I really wish Gavin would put as much effort into getting the oddities with the GISTEMP dataset fixed rather than writing coffee table books and trying new models to show the sun has little impact.
This paper gets extra points for using the word “robust”. – Anthony
Solar trends and global warming (PDF here)
R. E. Benestad
Climate Division, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
G. A. Schmidt
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA
We use a suite of global climate model simulations for the 20th century to assess the contribution of solar forcing to the past trends in the global mean temperature. In particular, we examine how robust different published methodologies are at detecting and attributing solar-related climate change in the presence of intrinsic climate variability and multiple forcings.
We demonstrate that naive application of linear analytical methods such as regression gives nonrobust results. We also demonstrate that the methodologies used by Scafetta and West (2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2008) are not robust to
these same factors and that their error bars are significantly larger than reported. Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.
Received 17 December 2008; accepted 13 May 2009; published 21 July 2009.
Citation: Benestad, R. E., and G. A. Schmidt (2009), Solar trends and
global warming, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14101,
doi:10.1029/2008JD011639.
hat tip to Leif Svalgaard
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
E. Rozanov et al
Recent satellite observations show that the solar ultraviolet irradiance is much more variable than the total solar irradiance. Atmospheric effects of the solar irradiance variations during 11-year solar activity cycle are investigated using different numerical models and observation data sets. It is shown that the direct and indirect (via ozone production) heating in the upper and middle stratosphere due to enhancement of the solar spectral irradiance leads to an acceleration of the polar night jets and suppression of the Brewer-Dobson circulation resulting in the ozone increase and warming of the lower tropical stratosphere. These stratospheric changes alter the tropospheric circulation leading to a statistically significant warming of the surface air over Russia, Europe and North America. The importance of the solar spectral irradiance variability for the attribution of the temperature changes in the upper stratosphere is also shown by the comparison of the simulated and observed temperature evolution during the last 25 years of the 20th century.
Note GISS e has little photochemistry ie it is not interactive an uses constants.
Leif Svalgaard (09:50:31) :
The reconstructions are based on the Group Sunspot Numbers which are much too low before the 1870s
What is the evidence for this Leif? I thought optics were pretty good by 1750, and the people who did the observations were careful people.
Joel Shore:
Re the first part, I didn’t realise that was what they had done; I actually did something similar (which I basically always do with statistical tests), that is to say I make ‘validation runs’ with various generated datasets.
“Second of all, when doing FFTs, you have to look carefully at the issue of significance. I am very skeptical of how significant your 60-year cycle is since that represents a cycle length that is about half the data record. Hence, there are not very many cycles in the data record…and the error bars should be correspondingly large.”
Well, I do realise that (actually, it’s somewhat less than a half, since the record is 159 years long), which is why I intend to get hold of some longer time series (maybe some paleo reconstructions; for all their flaws, they may be useful in this case).
However, I think it is worth noting that it is not the FFT that detected this cycle (in fact, on the direct FFT, it is swamped by the 1/f noise), but rather the autocorrelogram. The second FFT is only to detect shorter, less directly visible cycles; the autocorrelogram shows a very visible 60-year cycle.
So the issue is not the size of the FFT error bars, it is the size of the autocorrelogram error bars. Unfortunately I have yet to learn how to calculate these, but certainly the 60-year spike in the second FFT is much stronger than anything which was produced when I ran the program over white-noise data. (I need to try red-noise data and perhaps ARMA data as well in order to be sure).
Anyway, thanks for your comments; I do realise that the data are not really long enough to establish a result, but they do suggest rather heavily.
Vincent
“If this is a violation of the second law, then a thermos flask must also be impossible, because that radiates IR from the cooler reflective surface to the warmer liquid.”
The silvered surface of a Thermos flask does not radiate IR to the liquid, it REFLECTS what comes from the liquid. Anyway, a Thermos flask works mostly by reducing conduction and convection. The Second Law results in it being rather imperfect.
