This is an interesting paper from our good friend Dr. John Christy of UAH and D. H. Douglas. In it, a bold claim is made about the likelihood that the atmosphere no longer shows the characteristic of CO2 radiative forcing, and that the effect apparently peaked around 1998. Here is figure 1 from the paper:
From the paper: “The global values of ΔT in Figure 1 show for the period Jan 1979 to Jan 2008 that the anomalies reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded by later values.”
Here is how the abstract reads:
“The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years. The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Nino/La Nina effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback.”
You can read the paper and the link below. which provides a new perspective on the role of CO2 as a radiative climate forcing.
Douglass, D.H., and J.R. Christy, 2008: Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth.
I’m sure this will raise the ire of a number of people, but at the same time, what else have we to explain the nearly flat response in global temperature in the last 10 years?
h/t Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.
Dav: “If you lengthen the solar cycle by extending the “quiet” period, such as in the current cycle, the average over the period has to go down”
Unless the subsequent “active” period is also extended – well, that remains to be seen.
jonk (12:59:59) :
Leif,
OT, but my curiosity is getting the better of me. What is that horizontal line showing in the NH on the MDI Magnetogram?
I’m not Leif, but I would guess that is a cosmic ray interacting with the pixels of the camera. Actually a common thing in astronomical imaging.
mr svalgaard,
can you reference me some study/graph that shows oort/sporer magnitude (i assume isotope measurements) compared to maunder…all the charts i have seen show spot count was less during maunder…tks again in advance and for the reply…sk
Has anyone considered the volcanoes as the possible cause of the warming, both steps came after the volcanic eruptions.
The addition of cloud forming nuclei should cause a boom and bust scenario in cloud formation.
A reduction in stratospheric humidity could lead to more efficient convective cooling due to the decrease in statospheric greenhouse forcing above the latent heat emission layer.
More efficient convection could lead to a increase in short lived tropical thunderstorms and a decrease in long lived high latitude clouds, resulting in a reduction in cloud albedo and increase in shortwave heating.
a bit out there but who knows!
Peter (14:12:36) :
Leif: “4: if the Sun is a major driver of climate we would expect …”
Could it be that the temperatures during the MWP were so high that if there was a dip caused by the OM, the temperature would still have been relatively high?
This is, of course, possible, and in such a case the Sun ceases to be the 800 pound gorilla that controls everything and solar causes take their place among the various other forcings working on the climate system. It is all a question of degree, and I’m very comfortable with a small solar contribution among all the other ones.
Mike Ramsey (14:13:02) :
Go back to the original data from
http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd0805/2007JD008864/2007jd008864-f01_enh.eps
Don’t have access to that one, so can’t look. What’s the deal?
One more point about the maunder minimum and the sun.
So I conclude that ~12% of the sun’s energy heating the earth is
being pumped directly by the solar cycle.
I cannot follow your calculation [probably because some characters are missing e.g. “” here and there.
The TSI includes the UV and Xray flux as well. It is the TOTAL solar irradiance over all wavelengths. All the shortwave stuff (UV etc) is absorbed high in the atmosphere, in the thermosphere and middle to upper stratosphere and does not heat the Earth and in any case would result in a solar cycle signature which people sometimes claim to see of the oder of 0.15 degree; with no sunspots to enhance the UV one would expect the temperature during Grand minima to be about that amount lower, which is fine with me as it means the Sun is not the main cause of temperature drops of 1 degree or more.
if you want to be sure that ‘greater than’ and ‘less than’ signs display [they did not in my post to prove the point] you might try > and < which I made with ‘ampersand gt semicolon’ and ‘ampersand lt semicolon’
Leif, I still can’t get > and < to work – what am I doing wrong? 😉
To moderator: I didn’t include proper HTML tags on my original post. Could you please correct my post Mike Ramsey (14:13:02) with the following?
Leif Svalgaard (00:23:05) :
Figure (A1) seems to be correlation plot of smoothed values. If so,
the R2 values are much to high [i.e. nonsense] as adjacent data
points are not independent. This would [should!] never
have passed peer-review [certainly not if I were a reviewer].
Leif,
Go back to the original data from
http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd0805/2007JD008864/
and look at
http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd0805/2007JD008864/2007jd008864-f01_enh.eps
One more point about the maunder minimum and the sun.
The only part of the solar spectrum to have significant variation
in intensity is the UV, X-Ray range (i.e., wavelength <= 300nm
is reflected right back into space. The detailed shape of the plot is
vaguely parabolic with the wavelength and amplitude of the peak
varying depending on the surface (e.g. cloud, ice, ocean, desert, forest).
