all the predictive shortcomings of that model that no additional data should be evaluated or other explanations explored before taking action that in all probability will increase current suffering in a likely futile attempt to avoid future suffering?

  68. lsvalgaard says:

    John West says:
    January 2, 2013 at 10:42 pm
    Are you really so confident in the conclusion that because TSI is constant(ish), CO2 explains Climate Change and humanity is to blame
    not just TSI but solar activity as a whole. But from that it does not follow that CO2 explains recent climate change. Every sufficiently complex system has internal, natural fluctuations. It is strange that you deny the Earth that property, but cheerfully accept that the Sun has fluctuations in its output. It is also strange that everything must be so black-and-white. In my view some, X, of the climate change is due to CO2, some, Y, is due to the Sun, and some, Z, is due to internal, random fluctuations. The only question is how much of each. The debate has deteriorated into X=100%, Y=Z=0% and Y=100%, X=Z=0%, which is dang silly. Perhaps it is X=10, Y=10, and Z=80, but as long as the ‘debate’ [hardly worth calling it that] is so polarized we can’t make progress in pinning down X, Y, and Z [they may even vary with time].

  69. John West says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    “In my view some, X, of the climate change is due to CO2, some, Y, is due to the Sun, and some, Z, is due to internal, random fluctuations. The only question is how much of each.”

    Don’t have a heart attack but I agree with that 100% and most of the broader comment except for solar activity as whole being constant(ish) and the implication that I’m saying it must be 100% this or 100% that and 0% the other thing. I don’t know what the likely percentages are but I’m pretty darn sure solar activity isn’t as low as the models incorporate nor CO2 as high judging by their RF component chart.

    Also, you didn’t answer the question. Yes or no, in your opinion do we have enough information to act knowing that we cause suffering by acting and possibly suffering by not acting?

  70. vukcevic says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 2, 2013 at 3:56 pm
    vukcevic says:
    January 2, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    Have you heard of polar amplification, the main contributor to the GW ?

    Which has nothing to do with the cycles you are peddling. There is still no data from the polar regions to determine any cycles..
    ………………..

    Not correct.
    There is plenty of data since 1880 when my graph starts

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NV.htm

    Polar Amplification data is related to 1970s -2010, see the last illustration in the link
    You are running out of arguments, dismissing data from most recent decades, but confidently talking about data 6000 years ago.
    What a nonsense.

  71. Steveta_uk says:

    Leif, yet again I’m very impressed by your patience. Thanks for perservering.

  72. vukcevic says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    In my view some, X, of the climate change is due to CO2, some, Y, is due to the Sun, and some, Z, is due to internal, random fluctuations. The only question is how much of each.
    Perhaps it is X=10, Y=10, and Z=80 [they may even vary with time].

    Now you are talking, indeed Z is due to the Earth’s internal (oceans to the core) fluctuations. These natural fluctuations (whatever mechanism/s) are reflected in the changes of the geomagnetic field and therefore easy to measure.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm

    Let’s summarise:
    CO2 ~10%
    TSI ~10%
    Earth’s internal ~ 80%

  73. Henry Clark says:

    “The reconstruction indicates that the decadally averaged total solar irradiance ranges over approximately 1.5 W/m2 from grand maxima to grand minima.”

    “What I find interesting is that the 1.5 W/m2 isn’t far from the value for CO2 forcing reported by CDIAC here:”

    Yes, while also cloud cover changes (GCR influenced) amount to much more W/m^2 than the TSI change alone (since TSI is far closer to constant in terms of percentage variation albeit varying somewhat), with both adding up to allow a substantial temperature effect despite Earth’s low climate sensitivity, as in such as http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/indirect-solar-forcing-of-climate-by-galactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/

    “TSI weighted reconstruction since approximately 9500 BC.”

    In that plot, 20th century solar activity is substantially higher than the average in the 19th century. A simple but effective illustration, sidestepping the bulk of opportunities for obscuration and revisionism, is the particularly straightforward metric of solar cycle length, where shorter solar cycles tend to be more intense: the average solar cycle length over 1901 to 1996 was 10.5 years, compared to slower weaker cycles averaging 11.5 years each over the prior century from 1798 to 1901 ( ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/docs/maxmin.new )

    Then there is my usual set of illustrations (a majority posted before but with only a very small fraction of site visitors ever having seen such, most just ignorant, judged from pageview counts on related links, so I keep up the opportunity for new viewers from time to time):

    (click to enlarge)

    which relate to

    http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf

    while also particularly nice is

    http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg707/scaled.php?server=707&filename=kirkby1.jpg&res=landing

    which is from

    http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS134/Sources/03-Cosmic-rays/more/Kirkby_cosmic_rays_and_climate_2007.pdf

  74. Al Gullon says:

    A purported cause cannot possibly follow its purported effect.

    My article http://thinkinghighways.com/publications/issue/?issue=716&view=true uses a one year lagging correlation on IPCC’s own data to show that ocean temperature (actually ‘air over ocean’) is driving CO2 rather than the converse. That HUGE graphic alone is worth a visit. It shows the time location of all the confounders (ENSO and volcanoes) in trying to link solar radiation to the observed surface temperature of this old globe.

    Note that the article includes, for those not comfortable with computer calculations, tabular data giving a visual comparison of the annual numbers (this time with the ENSO water temperature variations replacing the IPCC’s ‘air over ocean’ temperatures). The correspondence of the annual ocean temperature increase with the annual increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration in the following year is practically perfect … in both time and intensity!
    Note also that this research avoids all the uncertainties and controversies associated with interpreting tree rings and drill core layers from eons ago. In comparison with that ‘ancient history’ this is current research using modern measurements practically in real time … as it is happening!

  75. policycritic says:

    LKMiller says:
    January 2, 2013 at 2:01 pm
    =======================
    “Corn Yields Have Increased Six Times Since 1940″

    http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/corn-yields-have-increased-6x-since.html

    After remaining flat between 1866 and 1939 at about 26 bushels per acre, corn yields started increasing dramatically in the 1940s due to the introduction of hybrid seeds, and the widespread use of nitrogen fertilizers and herbicides (source).

    Nitrogen fertilizer production converts nitrogen from the atmosphere into urea, the main macronutrient used by plants. Doesn’t the natural gas used to generate it give off CO2 when combusted?

  76. Matt Skaggs says:

    Those who claim that this solar work has nothing to do with CAGW are wrong. The theory can gain support in two ways, (1) by building evidence of a direct link between CO2 and warming (Doug Proctor correctly points out that this can only be done with highly specific predictions such as polar amplification, mid-troposphere hotspots, etc.), or (2) refuting plausible links between warming and other variables such as the sun. This study satisfies (2) by adding to the uncertainly of a solar driver, and therefore weakens CAGW, as others have correctly surmised.

    An additional note for Steven Mosher:
    If you cannot engage with “it could be something we do not understand” without feeling the need to ridicule others, you have forsaken objectivity.

  77. lsvalgaard says:

    John West says:
    January 2, 2013 at 11:38 pm
    Also, you didn’t answer the question. Yes or no, in your opinion do we have enough information to act knowing that we cause suffering by acting and possibly suffering by not acting?
    Is not a scientific question, so has no good answer. People usually do not need information to cause suffering.

    vukcevic says:
    January 3, 2013 at 12:22 am
    There is plenty of data since 1880 when my graph starts
    No, Show me a link to measured magnetic fields and temperatures above latitude 70 degrees in both hemispheres covering 1880-2012.
    Your graph refers to the ‘last 400 years’.
    You are running out of arguments
    I’m not arguing with you. I’m trying to educate you.

