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.
Juraj V. (07:54:49) :
I think it´s clear that when the Sun switched off, we ended with Maunder and Dalton minimum. So if it heats up more, there should be also visible effect. Btw, does anybody know the reason for MWP, when based on sunspot reconstructions the Sun was not stronger than nowadays?
The MWP is a transition stage and stands out as one of the very few era’s in the past 11000 years that didn’t experience a solar grand minimum over several hundred years. Normally we have grand minima of varying strength around every 172 years avg, If we miss this event temperature’s naturally stay higher. When it comes to grand minima most people accept the planet cools.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/c14nujs1.jpg
The MWP is around 1100AD on the graph, notice how previous periods are a lot more active.
Geoff Sharp (14:06:19) :
Normally we have grand minima of varying strength around every 172 years avg
This is likely not the case. There does not seem to be such a quasi-period. E.g.:
Solar Grand Minima and Random Fluctuations in Dynamo Parameters, by D. Moss, D. Sokoloff, I. Usoskin and V. Tutubalin (2008) Solar Grand Minima and Random Fluctuations in Dynamo Parameters. Solar Physics, 205. pp. 221-234. ISSN 0038-0938
Abstract: We consider to what extent the long-term dynamics of cyclic solar activity in the form of Grand Minima can be associated with random fluctuations of the parameters governing the solar dynamo.We consider fluctuations of the alpha coefficient in the conventional Parker migratory dynamo, and also in slightly more sophisticated dynamo models, and demonstrate that they can mimic the gross features of the phenomenon of the occurrence of Grand Minima over suitable parameter ranges. The temporal distribution of these Grand Minima appears chaotic, with a more or less exponential waiting time distribution, typical of Poisson processes. In contrast, however, the available reconstruction of Grand Minima statistics based on cosmogenic isotope data demonstrates substantial deviations from this exponential law.We were unable to reproduce the non-Poissonic tail of the waiting time distribution either in the framework of a simple alpha-quenched Parker model or in its straightforward generalization, nor in simple models with feedback on the differential rotation. We suggest that the disagreement may only be apparent and is plausibly related to the limited observational data, and that the observations and results of numerical modeling can be consistent and represent physically similar dynamo regimes.
http://eprints.ma.man.ac.uk/1169/
Leif Svalgaard (14:46:22) :
This is likely not the case. There does not seem to be such a quasi-period.
Solanki and Usoskin’s own graph refutes that paper and statement. Where they both went wrong along with you is that they did not recognize events like the Dalton Minimum as a grand minimum. They assume only the very big events of >15 SSN to be grand minima.
The graph I referred to in my previous post is a reconstruction of Usoskin and Solanki’s graph and includes Dalton type events. It clearly shows 172 year avg recurring grand minimum events that vary in intensity. There is no point denying such obvious evidence….its time to get on board.
Leif (or any one else)
Available temperature records are about 400 years long .Isnt this long enough to get a reasonable FFT made to see if there is any periodicity in the temperature. I have tried this with Excel with the results below . Perhaps a better FFt algorythm would give better results
Data is from monthly record of central Englan temperature (hence large peak at 1 year)
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/1095/cetfft.jpg
Looking at the Excel FFt shows very small peaks at 1.2 3.1 5.2 7.8 and possibly
15 years. There is nothing centered on 8 to 11 year solar cycle
Bill
I told a friend that NASA hasn’t done or funded any studies into the suns effect on climate change that would go against AGW until recently:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/12/nasa-solicits-new-studie-on-the-current-solar-minimum/
They pointed to this paper by Scafetta as an example of why I was wrong.
Was I wrong? Or did Duke fund this study? Is there a way to find out how they got funding for a paper?
Leif Svalgaard (09:34:30) :
Nasif Nahle (09:17:18) :
* The change of TSI in four years was 0.1%, that is 0.025% /year.
* 0.025% /year means 3.41 W/m^2 per year.
No, 0.34 W/m2 per year. Your number is 10 times too high
“* alpha for TSI = 0.1 °C per (W/m^2) on the surface.
* Consequently, the change of T on the surface is 0.34 K.
