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.
“”” africangenesis (09:35:59) :
timetochooseagain,
The climate sensitivity couldn’t be zero, but there is enough uncertainty, that the net feedback could be close to zero or even negative, even though all the models have the feedback as positive. The unknowns in just the tropical cloud cover dwarf the phenomenon of interest. There are probably 10s of W/m^2 of error, when the energy imbalance thought responsible for the warming is less than 1W/m^2. The correlated model surface albedo bias i discussed above is already on the order of 4 times the energy imbalance. Unfortunately correlated error defeats part of the purpose of combining model ensembles, the hoped for cancellation of random errors. All of the AR4 models are correlated in having the net tropical cloud feedback as positive. We don’t have the kind of observations that can resolve the issue, although recently published work (by Christy, et al?) suggests that the net feedback might actually be negative. “””
Well one or two simple observations might be worthy of note.
#1 The ground/surface can easily warm the atmosphere (via conduction, LW radiation absortion (GHG). The atmosphere on the other hand has only one way to warm the ground/surface, and that is by downward LW re-radiation from the very low power atmosphere; and that downward LW does not do much surface warming since it leads to a lot of ocean evaporation fromt the very surface which is where the LW is captured.
#2 When a cloud passes in front of the sun, it ALWAYS cools down in the shadow zone, since the cloud tops reflect a lot of solar spectrum energy back out into space (albedo increase) and then the cloud’s optical density absorbs additional solar spectrum energy; so net effect is that less solar spectrum energy reaches the surface; so the surface gets cooler.
Yes the energy captured by the atmosphere may warm the atmosphere; but as we have already seen from #1; the warmer atmospheree is not very effective in warming the surface; whereas a warmer surface is quite effective in warming the atmopshere.
Ergo, the effect of clouds is ALWAYS negative feedback (and very strong negative feedback at that).
No high clouds at night do not warm the surface; it is the warmer surface that is the very cause of those high clouds; so that purported positive feedback cloud effect is a fraud.
A simple mental exercise of considering the results of having either zero water vapor in the atmosphere, and hence zero clouds; or it’s opposite of solid cloud cover all over the earth from the ground to 50,0000 feet (pick a number); should convince anyone, that water vapor produces positive feedback atmospheric warming; but water in cloud form produces negative feedback surface cooling.
Either of those two starting assumptions will lead to an intermediate state with partial cloud cover; pretty much like we have now; the two end points are quite unstable.
Jim (05:13:31) :
“Allan M (01:42:41) : Phil is like the guy with a hammer ”
A device which used to be referred to, where I come from in the North of England, as a “Manchester Screwdriver.”
africangenesis (09:35:59) : and George E. Smith (11:20:50) : I don’t disagree, however my points is merely that a zero sensitivity is totally unphysical. A small one isn’t.
Just what’s the number? Dunno. I think that Lindzen and Spencer have been independently looking at satellite data to find evidence on feedbacks and are coming to pretty much identical results-about half a degree per CO2 doubling (my own estimate would actually be a little higher-but not much, and well within their margins of error). But that raises other questions: is the sensitivity constant? Does it very with timescale, or with climate itself? Glacial climates seem to be far less stable than interglacial-that is, they have large fluctuations. Cooling down from the last big period of really warm climate, I can’t remember the name right now (paleocene?), there were no glacial cycles at all, and as things cooled down, the magnitude of the cycles suddenly began to increase-which suggests to me the possibility that warmer climates are more robust to perturbation than cooler ones. But that’s a subject about which I have less knowledge than some other things, so maybe some geologists could comment on that.
And of course other questions, too, probably, but none that spring to mind immediately.
“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!”
You got the wrong place. You are talking about the MOON. After you get into a car in the south that has its windows closed then explain to me again how conduction and convection do not count when talking of heat transfer in an atmosphere.
The Warmist view neglects the excitation of CO2 electrons by direct sunlight. Some of the excitation energy must be from the sun. Time wise, during the day, the sun’s energy would have first priority since the energy goes sun-air-earth and then back to air. Only CO2 molecules not at a high energy state already would be available to be excited by energy radiated back from the earth. Second the amount of infrared energy from the sun is much greater than that from the earth.