“I spent days thinking about this paradox, and I came to the conclusion that the radiation is NOT heat. It is not heat that is flowing to the warmer area.”
Then why are you talking about cooling and warming?
“Can that photon then be used to warm a surface that is warmer? Yes. If the photon is emitted in that direction then it will be absorbed by the warmer ground. The fallacy lies in the fact that the paper overlooks the fact that this energy came from the warmer ground in the first place.”
This is where you have just invented the latest perpetual motion machine.
It would be good to be clearer about the terms “radiation,” “heat,” and “energy.” And talking about the activities of a single photon does not help in seeing the overall picture.
—–
Phil:
“Add 330ppm of chromium to corundum (colorless) and you’ve got a ruby add iron instead and you’ve got a sapphire. Still think that a low concentration of an absorber can’t have a noticeable effect?”
What on earth is a “noticable effect?” Is this a large or a small effect? Neither. In this, at least, size does not matter. It is a colour effect. Does it cause warming of a sapphire more or less than a ruby? What is the possible relevance of this?
On another thread. If positive feedback is necessary to bring about Thermageddon, then how can this feedback work without feeding back? Otherwise there is a runaway effect (which never happened when CO2 was 18 times the present level in the pre-cambrian ice age. Or when, before photosynthesis, it was most of the atmosphere). My bank manager can work this out without even studying physics.
Taken from spaceweather.com regarding the recent longest total eclipse of the 21st century over Asia:
‘On Wednesday, July 22nd, the Moon eclipsed the midday sun over China. “The temperature dropped from 96.6 F to 88.5F at totality,” reports Donald Gardner from Huangshan.’
———————–
An 8.1 degree drop in temperature experienced during the day whilst the sun’s rays were totally blocked by the moon for approx 5 minutes…
You cannot ignore that solar-related impact!
The eclipse:
OT The asian eclipse:
http://www.3tv.cl/index.php?m=video&v=5224
Peter says:
The point we are making is that one cannot simply dismiss the effect of CO2 through intuition that 385ppm is too small a number to matter. I also gave you two specific reasons why such intuition is off in this case (that ~99% of the atmosphere is transparent to IR radiation and that the dependence of forcing on concentration is approximately logarithmic over a large range of concentrations). However, in the end, one must do actual calculations to determine the radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2; those calculations have been done and they show that it is far from a negligible effect.
Peter (11:32:52) :
Phil:
“Nonsense, try reading up on the physics.
Add 330ppm of chromium to corundum (colorless) and you’ve got a ruby add iron instead and you’ve got a sapphire. Still think that a low concentration of an absorber can’t have a noticeable effect?”
Apart from shifting the spectral bands slightly, what effect do these trace impurities have on the physical properties of corundum?
They do more than ‘shift absorption bands slightly’ they dramatically change its absorption characteristics from transparent to strong absorption, exactly the same effect that CO2 has on air! Get it, I chose the analogy very carefully?
And, besides chromium or iron, how many other substances would have no noticeable effect whatsoever? And how many substances besides corundum would show no noticeable change by having equivalent amounts of those impurities added?
Some do, some don’t, just like some gases absorb some don’t.
How much more cherry-picking are we going to see?
It’s not cherry picking, we have an atmosphere which contains a small proportion of a very strong IR absorber in an otherwise transparent gas just like most colored gem-stones are transparent with a small quantity of a visible absorber.
Peter (11:40:28) :
Sandy:
But it’s (almost) irrelevant anyway, as almost all the heat loss from the surface is through convection and evaporation, with only a tiny amount being lost through radiation, and even that tiny amount being slowed far more by water vapor re-radiation than that of CO2.
Rubbish, most of the loss from the surface is IR radiation unless you’ve found a way to bypass Planck’s law of blackbody radiation!
300K surface emits about 460W/m^2
Peter (11:32:52) :
Phil:
“Nonsense, try reading up on the physics.
