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.
Alec Rawls (18:41:45) :
Your position seems to have moved from “what magnetic effects?” to denying that the evidence for these effects is overwhelming.
First, ‘magnetic effects’ doesn’t sound like GCRs and nucleation. I was asking for clarification on what ‘magnetic effects’ there were, that is the direct effects of magnetism.
Second, in my opinion there is no evidence, just speculation. To recognize speculation for what it is is hardly ‘anti-scientific’. My comment was directed at the large group who consider ‘the science settled’ for GCRs driving the climate and claim that the evidence is overwhelming. It seems to me that you have climbed down a bit to merely say: “The GCR temperature hypothesis […] is not in contradiction to any clear evidence”.
Alec Rawls (18:41:45) :
The TSI and CO2 explanations both depend on high climate sensitivity, which seems to be directly contradicted by the physical evidence.
May I point out that the solar cycle modulation of GCRs is only about 10% [with the higher energies – presumably the most effective – even less], so the climate must have very high sensitivity to GCRs. If those 10% provide nucleation ions for clouds, what a lot more clouds would be generated by the remaining 90%.
Leif Svalgaard (20:14:36) :
Alec Rawls (18:41:45) :
The TSI and CO2 explanations both depend on high climate sensitivity, which seems to be directly contradicted by the physical evidence.
As Carslaw points out, the evidence is not good, but the hypothesis deserves to be investigated because it is a possible [not plausible or accepted] mechanism. But we are very far from being able to say that this is the mechanism.
Leif Svalgaard (20:14:36) :
As Carslaw points out: here
Jim (19:46:03) :
Phil., I do understand that for the most part, the Earth can exchange energy with the space around it by radiation.
‘Can’, it’s the only way!
But you said the Earth acted as a black body.
Focus Jim, note that it was the surface that was being discussed:
“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 cannot describe the Earth-atmosphere system in terms of ideal blackbodies.
Certainly can in the IR band we’re talking about which is an almost perfect 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.
Not the surface!
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.
Really, perhaps if you read the posts before posting you might look less silly.
Allan M (13:47:56) :
Gail Combs (12:27:10) :
Fine comment, succinct and clear. I learnt a few things there.
Better unlearn them then because almost everything she said was wrong as shown above.
Alec Rawls (18:41:45) :
The GCR temperature hypothesis […] is not in contradiction to any clear evidence.
It actually is. Too many papers to mention here, but they have been discussed before. For me the most direct contradiction is that GCRs is supposed to work through changes of the albedo, and the albedo the past couple of decades has not varied like the GCRs, so to uphold the hypotheses you need to invoke some special pleading or circumstance that explains why it [for the moment] is not holding up.
Phil. (20:49:28) :
So how would CO2 create a feedback? If it doesn’t, then we are just going to ever more slowly approach a temperature until CO2 absorption capabilities are saturated. What temperature is that?
On Galactic Cosmic Rays and climate one should keep an open mind and do not keep making the mistake that there is one and only one way the climate is affected by a variable.
Not only the climate/atmosphere-ocean-land system is highly nonlinear in its responses but also highly complex. GCR could very well be a factor that in synergy with ocean and air circulation, even with plankton dust production, (and somewhere there running in the last row CO2) form the final result called weather. Let us not make the mistake that the AGW have made by picking up CO2 and running away with it like a flag at a football match.
Leif Svalgaard (20:14:36) :
“Alec Rawls (18:41:45) :
The TSI and CO2 explanations both depend on high climate sensitivity, which seems to be directly contradicted by the physical evidence.
May I point out that the solar cycle modulation of GCRs is only about 10% [with the higher energies – presumably the most effective – even less], so the climate must have very high sensitivity to GCRs. If those 10% provide nucleation ions for clouds, what a lot more clouds would be generated by the remaining 90%.”
If one puts aside the “cloud theory” of GCR as a circular distraction,and and looks at the more accepted theory of stratospheric photochemistry (Crutzen got a gong on this) sensitivity is more apparent eg.
Sensitivity of Surface Temperature and Atmospheric Temperature to Perturbations in the Stratospheric Concentration of Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide
V. Ramanathan, L.B. Callis, and R.E. Boughner
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Article: pp. 1092–1112
ABSTRACT
The present paper examines, with the aid of a radiative-convective model, the sensitivity of the globally-averaged surface temperature and atmospheric temperature to perturbations in the concentration of O3 and NO2 within the stratosphere. The analysis considers reductions in stratospheric O3 with and without a simultaneous increase in the stratospheric concentration of NO2. Ozone is reduced uniformly in a region between 12 and 40 km within the stratosphere. The ratio of the percentage change in NO2 to the percentage change in O3 is denoted by δ; three values of δ (0, −6 and −10) are considered.