I think this simply is not true. Multiply the result by 10 and one will have a more realistic value.
divide by 10
0.034 K? Yes, that’s the averaged fluctuation of temperature in 2008. After all, there is a correlation.
Nasif Nahle (19:47:19) :
0.034 K? Yes, that’s the averaged fluctuation of temperature in 2008. After all, there is a correlation.
I don’t know what is ‘the averaged fluctuation of temperature’.
Dan S (19:10:14) :
Was I wrong? Or did Duke fund this study? Is there a way to find out how they got funding for a paper?
From their paper:
The authors thank Solanki and his collaborators for the KBS07 data. NS thanks the Army Research Office for support (grant W911NF-06-1-0323). The National Aeronautics and Space Administration supported Richard Willson under contracts NNG004HZ42C at Columbia University and subcontract 1345042 at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Leif Svalgaard (20:58:03) :
I don’t know what is ‘the averaged fluctuation of temperature’.>/i>
Sorry for my English. I meant “the average of the monthly fluctuations of temperature during 2008.” Isn’t 0.034 K a handy coincidence?
Leif Svalgaard (07:56:51) :
Nasif Nahle (06:56:14) :
The correlation iron stained grains (ISG)-TSI has been demonstrated systematically and many researchers from diverse areas use ISG for assessing paleoclimate:
http://www.agu.org/inside/awards/bios/bond_geraldc.html
Post the exact paragraph here where they say that ISG is a proxy for TSI specifically. I see all the usual kinds of hand waving about heliomagnetic field, solar radiation, etc, but where does it say: “here we demonstrate that ISG depends on TSI, so many percent change in TSI producers such ans such change in ISG, with sucha nd such an error bar”.?
Those are examples on researchers who have used iron stained grains in Paleoclimate. The correlation SI-ISG-T has been tested experimentally. Probably Bond told you that because he knew about the Japanese experiments.
Thanks – guess time to eat crow.
But its always better to get it right than think your right and be wrong.
I assumed that since NASA bought into AGW and with peer review journals in Climate Science skewing in favor of AGW that the government did the same.
So now to try to refigure this in my head – we have Hansen head of GISS which is clearly AGW biased. We have Mann/Gore and friends that are AGW biased.
BUT not ALL of NASA and those in control of the US Government are AGW biased. Doesn’t look at bleak as it did before.
Nasif Nahle (07:16:44) :
Sorry for my English. I meant “the average of the monthly fluctuations of temperature during 2008.” Isn’t 0.034 K a handy coincidence?
but just that, of course. Put a little smiley, like this one 🙂 in your post for such small jokes…
Nasif Nahle (07:27:03) :
The correlation SI-ISG-T has been tested experimentally.
Reference please.
Leif Svalgaard (07:46:42):
Nasif Nahle (07:27:03) :
The correlation SI-ISG-T has been tested experimentally.
Reference please.
Dear Leif,
There are lots of references to the process of ISG formation. Here, few references:
http://www.archive.org/stream/annualreport26survgoog/annualreport26survgoog_djvu.txt
K. Naha and S. K. Ray. Structural evolution of the Simla klippe in the lower Himalayas. International Journal of Earth Sciences. Volume 61, Number 3 / November, 1972.
Stanley V. Margolis and David H. Krinsley. Submicroscopic Frosting on Eolian and Subaqueous Quartz Sand Grains. GSA Bulletin; December 1971; v. 82; no. 12; p. 3395-3406.
As soon as I find the reference to the Japanese experiment simulating the SI, I’ll send it to you.
“”” Mike Monce (05:42:26) :
Side note to George Smith from a previous thread: Yes, the 2nd Law was initially formulated dealing with cyclic engines, but the more modern formulation deals with the net increase in entropy by counting accessible microstates. I totally agree a single photon re-radiated from a CO2 molecule can approach the sun and be absorbed, thereby giving the appearance of violating the 2nd Law. However, a more appropriate model is that of two blackbodies at two different temperatures separated from each in the vacuum. They will each radiate and absorb photons from each other. However, the higher temperature BB will have a greater proportion of higher energy photons in its emission spectrum. The number of accessible microstates for the higher energy photons is greater when they are absorbed by the lower temperature BB. Eventually both will reach the same equilibrium temperature as required by the 2nd Law.
Well I’m not in disagreement with any of that; and I wasn’t talking about a single photon going to the sun. But what I did say was that no single photon out of a stream can identify the temperature of the source which emitted it.