Add 330ppm of chromium to corundum (colorless) and you’ve got a ruby add iron instead and you’ve got a sapphire. Still think that a low concentration of an absorber can’t have a noticeable effect?”
Apart from shifting the spectral bands slightly, what effect do these trace impurities have on the physical properties of corundum?
They do more than ‘shift absorption bands slightly’ they dramatically change its absorption characteristics from transparent to strong absorption, exactly the same effect that CO2 has on air! Get it, I chose the analogy very carefully?
And, besides chromium or iron, how many other substances would have no noticeable effect whatsoever? And how many substances besides corundum would show no noticeable change by having equivalent amounts of those impurities added?
Some do, some don’t, just like some gases absorb some don’t.
How much more cherry-picking are we going to see?
It’s not cherry picking, we have an atmosphere which contains a small proportion of a very strong IR absorber in an otherwise transparent gas just like most colored gem-stones are transparent with a small quantity of a visible absorber.
Peter (11:40:28) :
Sandy:
But it’s (almost) irrelevant anyway, as almost all the heat loss from the surface is through convection and evaporation, with only a tiny amount being lost through radiation, and even that tiny amount being slowed far more by water vapor re-radiation than that of CO2.
Rubbish, most of the loss from the surface is IR radiation unless you’ve found a way to bypass Planck’s law of blackbody radiation!
300K surface emits about 460W/m^2
Mr. Alex (12:58:23) : LOL:That temperature drop of EIGHT DEGREES is quite impossible because of the big amount of China and India GHGs!! I am sure that is the product of self-suggestion, because CO2 must have stored a lot of energy to emit back to ground during the eclipse…
Do you see how stupid is gwrs. nonsense?
Anthony,
Gavin does not work on GISTEMP. I don’t know why you’re attributing the responsibility for it’s upkeep to him. Did you not know this?
Sandy (10:53:27) :
“Because we keep getting posters making ‘inane, fatuous, irrelevent’ statements about the concentration of CO2 based apparently on their personal incredulity and lack of knowledge of the physics and chemistry”
Your lack of knowledge is showing. Even if a CO2 molecule got ‘hot’ from radiated heat it would either lose the energy to the surrounding air by collision and at 400 ppm would have NO thermal effect (drowned in thermal noise).
I’m sorry but it’s your ignorance which is being exposed, that is exactly the mechanism by which the atmosphere is heated by the surface and the way by which that surface radiation is prevented from directly radiating into space.
The idea that a CO2 molecule radiates back down to a warmer Earth and warms it is playing fast and loose with basic thermodynamics.
A classic error in your understanding of heat transfer as it applies to radiation.
So does CO2 keep the Earth or is it H2O which is the primary infra-red blanket?
The primary greenhouse gas on the earth is CO2 without it water has a minimal effect.
Well desert air is bone dry so try spending a night in the middle of the Sahara in shorts and T-shirt, see just what the min to max temperature swings are when you only have 400ppm of a GHG that only covers 6% of the relevant I-R range. If the day-time temps can drop that far that fast overnight then CO2 must be assumed to have no discernible effect.
Your assumption would be incorrect since the CO2 would be preventing a further 40W/m^2 of losses.
Phil. (06:31:46)
I think you’re misreading it, there’s 75cm of water on top over the last 20days, see the ice data below, note the isotherms.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np_weatherdata.html
You may be correct, since I haven’t been able to locate a reference on the site that describes exactly what is being measured or how the graphs should be interpreted. My assumptions are actually based on a comment you yourself posted to Anthony’s original post regarding the webcam site
Phil. (19:16:20) :
Not much change in the ice pinger distance, even though the station has drifted 161 miles to the SSE (lat lon data here). If I interpret the pinger graph correctly, the ice thickness has changed from ~2.75m to ~2.5m.
The ice surface is at about 60cm so the thickness is now appears to be about 1.9m.