For all the cases considered, it is shown that reducing stratosphere O3 cools the atmosphere and the surface. If the reduction in O3 is accompanied by a simultaneous increase in NO2, the increase in solar absorption by NO2 partially compensates for the reduction in solar absorption due to a decrease in stratospheric O3. Consequently, the decrease in atmospheric and surface temperatures is smaller for larger values of −δ. The results for the surface temperature changes depend on the adopted cloud model. The change in the surface temperature for the constant cloud-top temperature model is 1.6 times larger than that for the constant cloud-top altitude model.
The model also indicates that the surface temperature is sensitive to the vertical distribution of O3 within the atmosphere. Increasing (or decreasing) the altitude at which O3 density is maximum has a cooling (or warming) effect an the surface temperature. The consequences of O3 reduction to the latitudinal energy distribution are also discussed.
The results should be considered as reflecting the sensitivity of the present model rather than the sensitivity of the actual earth-atmosphere system. However, the present results should be indicative of the potential environmental consequences due to perturbations in the stratospheric concentrations of O3 and NO2
Alec Rawls (13:59:47) :
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?
Hi Alec, you should visit bobtisdale.blogspot.com for a comprehensive analysis of el nino’s. The ’98 el nino was a migration effect according to Bob, warm water from the Pacific warm pool spreading out and radiating it’s heat from the surface.
Bob noted a few days ago that the current temperature anomaly pattern in the Pacific is very different to any he’s seen before, the whole Pacific surface is warm, rather than a classic el nino hot spot spreading from the equatorial region. If anything, the hot spots are in the more northerly latitudes off Japan at the moment.
I conjecture that this is a different type of el nino. There was a recent article on here about ‘modoki’ el nino. The Japanese word modoki carries the connotation of ‘inferior’ or ‘shadow of’. I think it’s a ‘bounceback’ of all the extra heat which has gone into the oceans during the run of high amplitude-short minimum solar cycles we’ve had. The ocean has switched from a heat absorption mode to heat dissipation mode in this extended solar minimum.
My calculations show that the rise in surface temperature of around 0.3C in the 1993-2003 period is consistent with an average increase of 0.13C of the top 700m of the oceans (averaged across the globe) and a reasonably linear dropoff of temperature from surface to thermocline. This corroborates my 14×10^22J extra ocean heat content calculation, because 0.13C is the amount the sun has warmed the top 700m to give a thermal expansion consistent with the rise seen by the satellite altimetry.
I asked an oceanographer, James Annan, how the extra heat got mixed down to the thermocline as far as 1000m below the surface when wave action etc mainly mixes the top 50m. He told me that there are tidal mixing effects and a strong downwards current at high latitudes which takes surface waters below, and recirculates them.
Perhaps changes in circulation due to a cooling surface are bringing the sequestered extra ocean heat back to the surface. It has to be able to get out somehow. I don’t know enough about salinity and the motion of currents to give a full account, but logic demands that it happens. The fact that the sea surface is warming everywhere at once is the manifestation of the effect. It isn’t the quieter sun which is making the surface get warmer, so it must be heat coming up from below.
Phil. (20:49:28) :
“Allan M (13:47:56) :
Gail Combs (12:27:10) :
Fine comment, succinct and clear. I learnt a few things there.
Better unlearn them then because almost everything she said was wrong as shown above.”
I am quite choosy about teachers. You have disqualified yourself already.
Phil. (20:44:32) : You are very skillful at dodging the point. You might treat the surface of the Earth as a black body. But there is more to the climate system than the Earth. Clouds are also present. So while you might be able to treat the surface as a black body, you can’t treat the Earth plus atmosphere as a black body. That is what you are going to great lengths to ignore, and yes, it makes you look silly. It is a very transparent game you are playing.
maksimovich (23:48:28) :
“The analysis considers reductions in stratospheric O3 with and without a simultaneous increase in the stratospheric concentration of NO2.”