And you might be interested to know that the two black bodies at different temperatures is not any modern interpretation.
In fact it was also Clausius, who used that concept in first proving one of the fundamental precepts of Optics; namely that no optical system can form an image who’se irradiance is greater than the radiance of the object being imaged. This i s today embodied in concepts such as the Lagrange invariant, and the Optical sine theorem, and that French term “etendue”.
These ideas are often ascribed incorrectly to Optical workers, whereas they were all derived from the second law, by Clausius, a thermodynamicist.
My point was that it is plain silly to deny the process we call (perhaps incorrectly) the “greenhouse effect” is possible by calling on the second law of thermodynamics. The second law does not prohibit long wave radiation fromt the atmosphere from returning to the ground (which is hotter) and slowing down the rate of cooling.
I looked at some of those references cited; but didn’t get past the assumption they made that the earth was a blacl body and its emissivity is unity.
That’s not a good way to start off a paper trying to convince someone there isn’t any “greenhouse” effect, even if it is misnamed.
Likewise trying to argue that the Stefan- Boltzmann law is not applicable to gases, doesn’t fly; unless you try to use that to argue that the sun therefore is not a black body radiator.
Well nothing is a black body radiator, and nothing has unity emissivity.
But they are still useful concepts to approxijate real sources such as the sun, and the earth and its atmosphere. The BB radiation and spectrum does bound the possible thermal radiation from any real body, including gases.
Nasif Nahle (09:25:04) :
There are lots of references to the process of ISG formation.
Sure. What I need to see is how many W/m2 an ‘ISG’-whatever corresponds to.
The sun forces warming? Forces climate change? What a novel concept!
Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Leif Svalgaard (10:46:18):
Nasif Nahle (09:25:04) :
There are lots of references to the process of ISG formation.
Sure. What I need to see is how many W/m2 an ‘ISG’-whatever corresponds to.
Dear Leif,
Interesting question… I think experts have made the same comparisons as for other proxies; however, we know for sure that the Iron Stained Grains are produced by the solar radiation and that by means of measuring the volume of the Iron Stained Grains we can deduce the intensity of the incident solar radiation on soils, and the relative humidity and the temperature of the atmosphere.
Nasif Nahle (14:03:32) :
however, we know for sure that the Iron Stained Grains are produced by the solar radiation and that by means of measuring the volume of the Iron Stained Grains we can deduce the intensity of the incident solar radiation on soils
to deduce a solar variation we have to do this to an accuracy of better that 0.1% in the inversion of the proxy and THAT is what I would like to see how is done.
Further to my post above. I have added a FFT of Leifs TSI reconstuction to the FFT of the CET.
As can be seen from plot below ther is no evidence of TSI having any effect on the CET.
If there was an effect big enough to be above noise level then there shoud have been a slight raising of the noise at about the 10 to 11 years interval. There is none.
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/9826/tsifft.jpg
Bill
bill (17:38:07) :
If there was an effect big enough to be above noise level then there shoud have been a slight raising of the noise at about the 10 to 11 years interval. There is none.
Enthusiasts would say that there is considerable power at 100 years ….
Leif Svalgaard (14:29:05):
to deduce a solar variation we have to do this to an accuracy of better that 0.1% in the inversion of the proxy and THAT is what I would like to see how is done.
The process is well explained here:
Sam Boggs Jr. Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy (4th Edition).
Nasif Nahle (22:18:22) :
The process is well explained here:
Sam Boggs Jr. Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy (4th Edition).
On which page does it say how many Watt/m2 produces such and such ISG?
Leif Svalgaard (03:33:32) :
Nasif Nahle (22:18:22) :
The process is well explained here:
Sam Boggs Jr. Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy (4th Edition).
On which page does it say how many Watt/m2 produces such and such ISG?
Dear Leif,
The author describes the process on page 125, but not how many Watts/m2 produces such and such ISG. I think we should look for the information you’re looking for in Geology or Paleoclimatology works.
Nasif Nahle (06:58:40) :
The author describes the process on page 125, but not how many Watts/m2 produces such and such ISG. I think we should look for the information you’re looking for in Geology or Paleoclimatology works.
You should look for 🙂