Since the pinger graph has been essentially flat since then, I assume the ice thickness hasn’t changed appreciably and since the thermistor string starts at 60cm above the ice I assume that it is now reading mostly air temp with about 10-15cm of standing water, which would seem to be consistent with the webcam images and the amount of snow that has melted. This would seem to indicate that the loss to melting is less than 10%, while the overall loss is approaching 50%. My suggestion that the Cross Polar Drift is the dominant actor derives from how consistently the station drift patterns have moved along the 0 azimuth line which matches quite closely with maps of that current that I have seen.
Allan M (12:55:49) :
Phil:
“Add 330ppm of chromium to corundum (colorless) and you’ve got a ruby add iron instead and you’ve got a sapphire. Still think that a low concentration of an absorber can’t have a noticeable effect?”
What on earth is a “noticable effect?” Is this a large or a small effect? Neither. In this, at least, size does not matter. It is a colour effect. Does it cause warming of a sapphire more or less than a ruby? What is the possible relevance of this?
The role of the Cr ion and Fe ion is exactly the same as the CO2 in the atmosphere, although present in low concentration they are each strong absorbers and dramatically change the otherwise transparent matrix they are in. Since the ions effect the visible absorption we see the effect as color in the otherwise transparent crystal. The ruby crystal used in the laser invented by Ted Maiman contained about 0.05% Cr without the absorption and emission by those Cr ions there would be no laser.
“Indiana Bones (11:27:06) : Doesn’t science require replication…Or have I stumbled back to reality.”
Yes it does. Yes you have.
Stay there. It’s a better place to be.
“”” —–
Phil:
“Add 330ppm of chromium to corundum (colorless) and you’ve got a ruby add iron instead and you’ve got a sapphire. Still think that a low concentration of an absorber can’t have a noticeable effect?”
What on earth is a “noticable effect?” Is this a large or a small effect? Neither. In this, at least, size does not matter. It is a colour effect. Does it cause warming of a sapphire more or less than a ruby? What is the possible relevance of this? “””
Hexagonal single crystal Aluminum Oxide, is “Sapphire”; regardless of whether it is pure, or doped with impurities or not.
“Gem” sapphires can be obtained in almost any color from totally clear to totally black (opaque), although most people wouldn’t regard the black stuff as a gem. There is a whole mountain sized black sapphire somewhere in Wyoming or somewhere near there. You could drop a cubic yard of molten aluminum oxide, into a 20 foot deep hole; and simply fill the hole in with dirt; and it will cool slowly enough that most of it will grow a single crystal sapphire; probably highly strained, and not too pure. It is not the most difficult crystal to grow.
Those multicolor sapphires, can also be obtained in reds; but by definition, they are NOT Rubies, unless the Red color is due to Chromium doping.
Then there is that State gem of Colorado; which I believe is called RhodoChrosite; which forms absolutely spectacular; totally cube shaped, and very large bright red (transparent) Crystals. Wonderful stuff.
But Phil’s point is being missed; the fact that the atmospheric abundance of GHG species (other than water) is microscopic, does not negate their effects on the atmosphere.
The whole semiconductor industry; and all its myriad of marvellous products, with all kinds of weird properties; is built on deliberately doped materials that are so pure; that they make the earth’s atmosphere with its minute impurities look like a total garbage dump, in comparison.
With total atoms in the 10^23 range per CC, silicon impurity doping levels are in the high 10^15s per cc up to the low 10^19s (100 ppm), and that 10^19 stuff IS total garbage, and only useful to make electrical contacts to the useful layers; there aren’t any useful semiconductor processes going on at that “muck” level.
Even a tiny pinhole in a balloon (or your car tire); will certainly let all of the air out.
The whole of life on earth depends on the simple fact that the H2O molecule is NOT straight like the CO2 molecule; but has about a 104 degree bend in it.
So sometimes, even the most insigniifcant things are highly significant in the overall scheme of things.