Which leaves the problem of what changes the O3 and the NO2, both of which are destroyed by GCRs. NO2 in the stratosphere is derived from N2O coming up from the troposphere. Interesting is the fact that the change in N2O over the past millennium closely parallels that of CO2 [with ppm replaced by ppb] as it should because 2/3 of the NO2 concentration comes from combustion of fossil fuels…
maksimovich (23:48:28) :
“The analysis considers reductions in stratospheric O3 with and without a simultaneous increase in the stratospheric concentration of NO2.”
Which leaves the problem of what changes the O3 and the NO2, both of which are destroyed by GCRs. NO2 in the stratosphere is derived from N2O coming up from the troposphere. Interesting is the fact that the change in N2O over the past millennium closely parallels that of CO2 [with ppm replaced by ppb] as it should because 2/3 of the NO2 concentration comes from combustion of fossil fuels…
Joel Shore (13:05:14),
“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.”
My bad, thanx. Of course they weren’t implying a different climate mode, and probably think that the difference between the transient and equilibrium climate sensitivities is totally due to running the model climates for centuries to get the equilibrium figure. However, I think my point is still valid, that the equilibrium figure may be inflated by the model climates catching up with the surface albedo feedback that was already present in the climate observations for the 1990s, and extra 3 to 4 W/m^2 globally and annually averaged for the AR4 models. As i said, I think it is less for their model, but still must be acknowledged as significant by all who think the energy imbalance responsible for the recent warming is significant. Regards, and thanx again.
Leif Svalgaard (07:15:29) :
because 2/3 of the NO2 concentration comes from combustion of fossil fuels…
While correct, I should have talked about the sources of N2O, not NO2. So correction: 1/2 of the N2O is anthropogenic.
Phil:
And during the daytime it receives anything up to around three times that amount from the sun. What stops the surface from getting unbearably hot during the daytime?
Also, why is it that it can be uncomfortably hot on one day, and the next day can be decidedly chilly, with the same clear sky and the sun at the same inclination, when the only thing that’s changed is the direction or strength of the wind?
So how is it then that the car remains much cooler if you leave the windows open just a tiny bit? Are you suggesting that all the radiation escapes through that tiny gap?
Leif wrote (20:14:36): It seems to me that you have climbed down a bit to merely say: “The GCR temperature hypothesis […] is not in contradiction to any clear evidence”.
THIS is what I was referring to when I suggested you were being anti-scientific. I did NOT merely say there are no contra-indications to a GCR-temperature mechanism. I also pointed out the mountain of indications. You characterized me as only saying that there are no contra-indications so I cut and pasted the list of indications for you. Now you ignore that I re-listed the pile of indications for you and again say that I am merely saying that there are no contra-indications. Holy cow!
Being a scientist means first of all conserving information. A scientist doesn’t ignore what he already knows, but you do, over and over, if it is information that it suits your established position to ignore. You are a VERY hard person to have a rational exchange with. But then I’m an inveterate jouster too. A little inefficiency is not a big deal, as long as there is something worthwhile. You do push it though, making me flat out repeat myself.
As for your “what magnetic effects?” remark, apparently I misunderstood. I thought you were just being dismissive, denying that there are any magnetic effects that need to be accounted, a la Gavin Schmidt. Now it turns out you were just writing as if you didn’t know what magnetic effects were being referred to.
It’s a good question. When I use the term I am referring to the effects of the solar-magnetic flux (that is, the modulation of GCR, which is in turn hypothesized to affect temperature; any effect that solar-magnetic modulation of the earth’s electrical circuit may have on temperature; and any other mechanisms by which the solar wind might affect temperature, whether anyone has thought of them yet or not).
TSI and spectral shifts could also be considered “magnetic effects” in that they are also regulated by solar-magnetic activity, but that is not a useful categorization. In particular, it is the effects of the solar-magnetic flux that are completely omitted from the climate models of Gavin Schmidt and the IPCC. That is what needs to be talked about. These guys are committing omitted variable fraud and it makes sense to tailor terms to address what needs to be talked about.
The IPCC omits solar-magnetic effects from its models on the grounds that we don’t yet understand the mechanism by which such effects would work, even as they acknowledge extensive evidence that SOME such mechanism is at work. If they can’t model the mechanism, they can’t include it in their model, right? So that’s their excuse.
Okay, but for Schmidt et al. to then use that model as their predictor of what will happen is not science. The scientific method is defined by the priority of data over theory. They are saying that since they are unsatisfied with the theory they are going to ignore the data. Schmidt also belittles the data. Search GCR in Gavin’s article that is the subject of this post. All you will find is excuses for why he does not include it in his model.
