Via Roger Pielke Sr. climatescience blog:
At the December 2008 NRC meeting “Detection and Attribution of Solar Forcing on Climate” [see] there was extensive criticism by Gavin Schmidt and others on the research of Nicola Scafetta with respect to solar climate forcings. He was not, however, invited to that December meeting.
There is now a new paper that he has published that needs to be refuted or supported by other peer reviewed literature (rather than comments in a closed NRC meeting in which the presentors would not share their powerpoint talks).
The new paper is
Scafetta N., R. C. Willson (2009), ACRIM-gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L05701, doi:10.1029/2008GL036307.
The abstract reads
“The ACRIM-gap (1989.5-1991.75) continuity dilemma for satellite TSI observations is resolved by bridging the satellite TSI monitoring gap between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results with TSI derived from Krivova et al.’s (2007) proxy model based on variations of the surface distribution of solar magnetic flux. ‘Mixed’ versions of ACRIM and PMOD TSI composites are constructed with their composites’ original values except for the ACRIM gap, where Krivova modeled TSI is used to connect ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results. Both ‘mixed’ composites demonstrate a significant TSI increase of 0.033%/decade between the solar activity minima of 1986 and 1996, comparable to the 0.037% found in the ACRIM composite. The finding supports the contention of Willson (1997) that the ERBS/ERBE results are flawed by uncorrected degradation during the ACRIM gap and refutes the Nimbus7/ERB ACRIM gap adjustment Fröhlich and Lean (1998) employed in constructing the PMOD.”
A key statement in the conclusion reads
“This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades [Scafetta and West, 2007, 2008]. Current climate models [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007] have assumed that the TSI did not vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming.”
Interestingly, TSI has been on a slight downtrend in the past few years as we get closer to solar minimum. The graph below is from the ACRIM project page.
Click for a large image
It remains to be seen if we have hit the minimum yet.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, since they at least claim that the science is settled, why should we be expected to continue to fund it? There’s better ways to spend that money right now than on staring at a supposedly already well-established fact. I have a strange feeling that if the issue were approached in that manner, more questions than answers would suddenly appear and require further research.
I seriously doubt there will be a million man march. Didn’t they just try that and ended up with a moving band of people so small that they did close-ups instead of wide angle shots to cover up that inconvenient truth?
Dorlomin (08:02:50) :
““Mike Monce (05:42:26) :
Dorlomin,
Please read the paper Lindsay cited. I, also, was willing to concede some CO2 greenhouse effect until I just recently went through this paper. I found the paper to be well done and very thorough in its treatment.”
Then read one of the rebuttals.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
Read both papers. The original paper does have a good argument about the greenhouse effect being very poorly explain in many articles and in fact it is not why greenhouses get hot in the first place. He has many objections to the very simplified models used to calculate average global temperatures and the effect of the atmosphere on the average temperatures. I think he is right in that the models are wrong but in my opinion not so wrong that the values can-not be used as rough approximations of reality.
@Dorlomin (08:02:50) :
I’m curious. Which part of the Lindzen quote shows support for the current CO2 models?
Mike Monce says:
No, there is a more fundamental objection, which is that the greenhouse effect does not posit a net flow of heat from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface. This may seem counterintuitive to you since you might think that such a net flow is necessary to get the warming of a greenhouse effect. However, it is not because the situation that we are comparing to is the case of an IR-transparent atmosphere. In that case, all of the energy that the earth radiates according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law goes directly out into space and thus none of it returns to the earth’s surface. So, the fact that in the case of a greenhouse effect, some of the heat that the earth radiates can be absorbed by that atmosphere and then returned to it means that it will be warmer than the IR-transparent case. It is not necessary…and is indeed not the case…that the NET flow of heat be from the atmosphere to the earth.