    Now you are talking, indeed Z is due to the Earth’s internal (oceans to the core) fluctuations. These natural fluctuations (whatever mechanism/s) are reflected in the changes of the geomagnetic field and therefore easy to measure.
    Except we don’t have any such measurements in the polar regions going back far enough in time to establish any ‘cycles’.

    Henry Clark says:
    January 3, 2013 at 3:11 am
    compared to slower weaker cycles averaging 11.5 years each over the prior century from 1798 to 1901
    Conveniently omitting the longest cycle of them all: the very strong cycle [Rmax=141] from Sept. 1784 to May 1798 [13.7 years]

  78. van Loon says:

    Hows many meteorologists are partaking in this debate?

  79. Steven Mosher says:

    John West

    “Are you really so confident in the conclusion that because TSI is constant(ish), CO2 explains Climate Change and humanity is to blame in light of all the predictive shortcomings of that model that no additional data should be evaluated or other explanations explored before taking action that in all probability will increase current suffering in a likely futile attempt to avoid future suffering?

    #######################

    1. I do not believe that C02 ‘explains’ climate change. The best science we have, a science which is incomplete and imprecise, suggests that more than half, but not all of the rise in temps we have seen can be attributed to GHGs, GHGs include C02 ( about 50% of the effect ) as well as other gases. In short, it is not only c02, AGW science has never said is is only c02. C02 plays a role, as does methane, and black carbon, and of course the sun.

    2. You seem not to know that Lucia and I were some of the first folks to actually talk about the short comings of the models, in fact, part of my rational for believing that climate sensitivity is LESS THAN 3C derives from studying how the models tend to run a bit hot. Some models of course tend to run a bit cool, but those that run hot outnumber those that run cool. That fact had me arguing back in 2009 that models should be score and weighted based on their skill and not simply averaged. You should do you homework, read more and comment less

    3. I have never suggested that no additional data should be collected. In fact perhaps you missed the role I played in the berkeley earth project. You will have to go back to a post on Lucia’s where Dr. Curry asked me what kind of project would “make us happy” with regard to temperature data. Perhaps you missed comments I’ve made about the importance of collecting and archiving more paleo data.

    4. Policy. I have never considered the policy implications when looking at the science. I find the analysis of solar impacts ( sun spots get connected to everything except my left pinky toe, just as warming gets connected to jelly fish and mutant frogs) to be not reproducible. The sun spot connected to my legbone work is More like mann’s work than Leif’s work. I would say that even if we knew for certain that C02 had no effect. That said, we have some very simple questions to ask ourselves.

    If the effect of adding C02 to the atmosphere is uncertain, do we want to blindly encourage it and subsidize it?
    Do we want to encourage and subsidize the wealthy of the world to develop and live in places that could be swamped by sea level rise, in which case, we would then have to bail them out?

    Do we know enough to set C02 targets? hardly. Do we know enough to pick and choose renewable winners? hardly. What is the real problem? the real problem is a world of 9 billion people in 2050 who will need at least twice the energy we consume today. They need that power to be cheap and it better be carbon free. So, I dont see the problem as being how to we tax c02 or how do we change peoples lifestyles, or how do we do with less. I see the problem as being how to we bring cheep carbon free energy to 9 billion people in 2050.

    entirely different problem than stopping global warming.

  80. DirkH says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    January 3, 2013 at 8:33 am
    “They need that power to be cheap and it better be carbon free.”

    Why?

  81. John West says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    [Whether we have enough info to act] ”Is not a scientific question, so has no good answer.”

    That’s the point; the scientific question in this case is not divorced from the policy question. If we were talking about what killed the dinosaurs (except birds) or some detail of human evolution then academics could extrapolate and conjecture until the cows come home without much notice from outside academia, but this question has policy significance therefore there’s a heightened responsibility to Truth, the whole truth. Scientists sometimes get their favorite theories and blind themselves to contrary evidence like in the case of the water ape hypothesis. There’s a responsibility to say we think this or that but this other thing and whatnot isn’t well understood and we could be wrong with a realistic estimation of uncertainties, unknowns, and error ranges. This is what I find missing from “The Team”, the IPCC reports (esp. exec sums), and most (but not all) advocates of action on climate change.

    From my POV it is too soon to make policy decisions based on what we know and what we don’t know. The best course of action IMHO is to continue gathering and analyzing data and evaluating potential future courses of action. If the balance of knowledge should turn in favor of action I would be the first to advocate against “analysis paralysis” and not over analyze before deciding on and implementing a course of action, but we are not there yet and mitigation still has issues even if CO2 turns out to be a problem.

  82. vukcevic says:

    Dr. L.S.
    Show me a link to measured magnetic fields and temperatures above latitude 70 degrees in both hemispheres covering 1880-2012.

    In the Northern Hemisphere the Earth’s magnetic field is strongest below 70 degrees, in Canada at 62N and in Siberia at 64N, in the South at 60S, but you know that anyway.

    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/mag_maps/pdf/F_map_mf_2010.pdf

    For magnetic data I refer you to:
    Helmholtz Centre Potsdam GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences
    and
    Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
    you know that too, when I did ask for the data, you recommended both of the above.For both you said: the best data there is.
    Arctic temperature anomaly uses data only from the last 3-4 decades.

    Except we don’t have any such measurements in the polar regions going back far enough in time to establish any ‘cycles’.

    Yes we do, since we are talking about 21 year or shorter cycle periods. Cycles are not from polar regions, it is the total flux at the Earth’s core-mantle boundary.

    So we finally agree
    CO2 ~ 10%, TSI ~ 10% and 80% for internal variability [random –Svalgaard; geomagnetic identifiable cross-modulation – Vukcevic].
    Good grief, end to the 4 years of blogging warfare.

    Note to everyone: even the top scientists are not always correct

  83. lsvalgaard says:

    vukcevic says:
    January 3, 2013 at 9:17 am
    For magnetic data I refer you to:
    Helmholtz Centre Potsdam GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences

    That may be so, but that does not mean there is actual data from the polar regions.

    Arctic temperature anomaly uses data only from the last 3-4 decades.
    Ah, back-pedaling on that…

    Cycles are not from polar regions, it is the total flux at the Earth’s core-mantle boundary.
    I thought you were talking about the secular variation [dZ], but maybe you have changed your mind about that. The ‘total flux at the CMB’ is sort of nonsense. You must specify a location, or state that the flux is integrated over the whole surface. That flux at the surface is the same as that flux at the CMB boundary as the surface flux comes from the CMB.

    So we finally agree
    CO2 ~ 10%, TSI ~ 10% and 80% for internal variability [random –Svalgaard; geomagnetic identifiable cross-modulation – Vukcevic].

    You take unwarranted liberties here.

  84. John West says:

    Steven Mosher says:

    1) ”In short, it is not only c02, AGW science has never said [it] is only c02.”

    No, just mostly CO2 to a high confidence level. Splitting hairs a bit and 50% is hardly what the IPCC puts out there. Look at the RF chart again, do you agree with it?

    2) ”short comings of the models”

    I was more referring to model in the broader sense of “way of thinking” but that is of course incorporated into the computer models that in turn fail.

    3) ”never suggested that no additional data should be collected”

    That’s not the question. The question is do we have enough data to make a decision that has consequences both ways.

    4) ”I have never considered the policy implications when looking at the science.”

    I don’t have a problem with that what I have a problem with is communicating science without considering the policy considerations.