This is why I keep focusing on which hypothesis has the BETTER evidence. It is easy to dismiss GCR effects as merely speculative, but it means nothing when ALL of the different climate hypotheses are speculative, with CO2 being the most speculative of all. To make the best scientific forecasts that we can, we need to weight the different hypotheses by the RELATIVE quality of the evidence for them.
In an exchange with science fiction author Jerry Pournelle, Gavin Schmidt explained why he did not include GCR effects in his models: “”[T]here is no obvious need for ‘new’ or unknown physics to explain what [is] going on.”
He doesn’t “need” it. He can just ratchet the climate sensitivity of his model way up until the tiny fluctuations in TSI, multiplied by climate sensitivity, will be able to account for the historical correlations between solar-magnetic activity and temperature. But this is as speculative as speculative gets. The evidence for such high climate sensitivity is much weaker than the evidence for GCR temperature effects. It is clearly CONTRA-indicated.
Not so with GCR-temperature effects. It accounts for the solar-activity temperature correlations (the “indications”), with no contra-indications. That is a clear superiority over the CO2/high-climate-sensitivity hypothesis.
To omit the better evidenced hypothesis from one’s forecasting in favor of a less evidenced hypothesis is not science. It fails to conserve information. Schmidt just ignores whatever does not support his presumptions. If the effects of solar magnetic flux on temperature were accounted in accordance with the relative weight of the evidence for them, the estimate of CO2 warming effects would be correspondingly lessened, to the point where run-away CO2-caused warming would be out of the picture.
It is only the prospect of run-away warming that creates alarm. A modicum of warming would always be good, since throughout human history, warmer has always been better. The value of a modicum of warmer becomes greater when natural variation heads in the cooling direction, as it seems to be doing now, but it would still be positive even if solar cycle 24 was already roaring along. It is only the omission of the solar-magnetic variable, causing solar-magnetic effects to be misattributed to CO2, that is creating the current drive to unplug modern civilization.
That, of course, is why all this matters. There would be no urgent need to figure out what drives the relatively slow changes in climate if dishonest scientists were not using their bogus claims of dangerous human-caused global warming to execute an illiberal power grab. It is disturbing in this context to see Leif snapping off rebuttals without regard to whether they make any sense. Yes the GCR-temperature hypothesis is speculative. So is ALL of climate science. What matters is that it is LESS speculative than Gavin’s idiotic hypothesis of super high climate sensitivity.
How can the other professionals in the field allow Schmidt to get away with his bogus excuses for completely omitting solar-magnetic effects from his forecasts? No attempt to weigh the different possibilities according to the evidence for them. He just omits the best evidenced hypothesis. Well, we actually know how he is able to get away with this. Al Gore was given $10b to construct a climate science industry in his own image, and the acolytes like James Hansen that he empowered have controlled where every penny of the next $69b
was spent. That’s not easy for an insider to buck, but it needs to be done.
Alec Rawls (11:27:37) :
THIS is what I was referring to when I suggested you were being anti-scientific
Scientific does not mean that anything goes, but rather that one has a critical attitude.
I also pointed out the mountain of indications.
Piling on the same indications doesn’t make it any better. There is really on one piece of ‘evidence’, namely that some time ago a correlation between GCRs and low clouds was presented. [The ‘evidence’ that purports to go back 500 million years is just speculation]. The correlation has since diminished or gone away. The mechanism has been modeled and found wanting. Attempts to invoke Forbush Decreases have been contradictory. The albedo that was supposed to be part of the mechanism does not vary in concert with the solar cycle. The GCR intensity variation over time does not resemble temperature variations. If the evidence was solid there would be no discussion, but it is not. Instead of piling it on, select the single most compelling piece of evidence in your opinion, and let us dissect that.
You are a VERY hard person to have a rational exchange with.
Because I push hard for evidence and reason, especially when it does not seem to hold up.
I thought you were just being dismissive
I don’t think I’m ever ‘dismissive’. I just wanted to know what was meant.
it is the effects of the solar-magnetic flux that are completely omitted from the climate models of Gavin Schmidt and the IPCC.
TSI is in their models and since the variations of TSI are due to solar magnetism, these thing are NOT omitted.
omits solar-magnetic effects from its models on the grounds that we don’t yet understand the mechanism by which such effects would work
No, not for that reason, but because their effects are so small. And solar forcing is part of the models.