Hence, the atmospheric greenhouse effect does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
The paper that Dorlomin cited by Arthur Smith rebuts at least one of the other major points of the G&T paper, namely their claim that there is no well-defined average surface temperature (or at least an upper bound on the average surface temperature) of the earth in the case of an IR-transparent atmosphere. (I.e., they claim that it is not correct to claim that the earth, with its current albedo, would be 33 C colder in average surface temperature in the absence of the greenhouse effect…and Arthur shows that indeed this is true, with the only correction being that it would have to be AT LEAST 33 C colder. The 33 C value is if the earth is at uniform temperature…with the number being larger…i.e., more than 33 C colder…due to any non-uniformity in temperature. [My guess is that the earth’s temperature is close enough to uniform that the 33 C value is still pretty close to correct…although admittedly this uniformity itself is due in large part to the greenhouse effect.])
Leif Svalgaard (09:18:26):
The evidence claimed is that there is no delay between TSI and temps. TSI was small around 1900 and Temp was low around 1900, not 1900+D. How large would you say D is? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years?
What I know is that D is unpredictable and that it oscillates according to inner factors related with oceanic currents, gravity, electrodynamics, etc., which are not well known to us until now. However, the answer is in the oceans.
Nasif, Yes and also the oceans are sloshing about under the influence of other sources, such as gravity, indepenjdatly of the TSI, so there are many interacting cycles.
Ooops … didn’t finish the last post. Here it is:
Therefore, it may never be possible to point definatively to any one factor as the specific cause of any climate trends.
Hard to see any Sun speck in the visual. The magnetogram actuallt suggests two cycle 23 specks.
re: Pamela Gray (09:36:20) :
I made my pontification before I found Aron’s link to
http://www.powershift09.org/
It’s no longer about science. It’s about equity, justice and fairness. It’s about huge revenue streams from cap and trade that will allow government to perform good works. It’s about getting a program in place before any incovenient facts derail it. That thing in Washington was not just a demonstration, it was also a series of seminars and workshops on community organization. However many demonstrators were there, there are now that many more organizers. Think seminars, teach-ins, moratoriums. Think direct action and think Kent State.
Maybe I ought to get myself a sandwich board and a bell and stalk up and down 42nd Street and Times Square….
Leif Svalgaard (09:22:21) :
Leif Svalgaard (09:18:26) :
TSI was small around 1900 and Temp was low around 1900, not 1900+D.
For clarification, the claim is that TSI was small. My argument is that TSI was the same, but temps were different, hence no connection. With a suitable D [you tell me what it is] one might restore a connection. But with a free parameter, like D, it is easy to find correlations…
As in the following?
http://s5.tinypic.com/2lien1g.jpg
PC1 is the 1st PC from the covariance of an 11 year ma of your TSI with an 11 year ma of the Central England Temperature. Of course, it breaks down ~1990.
Parse Error says:
I tend to try to avoid that “science is settled” phrase anyway since I think it sows confusion. However, the point that I think is being made is that there is enough science settled to be able to say certain things (such as what the IPCC says) and, certainly, enough to argue for the necessity to take action. That there is still considerable uncertainty, however, is demonstrated for example by the fairly wide range of climate sensitivity (2 to 4.5 C) for the doubling of CO2 that the IPCC considers to be likely values. There are even larger uncertainties in regard to the effects of AGW on more regional scales.
And technically, no subject in science is settled since science is inductive and can never prove things to absolute certainty. After all, there are still people trying to understand gravity…particularly how to unify what we understand about gravity with quantum mechanics. However, I don’t think many people would argue that we should not base our public policy and other decisions on what we do believe we understand about gravity.
Dorlomin,
“Then read one of the rebuttals.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf”
Thanks for the link. I will read this.
Does anyone know what affect, if any, did recent volcanic eruption events such as pinatubo, have on ocean temperatures? Did ocean temperatures remain flat? Did they drop as atmospheric temperatures did? If ocean temperatures dropped, was there a time delay to that drop?