    ”If the effect of adding C02 to the atmosphere is uncertain, do we want to blindly encourage it and subsidize it?

    If the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere improves human health and the environment, do we want to discourage and regulate it?

  85. Dr. Lurtz says:

    lsvalgaard says:

    Tom in Florida says:
    January 2, 2013 at 1:01 pm
    Looking at the scale, are we really talking about a difference of just over 1 w/m2?
    Yes, but remember that the faithful invoke an unknown mechanism to amplify the impact of that tiny difference by ten times in their attempts to make it fit the observed temperature fluctuations.

    Before there was man produced electrical energy, some faithful invoked an unknown mechanism to create virtually unlimited energy [verses horse, wood, manpower]. Scientific research produced electrical generators.

    Something is happening to the Earth’s temperature, why not, as a scientist, try to “find” the cause verses attack all others not of your faith!! How about UV having an affect on the Ozone layer?? Last I read this interaction was “not well understood”.

  86. “Our results suggest that the climate responds to both the 11 yr solar cycle ”
    Tested with a running correlation, significance levels not apparently corrected for multiple comparisons. Type I error anyone?

    REPLY: It helps to read before condemning, though your history shows condemning things you don’t like is what you do best.

    Finally, all statistical tests are probabilistic and depend on the specification of the model. Type 1 error refers to the probability of rejecting a hypothesis when it is true (false positive) and type 2 error refers to the probability of not rejecting a hypothesis when it is false (false negative). In our case the type 1 error is very small because anthropogenic forcing is I (1) with very low probability, and temperature is polynomially cointegrated with very low probability.

  87. TomRude says:

    @Mosher, to put in context 9 billion people on Earth by 2050, if they were all living on the continental US, the density of population would be equivalent to that of the Paris suburb region now, that is 966h/km2 [Ref: Dumont, Professor Sorbonne]

  88. TomRude says:

    Leif writes: “Only if the weather events mostly go in the same direction. If they are cyclic [like the seasons] they don’t affect climate.”
    The trend in intensity of these seasons and their character will be a reflection of climate.

    Leif writes: “Here is one comment: weather is not climate. Here is another one: the ‘polar front’ is very ‘wavy’ so you see those [Rossby] waves roll by if you stay at a fixed position.”

    The polar front???? Sorry, but this is a no go as far as observations are concerned. Take the time to observe on satellite images animations the ejection of cold air anticyclones and tell me where the “polar front” stops. If you observe the reality long enough you’ll see your polar air mass going down to the tropical and equatorial circulation. This is of importance since the “Sun Weather Climate” 1978 book in its chapter 3.1.6 page 113, references to the Azores High and Icelandic low. This denotes its weather concepts are antiquated and that since then, Leroux has shown how these statistical centers have no synoptic reality.

    An example easy to grasp refers to trade winds regularity. Compare them to a note struck on a pipe organ; there is a major difference in process between keeping your finger on the key all the time and pressing that key, regularly every 10 seconds. Using statistical entities such as the Azores High is like keeping your finger all the time on the key while synoptic reality shows your finger pressure cannot be continuous.

    I can therefore see why no relation could emerge when using the improper physical assumptions. Hopefully, and since we do observe short term variations of intensity during each seasons on a hemispheric and synchronous scale, it is of utmost importance to understand what mechanism controls them, their intensity and frequency, since they will determine what we’ll label climate.

  89. DirkH says:

    Doug Proctor says:
    January 2, 2013 at 11:35 am
    “An article of great interest, but not useful in the CAGW debate, unfortunately.

    Variations in TSI as noted are sufficient but not necessary for the late 20th century warming: this is the problem of combating CAGW. It’s the “many roads to Mecca” problem. CO2 by IPCC narrative is sufficient to account for modern warming. Other possible means of warming, even if of historical importance, once discounted for the present, are not considerations in the argument.”

    When you say “not useful” you are arguing that the world has now accepted Steve Schneider’s Null hypothesis switch and that it is the job of skeptics to refute CO2AGW. I’d call that going into Schneider’s trap. Of course, journalists willingly do so as they hope that warnings of the end of the world will boost their sales; but I don’t see scientific evidence that makes CO2AGW an acceptable Null hypothesis (CO2 rise and temperatures don’t correlate well and the models failed.)

    Your “usefulness” criterion reminds me of Schneider’s call to the CO2AGW scientists to be either honest or efficient. It has nothing to do with truth or science.

    If you want to win “the debate”, you can only do so with the means of politics and propaganda, because that’s where “the debate” (and “the cause”) is.

    Schneider’s Null hypothesis switch was a political trick, not a scientific one.

  90. lsvalgaard says:

    TomRude says:
    January 3, 2013 at 10:02 am
    The polar front????
    Educate yourself: http://paoc.mit.edu/labguide/fronts_polar.html and http://www.kids-fun-science.com/polar-front.html

    Dr. Lurtz says:
    January 3, 2013 at 9:34 am
    How about UV having an affect on the Ozone layer?? Last I read this interaction was “not well understood”.
    so, you advocate relying on something that is “not well understood”…

  91. lsvalgaard says:

    vukcevic says:
    January 3, 2013 at 9:17 am
    So we finally agree
    CO2 ~ 10%, TSI ~ 10% and 80% for internal variability

    good that you have abandoned the notion that there is any external variability from the Sun. So, indeed there is some progress.

  92. lsvalgaard says: January 2, 2013 at 9:34 pm Hockey Schtick says: January 2, 2013 at 3:32 pm
    a. An increase of [1.2 Wm-2]/4 = 0.3 Wm-2 at the surface causes an increase of surface temperature of << 0.1 degree as you claim, or
    b. An increase of 0.3 W/m2 at the surface causes an increase of surface temperature of ~ 0.9 C
    ‘a’ of course. You calculation is wrong. CO2 has nothing to do with it. It is much simpler. A percentage change of TSI of S%, leads to a change of temperature of S/4%. Since 1.2W/m2 is 0.1% of S, the change in temperature will be 0.1/4% = 0.025%. 0.025% of 288K is 0.07K, Tim.

    1. Of course, the calculation done in a. above has nothing to do with CO2. I am simply showing that 1 Wm-2 forcing at the surface from doubled CO2 is alleged by the IPCC to cause about 11 times more warming than 1 Wm-2 forcing at the surface from the Sun. I demonstrate in b. that, according to the IPCC, an increase of 0.3 Wm-2 at the surface leads to ~ 0.9 C temperature increase, not 0.08 C [.003*288]. Therefore, shall we assume the IPCC has overstated climate sensitivity by a factor of 11?

    2. FYI My name is not Tim & I have no idea who is the Tim for which you have mistaken me

    3. So Leif, what is the “unknown mechanism”?
    You tell me, Tim, as the known mechanisms are not effective enough. Believers claim ‘amplification’, ‘feedback’, etc, but can’t explain how that works and calculate what the amplification should be, Tim.

    False in several respects:
    a. for just one example, many papers have observed a significant decrease in cloud cover in the 1980’s-1990’s from locations around the globe. These decreases are significantly more than the 1-2% that can cause global warming [as repeatedly pointed out by Roy Spencer].

    b. for another, a very simple model based only upon the PDO+AMO+”sunspot integral” correlates with temperature much much more than CO2. Both the PDO and AMO have been shown to have a lagged correlation with solar activity.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html

    c. you obviously still don’t have an answer for what caused the climate change in the 1st paper above.