At this point the PPM of CO2 that absorbs earth radiated energy is much less than the total 400 PPM. The fact that infrared energy is absorbed by “green house gases” is not in dispute. The origin of the energy and the direction of net energy transfer is.
Let us look at nature:
At the same latitude the climate with a high humidity will be moderated compared to a desert. Very high day time temperatures followed by low night time temperatures are the norm in low humidity. This means that the action of the greenhouse gases is to SLOW the energy transfer from the sun. (NOT the energy trans fer from the earth) Moisture capture some of the incoming energy from the sun during the day thereby lowering the day time temperatures.
“Water vapor absorbs heat and releases it slowly….At night, when the humidity is high, the atmosphere retains more heat, and nighttime temperatures stay somewhat high. On dry nights, however…., the atmosphere cools off rapidly.” This is straight from a Warmist paper the full quote is below.
“…Water vapor is the main reason for the greenhouse effect, in which certain gases in the atmosphere allow sunlight to pass through, but absorb heat released from the Earth (when sunlight strikes the Earth it changes from visible light to infrared radiation, or heat). Without this effect the Earth would be about 33°C cooler than it is at present (that is, 60°F cooler). Human-caused emissions, leading to increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases in the atmosphere may accelerate the greenhouse effect. Water vapor absorbs heat and releases it slowly. At night, when the humidity is high, the atmosphere retains more heat, and nighttime temperatures stay somewhat high. On dry nights, however, with little water vapor to absorb heat, the atmosphere cools off rapidly….” http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ce-Cr/Climate-Moderator-Water-as-a.html
The fallacy is neglecting the role of sunlight in warming up greenhouse gases during the day and attributing the warming to black body radiation from the earth ONLY. The following “Water vapor absorbs heat and releases it slowly” shows it is energy absorbed from the sun during the day and released slowly at night that is the true “atmospheric greenhouse effect”. By falsifying the ratio of the suns infrared energy compared to that of the earth’s, Warmists make it look like it is blackbody radiation instead of daytime sunlight that is actually transferring energy to the “greenhouse gases” and the gases then transferring the energy back to the earth causing a net gain in the earth’s temperature. “…On dry nights, however, with little water vapor to absorb heat, the atmosphere cools off rapidly….” even infers this is happening at night.
This breaks the second law of thermodynamics. Yes there is a slowing down of the transfer of energy but it is the slowing of the energy transfer from the sun to the greenhouse gases to the earth and NOT the earth to the greenhouse gases and back to the earth. (Does Conservation of Energy allow you to count that same photon twice???)
Also neglecting the effect of water (atmospheric and ocean) and the sun, and then stating CO2 is the primary driver of climate is absolutely the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If I construct a model holding everything constant except CO2 of course I can prove CO2 is the major driver of climate.
africangenesis says:
You have misunderstood their statement. It has nothing to do with being in a different mode. It has to do with the fact that equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response are different animals. The former is the eventual response of the climate to a doubling of CO2 whereas the latter is the temperature change that has occurred at the time when CO2 has doubled when increased at a certain rate (conventionally 1% per year). I.e., it basically just represents the fact that the climate system is out-of-equilibrium when CO2 is increasing that fast so the full climate change has not yet been realized at the time that the CO2 reaches double its pre-industrial value.
Gerald Machnee says:
The right answer is right by definition. It may not be the right answer in the real world…but it is the right answer within the model. And, if a data analysis technique (such as that of Scafetta and West) gets the wrong answer when applied to model data, it is unlikely to get the right answer when applied to real data. If a data analysis technique gets the right answer when applied to model data, then that can give us some confidence that it will get the right answer when applied to real data, although this is of course not guaranteed.
Nogw (08:36:54) :
“Where could we get a greenhouse farmer using an open greenhouse?”
Easy just up the road from me here in the North Carolina. The greenhouses are plastic sheeting over a PVC pipe frame and as soon as it gets warm enough the farmer remove the plastic sheeting.(usually in stages to allow harding off)
These greenhouses allow radiative/conductive heating during the winter and convection cooling during the summer. If you do not use convection cooling you will cook your veggies before they have flowered!
Mike Lorrey said:
Fine. I was just being polite. You can replace, “I don’t believe that they do” with “They don’t” if it will make you happier.