Joel Shore – I understand, the trouble is this illusion that “the science is settled” and states as a fact that the only way to save the world is through extremely unwise policies tailored specifically to suit only one set of ideologies. To present it that way is both unethical and counterproductive, but I realize you’re already aware of that. The real disaster is going to occur when such policies are already causing hardship, leading more people to examine the facts for themselves. As hard is it may be to get people to act on an uncertain risk, the results would be much better in the long run. If one wishes to make sensible policies based on what we believe we understand, that is fine, but if certain people are going to use what they claim to be irrefutable fact as a means to reshape society according to their own vision, the least they could do to maintain their charade is to stop researching what they expect everyone to believe is already beyond dispute. To make matters even worse, I don’t even see how anything being seriously considered right now is going to resolve the alleged problem, which wouldn’t count for very much were I not in the company of far better minds than my own in that regard. If they’re so concerned about it, why turn it into a cash cow instead of actually dealing with it? Combined with the dishonesty, it all paints an extremely revolting picture.
Nasif Nahle (09:49:01) :
What I know is that D is unpredictable and that it oscillates according to inner factors related with oceanic currents, gravity, electrodynamics,
which means that one cannot claim there is evidence for a connection if you don’t know the randomly varying delay.
“Joel Shore (10:13:55) :
And technically, no subject in science is settled since science is inductive and can never prove things to absolute certainty. After all, there are still people trying to understand gravity…particularly how to unify what we understand about gravity with quantum mechanics. However, I don’t think many people would argue that we should not base our public policy and other decisions on what we do believe we understand about gravity.”
I’d be interested to hear some broad public policy enacted on the basis of our current scientific understanding of gravity.
Basil (10:08:56) :
PC1 is the 1st PC from the covariance of an 11 year ma of your TSI with an 11 year ma of the Central England Temperature. Of course, it breaks down ~1990.
AGW in action 🙂
“Basil (06:31:46) :
Stephen Wilde (00:54:36) :
Interesting to note that even Leif’s TSI track albeit much reducing TSI variability from previous estimates still preserves the match between lower TSI and observed cool periods.
I accept that the match is not perfect but the lack of perfection could well, in my opinion, be a result of ocean cycle variability.
Stephen,
If you understand where the numbers that show Leif’s TSI come from — sunspot numbers — then the match between Leif’s and the others is not surprising. The dispute, as I understand it, between Leif (and others?) and Lean (and others) is how to relate historical SSN’s to TSI. Regardless of whether you think you can see a match to ocean cycle variability, what you’ve got is more or less a perfect match to solar cycle variability — sunspot numbers — converted to estimates of TSI based on sunspot numbers.”
Interesting point, Basil.
Leif and others have prepared their TSI reconstructions by estimating from sunspot numbers. They are therefore bound to be sinilar in shape but the amount of variation is a matter of personal judgement for each of them.
The colder periods clearly align with lower TSI/sunspot numbers subject to a variable lag from another factor.
I see the oceanic cycles as shifting the climate response to changes in TSI/sunspot numbers around in time, sometimes enhancing and sometimes offsetting the solar influence but overall, given enough time, following it and that is why we see the cooler spells approximately coincident with the lower TSI/sunspot numbers.
I suggest that the oceanic variability is capable of enhancing or reducing the size of the solar variability by multiples of 5 to 10 times depending on the netted out influence of all the various ocean cycles which most of the time are not in alignment. When they are in alignment with each other and with solar changes then large and rapid temperature changes are possible such as from 1975 to 2000.
The small size of the solar variability is not important. The charts show that the climate is sensitive to it regardless and that variability is filtered through the oceans in a very variable manner but when one sees a 400 year chart the connection is obvious.
Leif Svalgaard (11:32:26) :
Basil (10:08:56) :
PC1 is the 1st PC from the covariance of an 11 year ma of your TSI with an 11 year ma of the Central England Temperature. Of course, it breaks down ~1990.
AGW in action 🙂
So, no AGW until 1990 then ?