    4. a. Only shortwave solar radiation can heat the oceans, not changes in IR from GHGs
    GHCs have nothing to do with this. All radiation that is absorbed heats the oceans no matter the wavelength, Tim.

    Totally wrong – read the post from Realclimate to understand why IR from GHGs only penetrates a few microns, with all heat generated lost to the evaporative phase change of water.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/realclimate-admits-doubling-co2-could.html

  93. TomRude says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 3, 2013 at 11:03 am
    TomRude says:
    January 3, 2013 at 10:02 am
    The polar front????
    Educate yourself: http://paoc.mit.edu/labguide/fronts_polar.html and http://www.kids-fun-science.com/polar-front.html

    ==
    I am surprised you did not quote Connolley’s Wikipedia Dr. Svalgaard… LOL Kids fun?
    Now, update your references:

    http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf

    No need to reply.

  94. TomRude says:

    lsvalgaard says January 3, 2013 at 11:03am
    TomRude says:
    January 3, 2013 at 10:02 am
    The polar front????

    Educate yourself: http://paoc.mit.edu/labguide/fronts_polar.html and http://www.kids-fun-science.com/polar-front.html
    ===
    In the same vein, I thought you’d quote Wikipedia Dr. Svalgaard… LOL
    Now, instead of kiddy’s stuff or 1969 schematics, update your references:

    http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf

    No reply needed. EOM

  95. lsvalgaard says:

    Hockey Schtick says:
    January 3, 2013 at 11:22 am
    I am simply showing that 1 Wm-2 forcing at the surface from doubled CO2 is alleged by the IPCC to cause about 11 times more warming than 1 Wm-2 forcing at the surface from the Sun.
    Who cares what the IPCC thinks about CO2. I showed the minuscule effect of 1.2 W/m2 increase due to the Sun.

    My name is not Tim
    sorry for that. my bad.

    a. for just one example, many papers have observed a significant decrease in cloud cover in the 1980′s-1990′s from locations around the globe.
    Perhaps you are confusing cause and effect. Why omit the 2000s?

    c. you obviously still don’t have an answer for what caused the climate change in the 1st paper above.
    Why do I need to?

    Totally wrong – read the post from Realclimate to understand why IR from GHGs only penetrates a few microns, with all heat generated lost to the evaporative phase change of water.
    IR from the Sun is more than half of the total solar output. I don’t know why you are hung up on CO2 and GHGs.

  96. Leif, here’s yet another paper published today in GRL demonstrating the mechanism by which the Sun controls the NAO and AO

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-finds-another-mechanism-by.html

  97. Who cares what the IPCC thinks about CO2. I showed the minuscule effect of 1.2 W/m2 increase due to the Sun.

    Who cares? LOL
    Thanks for conceding that the IPCC exaggerates global warming from CO2 by a factor of 11

    Perhaps you are confusing cause and effect. Why omit the 2000s?
    The whole thesis of Roy Spencer’s book is that climate science has indeed confused cause and effect, especially with respect to clouds.

    c. you obviously still don’t have an answer for what caused the climate change in the 1st paper above.
    Why do I need to?

    Because you constantly berate skeptics for pointing out mechanisms both known and unknown by which small changes in solar activity can cause climate change. Here’s yet another paper published today debunking your claim that small variations in solar activity cannot be amplified to have large effects on climate:

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-finds-another-mechanism-by.html

    Totally wrong – read the post from Realclimate to understand why IR from GHGs only penetrates a few microns, with all heat generated lost to the evaporative phase change of water.
    IR from the Sun is more than half of the total solar output. I don’t know why you are hung up on CO2 and GHGs.

    Uhhh, I’m “hung up” on CO2 and GHGs because, as previously explained 3 times now, they only emit LWIR which cannot heat the oceans. The Sun on the other hand is the only source of UV and visible, which can penetrate and heat the oceans by up to 100 meters. Therefore, only the Sun controls ocean temps [other than geothermal sources].

  98. lsvalgaard says:

    TomRude says:
    January 3, 2013 at 11:39 am
    Now, instead of kiddy’s stuff or 1969 schematics, update your references:

    http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf

    With a 20-yr old wacky ‘theory’? You have been had.
    As you say: No reply needed. EOM

    Hockey Schtick says:
    January 3, 2013 at 11:57 am
    Leif, here’s yet another paper published today in GRL demonstrating the mechanism by which the Sun controls the NAO and AO

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-finds-another-mechanism-by.html

    Sure, paper number 2134 that demonstrates that. Shall I respond with a new CO2 paper?
    The UV changes are not established. They could be instrumental.
    At the same SORCE 2012 meeting Judith Lean had this to say:

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2012ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/S1-04%20LEAN_NRLSSI_Sep12.pdf

    “Uncertainty in UV Spectrum solar cycle variations is at least 2X larger than Merkel et al report”
    “SOLSTICE reprocessing now indicates smaller solar cycle variation than SIM”
    “An error in the version 10 degradation correction in the A/B transfer is now believed to have produced the unusually large variation at some wavelengths in the MUV data. …SNS Jan 2012″

  99. vukcevic says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 3, 2013 at 11:22 am
    vukcevic says:
    January 3, 2013 at 9:17 am
    So we finally agree
    CO2 ~ 10%, TSI ~ 10% and 80% for internal variability

    good that you have abandoned the notion that there is any external variability from the Sun. So, indeed there is some progress.
    …………………..
    good that you have accepted the notion that there is an Earth internal variability as indicated by the geomagnetic data. So, indeed there is a lot of progress.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AGT.htm

  100. lsvalgaard says:

    Hockey Schtick says:
    January 3, 2013 at 11:57 am
    Leif, here’s yet another paper published today in GRL…
    You forgot [?] to quote the conclusion:
    “Any reduction in global mean temperature due to decline is likely to be a very small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming”

  101. lsvalgaard says:

    Hockey Schtick says:
    January 3, 2013 at 12:25 pm
    Thanks for conceding that the IPCC exaggerates global warming from CO2 by a factor of 11
    what is this ‘conceding’ nonsense? I don’t care what IPCC says. I do care about what the sun nuts say when they exaggerate global warming from Sun by a factor of 10

    Why omit the 2000s?

    “Why do I need to?”
    Because you constantly berate skeptics …

    Most are not skeptics at all, they just believe in a different ‘religion’, and uncritically it seems.

    Uhhh, I’m “hung up” on CO2 and GHGs because, as previously explained 3 times now, they only emit LWIR which cannot heat the oceans.
    You deny that the IR from the Sun [which is more than half of the total solar output] also heats the oceans? Be precise now. So, you believe that if I remove 53% of the solar irradiance, that will have no effect?

  102. lsvalgaard says:

    Hockey Schtick says:
    January 3, 2013 at 12:25 pm
    Thanks for conceding that the IPCC exaggerates global warming from CO2 by a factor of 11
    what is this ‘conceding’ nonsense? I don’t care what IPCC says. I do care about what the sun nuts say when they exaggerate global warming from Sun by a factor of 10

    Why omit the 2000s?

    “Why do I need to?”
    Because you constantly berate skeptics …
    Most are not skeptics at all, they just believe in a different ‘religion’, and uncritically it seems.

    Uhhh, I’m “hung up” on CO2 and GHGs because, as previously explained 3 times now, they only emit LWIR which cannot heat the oceans.
    You deny that the IR from the Sun [which is more than half of the total solar output] also heats the oceans? Be precise now. So, you believe that if I remove 53% of the solar irradiance, that will have no effect?