I can do basic math just fine. The fact is that there are other non-diatomic-molecules that absorb IR in addition to CO2, the most prevalent being water (which accounts for most of that ~1%…the reason why it is so approximate is that water vapor concentration varies significantly within the atmosphere).
As for the difference between the pre-industrial levels of ~280ppm and the current level of 385ppm being “so miniscule as to be worthless,” could you please provide us with scientific evidence that this is actually the case? Have you done the calculations for what the radiative forcing due to this change is, for example?
Joel Shore:
“And, if a data analysis technique (such as that of Scafetta and West) gets the wrong answer when applied to model data, it is unlikely to get the right answer when applied to real data. If a data analysis technique gets the right answer when applied to model data, then that can give us some confidence that it will get the right answer when applied to real data, although this is of course not guaranteed.”
===
OK. So when a model gets consistently wrong answers for most of the period is question (1909 through 2009 – when the models get the correct answer compared to CO2 levels for only 25 years of 100) – when do we throw out the artificial and contrived model input guesses?
How long do the CO2-radiative forcing modelers get to “guess wrong” before they accept the fact that their simplified theories and atrociously inept programming approximations are simply wrong?
Robert A Cooke PE: I have no idea what you are going on about and how it relates to what I said.
Gail Combs (12:27:10) :
Fine comment, succinct and clear. I learnt a few things there.
Leif (06:01:14) : Remember that the mantra goes that the observations show a direct and immediate link [what Svensmark claims].
Well, that is part of the mantra, and Svensmark says he arrives at it by controlling for ocean oscillations and volcanic aerosols (his figure 2). I don’t know how well he is actually able to control for ocean oscillations, but to the extent that he is, the obscuring effects of the oscillations are overcome and his results are valid.
The rest of the mantra is that the GCR-temperature correlation is also visible on other time scales. Suppose that temperature fluctuations over individual solar cycles are profoundly obscured by ocean oscillations that can’t be well controlled for. There are still fluctuations between high and low solar cycles, or between multiple high and multiple low cycles, that would create temperature fluctuations that span across the ocean oscillations and hence can be seen in the smoothed temperature series.
Shaviv cites Bond and Neff as getting the clearest results over these time scales (decadal, centennial, millennial). As noted earlier, Shaviv himself found a high degree of correlation between temperature and transit through the spiral arms. That this signal is also readable through ocean oscillations within the time scale of individual solar cycles is just icing on the cake.
Of course all of this is still formative and shows a high degree of uncertainty, but this uncertainty is relative. The question is which of the different possible explanations best fit the evidence, and the alternative explanations have bigger problems. The TSI and CO2 explanations both depend on high climate sensitivity, which seems to be directly contradicted by the physical evidence. The GCR temperature hypothesis may not be as strongly evidenced as we would like but it is not in contradiction to any clear evidence. That makes it the clear favorite in my assessment. “What GCR effect?” Right there: that horse way out front.
Tallbloke:
Interesting notes on the amount of energy flowing into and out of the oceans. One question: why does the Pacific going into energy release mode create an El Nino? Fits with the recent news of a new El Nino forming, but it seems counter-intuitive to me. If the top water cools and sinks, any water that takes its place from below would not be particularly warm. Is El Nino an inversion effect, or a migration effect?
am sure that we could find substances that would kill you at far lower concentrations. However, more to the point in this particular case: When ~99% of the atmosphere consists of diatomic molecules that are essentially transparent to infrared radiation, the remaining ~1% can have a disproportionate effect on the climate.
I grant that small amounts of a given substance can have a great effect. But this is consistent with the thesis that it is the very first few tens ppm of CO2 that have nearly all the effect. And that from here on (~385ppm), if not long since, it is highly diminishing-to-negligible returns.
The question is at what point in the curve are we?
And, of course, according to the IPCC, the direct effects of CO2 are slight–the devil is in the feedbacks. And it looks as if it’s a negative devil after all.
Allan M (01:42:41) :
Allan M (14:33:40) :
That last remark is “noticable.” Fellows, we have a HERETIC in our midst, who dares to say that the IPCC, the climate gods, are not dealing out enough apocalyse and damnation.
As for the rest, I now know you are speaking from the wrong orifice. Just pray they DON’T tax toilet paper.
Thank you and goodnight.