George
tallbloke (12:45:04) :
“The reconstructions are based on the Group Sunspot Numbers which are much too low before the 1870s”
What is the evidence for this Leif? I thought optics were pretty good by 1750, and the people who did the observations were careful people.
in 1750, the optics were not comparable to 100 or more years later and people didn’t count sunspots according to any specific criteria. They reported when they saw a big one, but most of ‘specks’ that we today count as spots would have been ignored.
There are, however, objective criteria that can be used. Solar activity maintains the ionosphere and cause an electric current to flow 60 miles overhead during the day. The magnetic field from this current causes the compass needle to deviate from its usual [i.e.. night time] direction. This deviation is easily measured [even in 1750 – was discovered actually in 1722]. We can thus keep track of the currents in the ionosphere and thus of solar activity without relying of people counting spots.
A non-technical description of this is here: http://www.leif.org/research/CAWSES%20-%20Sunspots.pdf
and in more detail [and corroborated further] here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf
Joel Shore (13:10:24) : Please check those numbers during the ninght in a desert. Your CO2 molecules won’t help you get warm!
However, if you don’t believe me take with you a bottle filled with hot air, or better, filled with hot CO2.!!
Don’t you see they have cheated you?
Phil. (13:15:03) : “Rubbish, most of the loss from the surface is IR radiation unless you’ve found a way to bypass Planck’s law of blackbody radiation!
300K surface emits about 460W/m^2”
You are SO FOCUSED ON RADIATION! The air convection currents that help form clouds put large amounts of heat in short order into the upper atmosphere, bypassing much of the CO2. THEN the heat radiates into space. Also, clouds prevent the radiant energy from hitting the ground (or ocean) in the first place. You guys are really hung up on CO2 and radiation – as if nothing else existed or mattered.
Leif Svalgaard (14:16:00) :
tallbloke (12:45:04) :
And further support from this:
http://www.leif.org/research/SPD-2009.pdf
The Iceberg (10:01:49) :
I thought you were kidding in your first comment–I should say–I thought you had to be kidding. But in your second comment I see you actually weren’t.
You did know that GISS temp data has been publicly corrected more than once? With that reputation it is dicey to trust that data set.
It’s a good idea to look at all data sets. By doing that you will find the earth has been cooling for years now.
You do agree it’s a bad idea to exclude any data set? And also it’s a bad idea to trust and quote a data set that has already been found faulty?
Joel Shore:
They claim nothing of the sort. What they say is that what is said by some about the greenhouse effect is in violation of the 2nd law.
They actually make the point that the net flow of heat cannot be to a warmer body from a cooler one, and that those who suggest it does are confusing heat with energy.
Perhaps if Schmidt et al took the time to read the paper properly, they might come to a different conclusion.
Vincent:
Please try to understand what the paper actually says before condemning it. There is no paradox at all.
If a portion of the surface is emitting, say, 1000 photons per second, and two of those photons, having been absorbed and re-emitted towards the surface, are absorbed by the surface. The net emission from the surface is therefore 998 photons per second, instead of the 1000 per second it would otherwise have been. Note that said re-emission does not warm the surface, it merely slows down the rate at which it cools. Also note that all those 1000 photons do ultimately escape back into space, it just takes a tiny bit longer than the original second.
Phil:
“It’s not cherry picking, we have an atmosphere which contains a small proportion of a very strong IR absorber in an otherwise transparent gas just like most colored gem-stones are transparent with a small quantity of a visible absorber.”
Since when did CO2 have more than a limited (~15 microns) absorption, which is covered already by water vapour and other gases. Even the IPCC couldn’t characterise CO2 as a “very strong absorber.” That’s why they invented the mystical +ve feedbacks.
Ben G (12:07:15) :
Well to me this implies then that Schmidt has too much weight on TSI variations in his early climate recontructions – which means they must be wrong in terms of how they modelled the temperature variations at the start of the 20th century.
Precisely. The generally accepted assumptions are wrong.