  103. lsvalgaard says:

    vukcevic says:
    January 3, 2013 at 12:44 pm
    good that you have accepted the notion that there is an Earth internal variability as indicated by the geomagnetic data.
    Again you attempt to take unwarranted liberty. Your “Earth internal variability as indicated by the geomagnetic data” is still nonsense. The internal, natural variability is probably determined by the oceans, not the Earth’s core.

  104. The UV changes are not established. They could be instrumental.

    or not. But, it’s nice your friend Judith Lean of the Judithgate controversy agrees with you.

    Once again, you provide a fictitious defense while avoiding the main point.

    Whether UV variation is 5-6X higher than previously thought or not, the fact is there is a mechanism found by the paper by which changes in UV over solar cycles are amplified to produce climate change. You claim that’s not possible.

    Shall I respond with a new CO2 paper?

    Yes please provide me with all papers indicating that CO2 controls the NAO, AO, or any other ocean oscillation.

  105. George E. Smith says:
    January 2, 2013 at 8:59 pm

    That data shows a p-p annual oscillation of 6ppm due due natural causes. The detail shows that th CO2 climbs 6ppm in about 7 months, and falls about 6ppm in five months.

    Assuming the present level is 395ppm, and for some unknown reason taking 280 ppm as a stable equilibrium level, then the CO2 excess driving the re-absorption natural processes is 115 ppm. which is (115/6)x5 months to remove ALL of the excess at the rate of 6ppm in 5 months, and that comes to 95.83 months.

    Some problems with this reasoning: The fall and rise of CO2 over the seasons is from a quite different process than the removal of an excess amount of CO2. The seasonal swings over a year are caused by temperature: increased emissions from the oceans and increased uptake by vegetation in summer and reverse in winter. The flows involved are quite impressive: resp. 90 GtC in/out the oceans and 60 GtC in/out vegetation. The largest variability is visible in the NH, but globally it is only 5 ppmv/°C (10 GtC/°C), mainly caused by NH vegetation. That – again – is turnover and has nothing to do with the excess decay… What temperature does is changing the CO2 level setpoint within a year (and over the years).

    The removal of the excess CO2 of 210 GtC above equilibrium is of a complete different order: only 4 GtC/year is effectively removed per year after a full seasonal cycle. To remove the extra 210 GtC thus needs 210/4 = 52.5 years e-fold time or ~40 years half life time. The seasonal temperature and following CO2 level swings reduce the speed of CO2 removal somewhat in summer and increases it in winter, as the equilibrium setpoint changes over the seasons…

  106. lsvalgaard says:

    Hockey Schtick says:
    January 3, 2013 at 1:08 pm
    Whether UV variation is 5-6X higher than previously thought or not, the fact is there is a mechanism found by the paper by which changes in UV over solar cycles are amplified to produce climate change. You claim that’s not possible.
    No, I claim that that has not been demonstrated. A proposed mechanism is just that: ‘proposed’.
    And you still ‘forget’ to quote the conclusion:
    “Any reduction in global mean temperature due to decline is likely to be a very small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming”

    please provide me with all papers indicating that CO2 controls the NAO, AO, or any other ocean oscillation.
    The paper you referred to did not involve the ocean oscillation “avoiding the main point”.

  107. Steven Mosher says:

    “Most are not skeptics at all, they just believe in a different ‘religion’, and uncritically it seems.”

    this is something we have seen more and more of recently. Not too long ago in the blog wars skeptics made good points about the gaps in knowledge, the shoddy documentation, the jumping to conclusions. They were… skeptics. Now instead of that we get people who think their ‘science’ of sun spots is settled. They have no doubt about their theory, they do not demand that folks produce their code, they dont pick through the various details the way mcIntyre picked through the details of mann. And to a man they all avoid reading Leif’s very lucid description of the mistakes in the sun spot record. I mean seriously, you can go look at the documents, you can see that they changed the method of counting. The data shows this discontunity . its as clear as any analysis willis or anthony has done on station data. yet, folks persist in ignoring this work. That is, they fool themselves all the while quoting Feynman about fooling oneself

  108. vukcevic says:

    Hockey Schtick says:
    January 3, 2013 at 11:57 am
    Leif, here’s yet another paper published today in GRL demonstrating the mechanism by which the Sun controls the NAO and AO.
    ……..
    I would suggest that the NAO is a direct response to the possible variability in the strength of a little known current (North Icelandic Jet). The NAO is strongly correlated to the geological movements in the far North Atlantic

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NorthAtlanticOutlook.htm

    the area of Kolbeinsey Ridge.

    http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1705-01=&volpage=var

    Bear in mind that the NAO is dominated by its northern leg, the atmospheric pressure at nearby Stykkisholmur/Reykjavik.

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 3, 2013 at 1:01 pm
    Your “Earth internal variability as indicated by the geomagnetic data” is still nonsense. The internal, natural variability is probably determined by the oceans, not the Earth’s core.
    …………
    How kind of you to agree again. Definitely ocean, there is either choice or combination of two: saline ions reaction (termohaline) to combination of the solar cycles and the Earth’s magnetic fields; Lorentz force, http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sun-Earth.htm
    or the geology as suggested above.
    Do remember, the most of the global warming anomaly is in the high latitudes of the N. Hemisphere

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AGT.htm

    under influence of the polar jet-stream, controlled by heat release from the ocean in the Nordic Seas (several hundred watts /m2.(see also NorthAtlanticOutlook link above).

  109. lsvalgaard says:

    vukcevic says:
    January 3, 2013 at 2:01 pm
    How kind of you to agree again. Definitely ocean, there is either choice or combination of two: saline ions reaction (termohaline) to combination of the solar cycles and the Earth’s magnetic fields; Lorentz force
    The Lorentz force idea is still nonsense [much much too small, plus has a problem with skin depth]. There is no combination of the two fields. And all the other strikes against your ideas still stand.

  110. TomRude says:

    @ Mosher, “And to a man they all avoid reading Leif’s very lucid description of the mistakes in the sun spot record.”

    Save us your sanctimonious wide brushstrokes… Svalgaard contribution to taming the “grand maximum” is appreciated, hence my surprise while attempting a discussion with the man…

    @ lsvalgaard says:
    January 3, 2013 at 12:38 pm
    TomRude says:
    January 3, 2013 at 11:39 am
    Now, instead of kiddy’s stuff or 1969 schematics, update your references:

    http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf

    With a 20-yr old wacky ‘theory’? You have been had.
    As you say: No reply needed. EOM

    ==
    Your contempt for an observation based scientific work that describes pertinently our changing climate is pathetic especially given the outdated references you have offered on the subject of atmospheric circulation: at least read the material in the links you provided! You apply onto others’ what you, often rightfully, denounce when it comes to your specialty. Sad.

  111. lsvalgaard says:

    TomRude says:
    January 3, 2013 at 2:36 pm
    Your contempt for an observation based scientific work that describes pertinently our changing climate is pathetic
    I have read that paper carefully and I think it does not represent reality. Perhaps I’m biased, but I do think you have been had. The references I gave you represents ‘current knowledge’ to the best of my knowledge. Let others here speak up if they agree with your assessment of the paper you referred to.

  112. You forgot [?] to quote the conclusion:
    “Any reduction in global mean temperature due to decline is likely to be a very small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming”

    1. IPCC projected anthropogenic warming is exaggerated by a factor of 11 per the above calculation. What else did you expect the highly alarmist Met Office to say?