Can’t handle the science so you resort to ad hominem, seems like the British education system is not what it was.
evanmjones:
Since the effect is approximately logarithmic in concentration, it just means that the natural way to talk about the effect is in terms of a given fractional change in concentration (such as a doubling) rather than a given absolute change in concentration. It is a property of a logarithmic function that log(f*x)-log(x) is independent of x.
While that may be true from most of the evidence posted on this website, I don’t think it is true from most of the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature, which rather points to feedbacks positive enough to increase the direct effect by a factor of about 1.5 to 4.
Gail Combs says:
I am quite confident that climate models already include the absorption of the IR part of the solar spectrum. It certainly appears in this schematic diagram by Trenberth: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200904/images/trenberth-fig1.gif
However, I don’t think your point about priority makes sense. At any particular moment in time, there are photons in all the various stages of the process that you describe. Furthermore, do you have any reason to believe that the radiation field is intense enough that the saturation effect that you speak of (where lots of CO2 molecules are in a high energy state) is a significant effect?
Basically, your whole thesis amounts to a claim that scientists are doing the radiative calculations incorrectly with absolutely no evidence presented that this is in fact the case.
RE: Joel Shore (13:05:14) :
**The right answer is right by definition. It may not be the right answer in the real world…but it is the right answer within the model. And, if a data analysis technique (such as that of Scafetta and West) gets the wrong answer when applied to model data, it is unlikely to get the right answer when applied to real data. If a data analysis technique gets the right answer when applied to model data, then that can give us some confidence that it will get the right answer when applied to real data, although this is of course not guaranteed.**
In science you cannot define the right answer as “by definition”. You have to prove it and it has to be replicable. The “right answer within the model” is for dreamers. Something like “The science is in” also does not hold water. You better get into the real world! We are waiting for right answers.
Jim (19:13:05) :
Phil. (17:53:36) : I don’t see how Planck’s black body law prevents convection moving heat, or clouds from reflecting the Sun’s light. That isn’t logical.
It doesn’t it just is more effective at transporting heat, let’s see your analysis showing how much non-radiative heat transfer there is from the surface to the atmosphere, do it for the night time to make it simpler.
Jim (05:13:31) :
Allan M (01:42:41) : Phil is like the guy with a hammer – everything looks like a nail. Phil has a spectrometer – every problem looks like radiation.
When I’m considering a planet which can only exchange heat with its surroundings via radiation you betcha!
Gail Combs (12:27:10) :
“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!”
You got the wrong place. You are talking about the MOON. After you get into a car in the south that has its windows closed then explain to me again how conduction and convection do not count when talking of heat transfer in an atmosphere.
Where did you get a car that has windows transparent to IR in the 5-20μm range, it must have cost you a fortune! When you park your car in the south with it’s window closed you let in the SW but prevent heat loss by LW radiation and convection.
The Warmist view neglects the excitation of CO2 electrons by direct sunlight. Some of the excitation energy must be from the sun.
Very little since it does cover the right wavelength range.
Time wise, during the day, the sun’s energy would have first priority since the energy goes sun-air-earth and then back to air. Only CO2 molecules not at a high energy state already would be available to be excited by energy radiated back from the earth.
The excitation of CO2 by IR in the 15μm band, which is by far the most important, is from the ground vibrational state to the first excited vibrational state, there are no photons from the sun capable of doing this so you’re wrong.
Second the amount of infrared energy from the sun is much greater than that from the earth.
Not anywhere on this planet!
At this point the PPM of CO2 that absorbs earth radiated energy is much less than the total 400 PPM.
Really, kindly explain why.
The fact that infrared energy is absorbed by “green house gases” is not in dispute. The origin of the energy and the direction of net energy transfer is.
Not by anyone who knows what they’re talking about.
Let us look at nature:
At the same latitude the climate with a high humidity will be moderated compared to a desert. Very high day time temperatures followed by low night time temperatures are the norm in low humidity. This means that the action of the greenhouse gases is to SLOW the energy transfer from the sun.
Firstly by forming clouds which is nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, secondly by the latent heat of vaporization of water which is far higher than the specific heats of the ground and air. Wrong again.
The fallacy is neglecting the role of sunlight in warming up greenhouse gases during the day and attributing the warming to black body radiation from the earth ONLY.