But a 30% figure is widely accepted as an average.
This leaves 70% of 92% =.7 * .92 = .644 = 64.4% of the total
insolation with wavelength >= 300nm that is actually absorbed and
contributes to global heating.
That 8-9% represented by UV, X-Ray (wavelength < 300nm) accounts
for ~12% of the insolation heating the earth.
The remaining 91-92% varies by only 0.1%. Lean (2000) gives a
slightly higher historical variation of about 0.3% but let us stick
with the conservative 0.1% number.
Now consider that the UV, X-Ray (wavelength <= 300 nm)
Now consider that the UV, X-Ray (wavelength < 300nm) radiation varies
across a solar cycle (in lock step) by about 8%. Below is a sample:
200 nm, 8%
220-260 nm, 5%
>=300 nm, 0.1%
Shorter wavelengths are absorbed in the earth’s upper atmosphere and
see even larger variations:
120 nm, 50%
140-200 nm, 10-15%
So I conclude that ~12% of the sun’s energy heating the earth is
being pumped directly by the solar cycle.
8% * 12% = 0.96% which is still larger than the 0.1% variation that
gets kicked around.
Mike Ramsey
I even tried < and > and it only works ½ the time
sammy k (14:43:47) :
can you reference me some study/graph that shows oort/sporer magnitude (i assume isotope measurements) compared to maunder
For the Oort minimum you can consult this one:
http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2005_the_long
The Spoerer minimum is somewhat contaminated by a possible supernova explosion, but McCracken has used the 10Be data to calculate the magnetic field in the solar system. When this field is low, cosmic ray flux is high. You can see this reconstruction here:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf
compare 1420-1476 with 1645-1690. Around 1700 severe volcanic activity disturb the record, as well as in 1526, 1815, and 1883 [Krakatoa].
The latest fad phrase “CO2 forcing.” The equivalent to the “AGW forcing” pursued by Algore and the UN, however, the AGW forcing is very real. From John Coleman: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/12981092.html
Lest we forget: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/guest-weblog-co2-variation-by-jim-goodridge-former-california-state-climatologist/.
When an increase in CO2 is reported, the brain-washed immediately assume an anthropogenic origin. Is that a true assumption? I say no: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/.
The real kernel of the global warming/climate change “consensus” is that it is the result of the activities, and breathing, of human-kind and other warm-blooded residents of planet Earth causing an increase in CO2 and CH4 (by bovines in particular).
This leads to the following questions: (1) Where is the non-anecdotal, non-computer model data that the miniscule ACO2 contribution to atmospheric CO2 causes global warming/climate change? (2) Where is the non-anecdotal, non-computer model data that shows that CO2 causes global warming/climate change? (3) Where is the non-anecdotal, non-computer model data that shows that GHGs are causing global warming/climate change? (4) What scientist has the audacity, the arrogance, the narcissism to believe that a computer program model can replicate the changes Nature will effect upon planet Earth in the next hundred years – the next year, for that matter?
That global warming/climate change is, or is not, occurring is not the point. Anthropogenic causes for global warming/climate change is the fallacy to be confronted.
Algore and the UN are suffering from an illusion of control over Nature. That is a diversion. They cannot truly believe that. However, if the public can be sold on the AGW deception, Algore and the UN will have no illusions about the control they will have over We the People.
Dr. Svalgaard writes: “The coincidence of the cold of the Little Ice Age with the Maunder Minimum of low solar activity must be tempered by the coincidence of the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period with the Oort Minimum of low solar activity.”
The Oort Minimum was less deep, in terms of decreased solar activity, than the Maunder Minimum and others within the LIA (Maunder, Sporer and Wolf). And looking at a graph comparing cosmic rays and temperature reconstructions even the Oort Minimum does indeed get reflected as a shallow dip in temps.
Once again, the way the sun dominates climate, outside of galactic-level star-spawning events, is by acting as a gatekeeper allowing more or less cosmic rays to produce clouds. TSI is a CANARD.
AGWers nearly always fail to account for the effect of clouds. Their models do not handle clouds in any substantive fashion. The Little Ice Age was cold because of Svensmark clouds. Period.
This is yet another straw man argument attempting to diminish solar influence on climate.
[…] Originally posted here: Comment on New paper from Christy suggests atmosphere hit max CO2 … […]
@Gerald Machnee (13:10:22) who said “The graph in the site you posted is up to 2003. Until I see the 5 years 2003-2008, I will not accept that. My understanding is there has been a change.”