    2. They only studied two ocean oscillations in roughly the same region. They did not study any of the many other ocean oscillations on the globe. So sure, changes in one region are unlikely to have an effect on a global average. However, many other papers have shown that the Sun drives other oscillations around the globe, and thus, in toto could affect global avg temp.

    3. Even if there was no change in temperature, the Sun has been shown to drive weather patterns and climate independent of temperature, but this should be impossible according to you.

    what is this ‘conceding’ nonsense? I don’t care what IPCC says. I do care about what the sun nuts say when they exaggerate global warming from Sun by a factor of 10

    ok got it, you don’t care that the IPCC says 1 Wm-2 forcing at the surface from GHGs causes 3C global warming [3C per Wm-2] compared to [1 Wm-2]/4 = .25 Wm-2 forcing at the surface from solar radiation causing 0.05 C warming, or 0.2 C per Wm-2,

    Why omit the 2000s?

    I’m not: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/spencers-cloud-hypothesis-confirmed/

    You deny that the IR from the Sun [which is more than half of the total solar output] also heats the oceans? Be precise now. So, you believe that if I remove 53% of the solar irradiance, that will have no effect?

    LWIR from the Sun and GHGs can only heat land, not the oceans. For the 4th time, read the post on Realclimate for the reasons. And I suggest you suspend an 100 W IR heat lamp over a bucket of water and report back on the temperature change of the water.

  113. In addition, almost all IR from the Sun is near IR with a wavelength below 2 microns. The shorter the wavelength, the further the penetration into water. There is almost no longwave IR from the Sun, whereas radiation from CO2 is all LWIR with a wavelength of about 15 microns, which only penetrates water by a few microns.

  114. REPLY: It helps to read before condemning, though your history shows condemning things you don’t like is what you do best.

    Finally, all statistical tests are probabilistic and depend on the specification of the model. Type 1 error refers to the probability of rejecting a hypothesis when it is true (false positive) and type 2 error refers to the probability of not rejecting a hypothesis when it is false (false negative). In our case the type 1 error is very small because anthropogenic forcing is I (1) with very low probability, and temperature is polynomially cointegrated with very low probability.

    —————————
    It would help immensely if you quoted from the correct paper!

    REPLY: I quote from the paper discussed on this thread. You must be looking at something else. Was your comment not directed at critiquing this paper?

  115. lsvalgaard says:

    Hockey Schtick says:
    January 3, 2013 at 3:45 pm
    1. IPCC projected anthropogenic warming is exaggerated by a factor of 11 per the above calculation. What else did you expect the highly alarmist Met Office to say?
    So, you accept what they say when it confirms your belief, and reject it when it does not. There is a word for that. Actually two words: beginning with ‘C’ and ‘B’, respectively.

    in toto could affect global avg temp.
    ‘could’. If pigs had wings, they ‘could’ fly.

    the Sun has been shown to drive weather patterns and climate independent of temperature, but this should be impossible according to you.
    A claim is not ‘has been shown’ [and there are many, including some of mine:
    Solar Magnetic Sector Structure: Relation to Circulation of the Earth's Atmosphere
    Wilcox, John M.; Scherrer, Philip H.; Svalgaard, Leif; Roberts, Walter Orr; Olson, Roger H.
    Science, Volume 180, Issue 4082, pp. 185-186, 04/1973.
    Abstract
    The solar magnetic sector structure appears to be related to the average area of high positive vorticity centers (low-pressure troughs) observed during winter in the Northern Hemisphere at the 300-millibar level. The average area of high vorticity decreases (low-pressure troughs become less intense) during a few days near the times at which sector boundaries are carried past the earth by the solar wind. The amplitude of the effect is about 10 percent.]

    ok got it, you don’t care that the IPCC says
    No I don’t care. People say many things that are not true.

    “Why omit the 2000s?” I’m not
    Hockey Schtick says:
    January 3, 2013 at 11:22 am
    “many papers have observed a significant decrease in cloud cover in the 1980′s-1990′s from locations around the globe”

    LWIR from the Sun and GHGs can only heat land, not the oceans.
    You are confusing IR from the Sun and from GHGs. 53% of the 340 w/m2 that is the incoming solar energy is IR. Explain what happens to that.

  116. lsvalgaard says:

    Hockey Schtick says:
    January 3, 2013 at 4:24 pm
    In addition, almost all IR from the Sun is near IR with a wavelength below 2 microns. The shorter the wavelength, the further the penetration into water. There is almost no longwave IR from the Sun, whereas radiation from CO2 is all LWIR with a wavelength of about 15 microns, which only penetrates water by a few microns.
    Ah, you are catching on! So, why confuse the issue about the sun’s influence with that of LWIR? And repeating it four times!

  117. REPLY: I quote from the paper discussed on this thread. You must be looking at something else. Was your comment not directed at critiquing this paper?

    You quoted from Beenstock et al. This page is about Kokfelt and Muscheler’s paper.

    REPLY: You are correct. I’ll have to stop moderating in a limited screen. The WP app I used this AM doesn’t show all the context. My apologies for that confusion and comment that was truly off-topic – Anthony

  118. You are the party that conflated near IR from the Sun with LWIR in your question above. You will note above I specified LWIR when I said “Uhhh, I’m “hung up” on CO2 and GHGs because, as previously explained 3 times now, they only emit LWIR which cannot heat the oceans.” And the chart of penetration depth above shows the difference between near IR and LWIR .

    Once again:
    Why omit the 2000s?
    I’m not: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/spencers-cloud-hypothesis-confirmed/

    A claim is not ‘has been shown’ [and there are many, including some of mine:

    OK fine I’ll restate it:

    Many many papers have claimed the Sun drives weather patterns and climate independent of temperature [including papers by Dr. Svalgaard], but these claims are baseless and impossible according to Dr. Svalgaard.

  119. TomRude says:

    Leif writes: “I have read that paper carefully and I think it does not represent reality”

    So I guess that cold air anticyclones thickness must be different than the observed, measured usual 1500m, that satellite imagery showing these cold polar origined air masses moving through mid latitudes into the tropical circulation must be wrong, that the discontinuities observed over the meteorological equator must not exist etc…

    To sum it up, the geometry of circulation observed is the reality. Leroux merely describes it instead of guessing it like Ferrell 1856, Bjerknes 1923 or Rossby 1939, all models proposed before the advent of satellite observation. Leroux through detailed reconstruction work in tropical Africa first and its extension later is simply correcting them and presenting a coherent reconstruction of this reality.

    BTW, since predictive ability is still a scientific way to differentiate between concepts, may I suggest browsing the work of Barbier 2005 on the Panama Isthmus and how Leroux’s MPH reality yielded much better data matching results and understanding than NOAA’s models. http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/04/73/65/PDF/tel-00007550.pdf

  120. lsvalgaard says:

    Hockey Schtick says:
    January 3, 2013 at 4:52 pm
    You are the party that conflated near IR from the Sun with LWIR in your question above.
    The LWIR is irrelevant when it comes to discussing the influence of the Sun. I’ll give you that. So, perhaps we have heard the last of this.

    Once again:
    “Why omit the 2000s? I’m not…

    So, Once again:
    Hockey Schtick says:
    January 3, 2013 at 11:22 am
    “many papers have observed a significant decrease in cloud cover in the 1980′s-1990′s from locations around the globe”

    Many many papers have claimed the Sun drives weather patterns and climate independent of temperature [including papers by Dr. Svalgaard], but these claims are baseless and impossible according to Dr. Svalgaard.
    while you are on the re-stating trip, oerhaps one more time:
    “these claims have with time invariably turned out to be spurious.” [inclusing mine]. Even after 400 years, the claims keep coming, a sure sign that they have not been established. Established and generally accepted phenomena do not generate a continuous stream of new claims. We don’t see claims anymore that the Earth is round, or that the Sun is a star, and that we revolve anbout the Sun and not the other way around, etc.