The following “Water vapor absorbs heat and releases it slowly” shows it is energy absorbed from the sun during the day and released slowly at night that is the true “atmospheric greenhouse effect”. By falsifying the ratio of the suns infrared energy compared to that of the earth’s, Warmists make it look like it is blackbody radiation instead of daytime sunlight that is actually transferring energy to the “greenhouse gases” and the gases then transferring the energy back to the earth causing a net gain in the earth’s temperature.
There’s no falsification that’s the way it is.
(Note to Anthony, I notice that the accusations of fraud proliferate despite your undertaking to police it)
This breaks the second law of thermodynamics. Yes there is a slowing down of the transfer of energy but it is the slowing of the energy transfer from the sun to the greenhouse gases to the earth and NOT the earth to the greenhouse gases and back to the earth. (Does Conservation of Energy allow you to count that same photon twice???)
You appear not to know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is.
One common expression of it is: the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
How is that applicable to what you’re discussing above?
Also neglecting the effect of water (atmospheric and ocean) and the sun, and then stating CO2 is the primary driver of climate is absolutely the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If I construct a model holding everything constant except CO2 of course I can prove CO2 is the major driver of climate.
A straw man argument, the effect of water is not ignored in fact it’s regarded as a primary feedback, the sun however does not vary very much compared with CO2 were it to do so then that should be included, read some of Leif’s posts on this topic.
The Warmist view neglects the excitation of CO2 electrons by direct sunlight. Some of the excitation energy must be from the sun.
Very little since it does not cover the right wavelength range.
Gerald Machnee:
My bad. I thought you actually wanted to understand the science. However, I guess you just want to just engage in your own sophistry of twisting the meaning of what I am saying. Have fun.
Phil. (15:18:07) :
“When I’m considering a planet which can only exchange heat with its surroundings via radiation you betcha!”
Sure, if you are talking a black body with no atmosphere, then you would only have to consider radiation. But the fact is clouds can reflect radiation before it even gets to the ground. So it’s not JUST radiation. Come on Phil! You are avoiding clouds like they were the Swine Flu.
Joel, I have a question for you. The oceanic oscillations correlate VERY well with the temperature series (better than anything else), irregardless of what else is warming or cooling the land. Are you of the opinion that CO2 affects are warming both oceans and land or is one warming, thus warming the other? By what mechanism is this taking place?
Alec Rawls (13:59:47) :
The GCR temperature hypothesis […] is not in contradiction to any clear evidence.
This is a far cry from claiming that the evidence is clear and overwhelming…
Leif (13:59:47):
Surely you did not fail to notice that the absence of contra-indications was mentioned at the end of a long list of indications:
To cite just the absence of contra-indications, as if no positive evidence had been put forward, is just a dodge. Seems pretty anti-scientific.
The direct evidence for GCR as the primary driver of might not be “clear and overwhelming” (though it seems to be getting close). What IS clear and overwhelming is that this hypothesis fits the evidence a lot better than the competing hypotheses. Good to see you coming around a bit on that. Your position seems to have moved from “what magnetic effects?” to denying that the evidence for these effects is overwhelming. Maybe not so anti-scientific in the end then. Just an inveterate jouster.
Jim (17:10:19) :
Phil. (15:18:07) :
“When I’m considering a planet which can only exchange heat with its surroundings via radiation you betcha!”
Sure, if you are talking a black body with no atmosphere, then you would only have to consider radiation. But the fact is clouds can reflect radiation before it even gets to the ground. So it’s not JUST radiation. Come on Phil! You are avoiding clouds like they were the Swine Flu.
To quote John McEnroe “You have to be kidding!”
Clouds scatter radiation, how do you think you treat radiation without clouds? Radiation is the only mechanism by which the Earth exchanges energy with its surroundings, whether directly or by scattering, end of story!
Phil. (19:07:41) : “Clouds scatter radiation, how do you think you treat radiation without clouds? Radiation is the only mechanism by which the Earth exchanges energy with its surroundings, whether directly or by scattering, end of story!”
Phil., I do understand that for the most part, the Earth can exchange energy with the space around it by radiation. But you said the Earth acted as a black body. Clouds are one feature of Earth that make it considerably less black, especially around the tropics where most of your precious radiation impinges. Yes, clouds scatter radiation. They scatter it right back into space from whence it came, thereby cooling the Earth. Feel free to act dense as you wish, but it makes you look silly.