I too would like a more up-to-date one, but finding *any* graphs of Ocean Heat Content is almost impossible. The best we can say is that the oceans continued warming up to 2003, while the atmosphere stopped warming around 1998-or-so. That combined with the rising sea levels suggests that they really are still heating:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
However, the fact that sea levels have risen since at least 1880 also suggests that this warming is quite Natural, and nothing to do with CO2. (Although it is also possible that CO2 warming took-over just at the point Natural warming stopped, but then we would be truely unlucky…)
@Bruce (12:23:41) who said “I believe the graph you displayed is based on errors.”
Possibly, but the most up-to-date analysis (2008) shows the same trend:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ohc_domingues.jpg
(Taken from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/ )
Now yes, I’m sorry it was shown on Real Climate, but I refuse to reject evidence on the basis of party politics, because I believe most scientists (Mann excepted) are honest. If there are flaws with the science, then let them be revealed.
The “Ooort minimum” has less direct evidence than the Maunder Minimum. And even that may not be considered a “minimum” with modern observational techniques.
Although I am pretty sure that that great hot ball of fire in the sky might have just, perhaps, a little something to do with earth’s temperature, past records and historical correlations are poor evidence. And remember, we are still talking of measurements fluctuating within error bars. I often fluctuate in bars, too, so one must keep a sense of tentativity about all this nonsense.
We have now global temperature monitoring and solar monitoring. But only for 30 years. I think the next 10 years will be a great experiment.
IT’S THE SUN STUPID!
Ed SCott,
as a matter of rhetorical strategy, we should always refer to “global warming” as the AGWers are trying to slip the ring by talking of “climate change”.
We must nail them to their initial hysteria, which was “global warming”. The obvious lack of global warming is beginning to impinge upon the conciousness of the populace, so don’t let them slip out from under the on-coming train.
Anthony Watts says:
Well, the response in global temperature that you calculate over time periods less than about 12 to 15 years depends strongly on your beginning and end points and on which particular data set you look at.
But my guess is that it is likely to be the same sort of internal variability that causes some significant fraction of the climate models driven with CO2 to also show nearly flat responses over periods of similar length, as discussed here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/langswitch_lang/in
Leif,
Mike Ramsey has voiced a concern I have. Do you have an exposition on this?
Leif:
Is there a downloadable database for the revised SSNs you mention at 14:11:34 Line 6 so the SSn can be charted? Tx
Leif Svalgaard (14:11:34) : It is NOT being summarily dismissed. … but here are my solar reasons
Thanks, Lief, I appreciate your patience. It’ll take me some time to go through that.
Chris H
The graph of ocean heat content shows more ocean warming from 1968 to 1980 as from 1980 to say 1992.
Yet we know the temperature was cold in the 1970s.
What gives?
And that graph only goes to 2003.
Robert Wood
I totally agree that we deniers are dealing with a slippery, double-dealing group of AGW mongers, but global warming is a climate change. My aim is to separate AGW from climate warming/climate change because these are natural cycles that we have lived with all our lives, whether we were aware of it or not. My position is that we humans are not influencing natural changes. People are programmed to react to climate warming/climate change with the automatic AGW response. That is a mind-set problem.
Maybe no one can find any “missing heat” deep in the ocean, Matti Virtanen, because there’s no heat there to be found.
Let me then concentrate on the Oort Minimum
Old Man Winter (15:36:54) :
The Oort Minimum was less deep, in terms of decreased solar activity, than the Maunder Minimum and others within the LIA (Maunder, Sporer and Wolf).
Robert Wood (16:46:07) :
The “Ooort minimum” has less direct evidence than the Maunder Minimum. And even that may not be considered a “minimum” with modern observational techniques.
Both: The cosmic ray 10Be concentration is considered to be a pretty good proxy for solar activity [especially appealing to those on the cosmic ray wagon]. I have already given references to papers that showed that the Oort was as deep [or deeper] than the Maunder Minimum. Another good reference can be found in my little note [produced for a different purpose] at http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20B%20from%2010Be.pdf it shows a Figure from Caballero et al. [so you don’t have to pay]. On this plot the cosmic ray intensity has been converted to equivalent magnetic field strength.
Steve Hempell (17:02:45) :
Is there a downloadable database for the revised SSNs you mention at 14:11:34 Line 6 so the SSn can be charted?
Yes, two versions (pure text or Excel)
http://www.leif.org/research/Corrected%20SSN%20and%20TSI.txt
http://www.leif.org/research/Corrected%20SSN%20and%20TSI.xls
This is unpublished, preliminary data [that can change at any time] so handle with care.
The TSI values have an arbitrary zero point making them approximately to the level of ACRIM, PMOD. This is just for convenience. Personally I think these values are about 4.3 W.m2 too high, but for variations that doesn’t matter.