  121. “these claims have with time invariably turned out to be spurious.” [inclusing mine]. Even after 400 years, the claims keep coming, a sure sign that they have not been established. Established and generally accepted phenomena do not generate a continuous stream of new claims. We don’t see claims anymore that the Earth is round, or that the Sun is a star, and that we revolve anbout the Sun and not the other way around, etc.

    Oh please, a chaotic nonlinear system with grossly inadequate measurements over long timescales can hardly be compared to the Earth being round. And new claims are necessary to look at new data and different aspects of the most complex system ever studied.

    Chao

  122. lsvalgaard says:

    TomRude says:
    January 3, 2013 at 5:06 pm
    suggest browsing the work of Barbier 2005 on the Panama Isthmus and how Leroux’s MPH reality yielded much better data matching results and understanding than NOAA’s models
    so where in that tome does one find a comparison [tables, plots, statistical significance, etc] of extensive testing of the predictions of the MPH and NOAA?

  123. TomRude says:

    Sorry, you’ll have to read the work, carefully.

  124. lsvalgaard says:

    Hockey Schtick says:
    January 3, 2013 at 5:26 pm
    Oh please, a chaotic nonlinear system with grossly inadequate measurements over long timescales can hardly be compared to the Earth being round. And new claims are necessary to look at new data and different aspects of the most complex system ever studied.
    I have studied this system for more than forty years and read hundreds of those papers [and written many myself] and my take is that the quality of the papers stand in gross disparity with what is needed or expected for the ‘most complex system ever studied’. What characterizes a mature science is that workers build on each other’s studies, results, and findings. Very few of sun-weather-climate papers do that [besides mentioning other work in passing]. This is probably appropriate as one might say that S-W-C science is still in its infancy and is not at all a ‘mature science’. But if one does that, then it follows that the claimants are still groping in the dark and that policy cannot be based on [or even influenced by] that groping. And that every new claim is just one more straw to clutch at.

  125. lsvalgaard says:

    TomRude says:
    January 3, 2013 at 5:49 pm
    Sorry, you’ll have to read the work, carefully.
    Oh, you mean that you don’t know where what I’m after is.
    If you have something to contribute, say it.

  126. TomRude says:

    Check from “Etudes de Cas” page 149 on… or from page 295 on… All these real cases show how NOAA models did not read the synoptic situation while the MPH concept made it logical and explained what happened.

  127. lsvalgaard says:

    TomRude says:
    January 3, 2013 at 6:44 pm
    Check from “Etudes de Cas” page 149 on… or from page 295 on… All these real cases show how NOAA models did not read the synoptic situation while the MPH concept made it logical and explained what happened.
    That is not how one verifies a prediction. A verification must include all cases, not just carefully picked ones that fit.
    The comparison includes just about a dozen cases in each batch. No quantification of the difference between NOAA and MPH, no discussion of statistical significance. No cigar.

  128. lsvalgaard says:

    TomRude says:
    January 3, 2013 at 6:44 pm
    Check from “Etudes de Cas” page 149 on… or from page 295 on… All these real cases …
    here is how one verifies predictions:

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/forecast_verification/Assets/Bibliography/i1520-0493-127-06-0956.pdf

  129. TomRude says:

    LOL just as I expected, right on cue!
    The real life differences between the two were trivial issues such as hurricane landfall, rainfall consequences and population protection…
    Ciao Doc, never has a solar flare been closer to the dark side of the moon!

  130. lsvalgaard says:

    TomRude says:
    January 3, 2013 at 7:34 pm
    LOL just as I expected, right on cue!
    The real life differences between the two…

    As you can see there is a good reason the MPH remains on the fringe of meteorology.

  131. JP Miller says:

    Despite the inevitable aspersions (tiresome from any side of this issue), there does seem to be useful dialogue in this thread — and informative, at least to me. Leif is very demanding (if insufficiently willing to consider “possibilities”), which is good. Others (Rude, Schtick, etc.) undaunted (if insufficiently willing to admit when Leif has good points). Maybe it’s not in the nature of this kind of debate, but I wish the discussion would be less “defend/ attack” and more “where could there be weaknesses/ unknowns in each POV that, if explored, might give us a more efficient path to useful knowledge.”

    Mosher’s point about skeptics being more “religious” recently than previously has some ring of truth for me since I’ve been following this debate since 2008 or 2009. But, as Leif easily admits, the AGW thesis is still on very shaky grounds.

    Leif debunks the thesis that sun-spot variation (and all phenomena associated with it) is a significant factor in that modulation. He doesn’t believe there is data to make the case and, even where there are claimed correlations, he argues there’s insufficient explanation for a physical mechanism. Yet, he has not, to my memory (except for Milankovich cycles, possibly), pointed to where he thinks the modulation of solar input is coming from.

    I’d be curious, Leif, to get your views of the current possibilities for those modulators — i.e., what data or theory are you aware of that should be directing research efforts to get a better understanding of climate modulators if not for sunspot (etc.) variation, CO2, and Milankovitch? Saying “ocean circulation” isn’t entirely satisfactory, unless there’s some idea for how to predict ocean circulation and its impact on temp changes such as Minoan, Roman, MWP, 20th century warmings and LIA coolings, etc. Or, maybe you’re convinced that the climate system is too chaotic to provide any explanatory mechanisms at any scales beyond weather and Milankovitch?

  132. JP Miller says:
    January 4, 2013 at 7:06 am
    I’d be curious, Leif, to get your views of the current possibilities for those modulators — i.e., what data or theory are you aware of that should be directing research efforts to get a better understanding of climate modulators if not for sunspot (etc.) variation, CO2, and Milankovitch?
    In my view Milankovitch is not in doubt, although there still are unexplained details [as with anything]. Solar activity also has an effect on the order of 0.1 degree, but we do not have good evidence that the Sun varies enough to explain any larger effect. CO2 clearly also has an effect, but probably small. ‘Ocean circulation’ has been used as a catch phrase for all the poorly understood interactions between ocean and atmosphere. Actual measurements of temperatures and flows at various depths are underway and may shed some light, but this is a long-term proposition [as also the 'ocean cycles' themselves are - the short-term ENSO conditions are not climate]. So, a partial answer to your question is “more data”. On the other hand chaos may be too prevalent to allow for predictability, just as it is for weather beyond a couple of weeks. On a personal note, I have been involved in sun-weather research for a long time and know the lure of such and the beauty of cycles and the satisfaction of finding an ‘effect’. I also know, of personal experience, of the frustration that ensue when the beautiful correlation fails. I take a dim view of armchair ‘researchers’ with the proverbial ‘open mind’ [has the brain fallen out?] who discover breakthrough science on a weekly basis.

  133. Another paper on the subject….

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/301/5641/1890.abstract

    Cyclic Variation and Solar Forcing of Holocene Climate in the Alaskan Subarctic

    High-resolution analyses of lake sediment from southwestern Alaska reveal cyclic variations in climate and ecosystems during the Holocene. These variations occurred with periodicities similar to those of solar activity and appear to be coherent with time series of the cosmogenic nuclides 14C and 10Be as well as North Atlantic drift ice. Our results imply that small variations in solar irradiance induced pronounced cyclic changes in northern high-latitude environments. They also provide evidence that centennial-scale shifts in the Holocene climate were similar between the subpolar regions of the North Atlantic and North Pacific, possibly because of Sun-ocean-climate linkages.