How would that work ?
Methinks a different explanation is more likely.
Stephen Wilde (11:35:02) :
The small size of the solar variability is not important. The charts show that the climate is sensitive to it regardless and that variability is filtered through the oceans in a very variable manner but when one sees a 400 year chart the connection is obvious.
On the 400-year time scale there are only a few degrees of freedom and obvious connections dwindle into statistical coincidence. You could also plot the population of North America and see the obvious connection with something being low in the 1600s and high in the 2000s. Now, real enthusiasts will go further and say the that reason is obvious: with more TSI, better agriculture, higher population, see?
Stephen Wilde (11:35:02) :
Stephen,
My gut says you are right…that the solar influence is being buffered and modulated by ocean dynamics. But coming up with a convincing demonstration of the relationship is no mean feat.
Basil
Leif Svalgaard (06:22:22) :
with TSI derived from Krivova et al.’s (2007) proxy model based on variations of the surface distribution of solar magnetic flux.
The solar magnetic flux during solar cycle 23 was very much the same as in solar cycle 13, see e.g. the resulting Interplanetary Magnetic Field: http://www.leif.org/research/IMF-SC13-and%20SC23.png The blue diamonds show IMF observed by spacecraft for the current cycle shifted 107 years back, the green circles and curve show IMF inferred from geomagnetic observations for SC23 shifted, and the red curve shows IMF inferred the same way for SC13.
And if that were the basis for TSI, then TSI for SC13 [a hundred years ago] would also be similar to TSI during the last decade, and if that in turn drives the temperature, then the temperature back then should also be similar to 1996-2008. So, two things:
1) TSI has not changed since then
2) TSI does not drive the climate significantly [and please – no silly comments about turning off the Sun
I don’t think one should simply compare one solar cycle with another taking each in isolation.
The oceanic filtering which I referred to above is highly variable over several solar cycles because of the variable mismatch between all the seperate oceanic cycles.
Additionally the earlier and later solar cycles are relevant to the observed effect of any single cycle.
It most certainly does not follow that because cycle 13 looks like cycle 23 then the global temperatures should be similar.
The level of complexity arising from multiple variable ocean cycles combining with multiple variable solar cycles is what lies at the heart of climate debate and the sooner the professionals get a grip on that the sooner all the AGW nonsense can be dispensed with and the sooner we can start making really useful decisions for the benefit of humanity and the environment.
Wrong diagnosis plus wrongheaded treatment for our ills is the worst of all possible worlds.
Joel Shore (10:13:55) : That there is still considerable uncertainty, however, is demonstrated for example by the fairly wide range of climate sensitivity (2 to 4.5 C) for the doubling of CO2 that the IPCC considers to be likely values.
So what CO2/Temperature ratio would unequivocally disprove this 2C – 4C CO2 sensitivity claim? If CO2 rises but temperature decreases would that do it (IOW: NEGATIVE sensitivity)?
Leif Svalgaard (06:22:22)
“1) TSI has not changed since then
2) TSI does not drive the climate significantly”
I don’t know enough to argue point 1, but point 2 is unknown since the earth’s climate is a nonlinear system, chaotic. For a linear system, like a network of resistors, capacitors, and inductors, or simple quantum mechanical systems, the same input produces the same out. Superposition works. This is manifestly not true for nonlinear systems. The response depends not only on the input but also on the state of the system.
Using the Lorenz attractor as an example, if the system trajectory is out in either wing, even very large perturbations of a trajectory produce almost no change in future evolution of the system. If the system state is close to where the trajectories cross from one wing to the other, it becomes extremely sensitive to small perturbations.
Even with your minimalist reconstruction of TSI, it does vary by 1 w/m^2. If the state of the global climate is on the correct piece of its “attractor” there is every reason to think that even these small perturbations could produce large climate changes. If the relative time scales are right it’s possible that the 11 year solar cycle could produce multiple perturbations of the climate that all act in phase.