  134. John West says:

    @ Leif Svalgaard

    If an “armchair researcher analyst” could take another minute of your time, I think we’ve been talking past each other.

    Seemingly, there’s an overriding assumption that there is a linear relationship between heat flux (W/m^2) and global average temperature regardless of frequency. If we were discussing any other process that involves the conversion of radiant energy into some other form of energy, frequency would indeed be of utmost concern; i.e. a significant if not critical variable.

    Three examples:
    Temperature gradient above the tropopause where temperature increases with increasing altitude; radiant energy is converted to thermal energy, but the frequency of the radiant energy is a critical variable not just the total heat flux.

    Photosynthesis; radiant energy is converted to chemical energy, but the frequency of the radiant energy is a critical variable not just the total heat flux.

    Vitamin D production in human skin, where radiant energy is converted into molecular energy, but the frequency of the radiant energy is critical, not just the total heat flux.

    So, my question is why wouldn’t frequency matter in the conversion of radiant energy into thermal energy as “revealed” in the global average temperature metric? (In other words: Why would 1 W/m^2 IR have the exact same effect on global average temperature as 1 W/m^2 UV?)

    Or perhaps my perception of the “assumption” is wrong; please explain if this is the case.

  135. lsvalgaard says:

    John West says:
    January 4, 2013 at 12:34 pm
    Why would 1 W/m^2 IR have the exact same effect on global average temperature as 1 W/m^2 UV?)
    Because once that 1 W/m2 is absorbed the absorber radiates the same. In addition, there is not much energy in the UV [compared to IR] and most of it is absorbed by the atmosphere higher up and therefore does not heat the ground. The effect of UV is usually not framed in terms of W/m2 but in the chemical changes in the upper atmosphere.

  136. John West says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    “Because once that 1 W/m2 is absorbed the absorber radiates the same.”

    That would be assuming 1) it’s absorbed in the first place since real materials have different albedoes to different wavelengths for example snow would reflect most of a 1 W/m2 exposure while absorbing most of a 1 W/m2 IR exposure, 2) the absorber is in thermodynamic isolation since an absorber radiates in relation to it’s temperature (S-B Law) and the Law of Conservation of Energy requires a temperature gradiant to initiate a flow through convection/conduction such that only a thermodynamically isolated body could increase in temperature to match emission to an absorbed heat flux, and 3) absorbtion “mode” is in solid or liquid molecular motion i.e. not a conversion from radiant energy to some other energy that isn’t reflected in temperature, such as visible light being absorbed and converted to chemical energy in photosynthesis.

    Let’s just talk about something no one (except a few of us nerds) cares about for a second; the stratosphere.
    The stratosphere absorbs aprox. 100 W/m2 UV and is warmed from around -60°C to around 0°C while IR has little effect at all on stratospheric temperature (hardly any GHG’s), therefore one could say that stratospheric temperature “sensitivity” to UV is much higher than stratospheric temperature “sensitivity” to IR.

    Back to Earth:
    So, around 30 W/m2 UV reaches the surface and solar UV varies by about 10%; giving us an easy 3 W/m2 variance which is awfully close to the 3.7 W/m2 increase from 2XCO2.

    But I’m not just talking about UV, I’m talking about the entire solar spectrum variation. A variation of components that is not well reflected in TSI variation.

    Let me put it an entirely different way. In the broader sense of climate sensitivity (CS) I have a very difficult time accepting it as a value as apposed to a function. That function IMO should include frequency and some sort of “absorbtion” clarifier. Take the extreme case of snowball Earth for example; obviously, UV reflects more while IR is still absorbed. So, if we defined climate sensitivity as the change in global average temperature to a change in heat flux @ frequency @ condition.
    (Just making up some conditions: S=snowball, G=glacial, I = interglacial, H=Hothouse)

    (just making up values here)
    Perhaps: CS@IR@G=2°C/W/m2 while CS@UVa@G=0.1°C/W/m2.
    But maybe: CS@IR@H=0.5°C/W/m2 while CS@UVa@H=1°C/W/m2.

    I don’t know, it just seems that sort of approach would make more sense.

  137. John West says:

    arrrrrggg:
    reflect most of a 1 W/m2 exposure = reflect most of a 1 W/m2 UV exposure
    and
    I don’t know, it just seems that sort of approach would make more sense than trying to assign (discover) a climate sensitivity value to all frequencies at all conditions.

  138. lsvalgaard says:

    John West says:
    January 4, 2013 at 3:46 pm
    Back to Earth:
    So, around 30 W/m2 UV reaches the surface and solar UV varies by about 10%

    One can go around in circles with wrong numbers. The near UV that makes up 95% of the UV that reaches the surface does not vary 10%, but 1% or less.
    I think what matters in the end is simply how much energy is available.

  139. JP Miller says:

    Leif, thanks. Yes, I agree that the best scientists have an ability (intuition?) to sort out the many things that “appear to” correlate and focus their research efforts on those relationships that might well have physicality. And, yes, pointing to lots of things that appear to covary and say “look at this” isn’t helpful unless there’s then a theory (even if half-baked) that’s potentially physical and further research to attempt to show it’s wrong. But, to their credit, some of the armchair analysts on this blog (e.g., Stephen Wilde) are working to do just that.

    However, one thing I don’t understand is why you harp so much on TSI per se and seem resistant to considering that some other aspect of solar activity (effect of various wavelengths, electromagnetic effects, etc.) might influence phenomena such as clouds, water vapor, ozone, etc. that could modulate effective TSI impact. Do you rule out any such possibilities, or is it only the particular possibilities mentioned in this blog that you have rejected?

  140. John West says:

    I’ll take your word on the solar stuff, but I tend to disagree with “what matters in the end is simply how much energy is available” there’s a qualitative difference among forms of energy, having the same units does not make them identical. Depending on the energy forms being compared the same quantities of energy may not be able to accomplished the same amount of work. I’ll go back to the armchair analyzing and come back when I can put some quantitative physics around it.
    Have a good weekend! And thanks!

  141. lsvalgaard says:

    JP Miller says:
    January 4, 2013 at 4:54 pm
    However, one thing I don’t understand is why you harp so much on TSI per se and seem resistant to considering that some other aspect of solar activity
    Several reasons: the TSI is where the energy is, all the other ones are orders of magnitude smaller; almost all the other indicators vary the same way as TSI, have the same cycles, etc, so TSI is often just used as a shorthand for ‘solar cycle variations'; there is a well-understood theory of temperature variation due to TSI, there are none for the others; there are many ‘myths’ that people just parrot without understanding what they are saying; there are unknown feedback and amplifiers in play, etc.

  142. phlogiston says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm
    DocMartyn says:
    January 2, 2013 at 3:22 pm

    rgbatduke, we did the bolus addition of 14C using the atmospheric H-Bomb tests. The pseudo-first order decay is approximately a decade.

    What you are looking at there, Doc, is the “residence time” of a molecule. How long does the average CO2 molecule stay in the atmosphere? You are right, it’s short, about 5-8 years.

    That’s not the measurement Robert Brown (rgbatduke) is discussing. He is looking at what is called the “e-folding time”, or perhaps the half-life…

    The relation between half life and mean residence time is very simple.

    half-life = 0.693 x mean residence time

    0.693 is Ln2.

Comments are closed.