How can the other professionals in the field allow Schmidt to get away with his bogus excuses for completely omitting solar-magnetic effects from his forecasts?
Partly because other scientists [e.g. Lean] find that the solar contribution is so small and inconclusive. And, as I said, TSI and solar forcing are not omitted. They are just small and therefore do not have any big influence on the result compared to all the other variability. Another reason is that solar activity is cyclical and so evens out. That different cycles have different sizes is just a second order effect. Example: the GCR flux varies ~10% over the cycle, but less over long-term. An example of that is that we find that during the Maunder and Spoerer minima, the solar modulation of GCRs was still going on [and not significantly weaker than today], so the LIA cannot be due to [lack of] GCR variation.
But, in true scientific tradition, put forward your single strongest piece of evidence based on hard and real data, and we can discuss that.
Leif Svalgaard (07:23:26) :
Leif Svalgaard (07:15:29) :
“because 2/3 of the NO2 concentration comes from combustion of fossil fuels…
While correct, I should have talked about the sources of N2O, not NO2. So correction: 1/2 of the N2O is anthropogenic.”
Different species different story.
Here we are describing the catalytic reagents. Say the increase of odd nitrogen (NOx = N + NO + NO2 ) and odd hydrogen (HOx = H + OH + HO2 ), and the subsequent loss of ozone. Concomitant reactions eg Crutzen, P. J., Isaksen, I. S. A., and Reid, G. C., Solar proton events: Stratospheric sources of nitric oxide, Science, 189 , 457–458, 1975.
A more recent paper Orgurtsov 2007
The input of high-energy particles into the atmosphere causes destruction of ozone and the generation of NO2 (Pudovkin and Raspopov, 1992). Such changes are particularly strong during proton events. For example, on 4 August of 1972, at 30–35 km altitude, the concentration of ozone decreased ten times and the concentration of NO2 increased by factor 2. In as much as NO2 absorbs intensively solar radiation in the green and blue part of the spectrum, the irradiance at the Earth’s surface decreases. Ultraviolet flux increases, due to ozone depletion of the stratosphere, and the radiation balance of the atmosphere changes, which may result in changes in atmospheric circulation.(dynamic response)
At altitudes below 60 km the main quiet time ionisation source is (GCR) by precipitation.And at solar minimum fluxes and species are an order of magnitude higher eg Brasseur and Solomon, 2005, pp. 164–169
maksimovich (15:18:54) :
Different species different story.
I mentioned NO2 by mistake, so forget about that.
At altitudes below 60 km the main quiet time ionisation source is (GCR) by precipitation.And at solar minimum fluxes and species are an order of magnitude higher eg Brasseur and Solomon, 2005, pp. 164–169
Actually not, near the surface the ionization comes from radioactivety in the ground. At solar minimum, the GCR flux is not an order of magnitude higher… only about ~10%.
Patagon (05:16:56) :
To contrast all that, a interesting solar temperature chart and a related recent paper
A Lagged Warm Event–Like Response to Peaks in Solar Forcing in the Pacific Region Gerald A. Meehl and Julie M. Arblaster
http://tr.im/tuxU
This paper uses the outdated Hoyt-Schatten and Lean TSI reconstructions and is thus not valid.
Leif Svalgaard (16:21:22) :
“A Lagged Warm Event–Like Response to Peaks in Solar Forcing in the Pacific Region Gerald A. Meehl and Julie M. Arblaster
http://tr.im/tuxU”
This paper uses the outdated Hoyt-Schatten and Lean TSI reconstructions and is thus not valid.
It is a total mystery [or maybe not] that climate researchers still use those ten+ years old invalid reconstructions [the maybe not bit: if they used modern TSI-reconstructions they wouldn’t find any effect]
Peter (09:33:28) :
Phil:
300K surface emits about 460W/m^2″
And during the daytime it receives anything up to around three times that amount from the sun.
At noon on the equator with a cloudless sky with a black surface.
What stops the surface from getting unbearably hot during the daytime?
Under the above conditions very little! Today in Death Valley the air temperature was 115ºF and the surface was 132ºF, under those conditions the emissions are ~600 W/m^2.
Also, why is it that it can be uncomfortably hot on one day, and the next day can be decidedly chilly, with the same clear sky and the sun at the same inclination, when the only thing that’s changed is the direction or strength of the wind?
“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.”
So how is it then that the car remains much cooler if you leave the windows open just a tiny bit? Are you suggesting that all the radiation escapes through that tiny gap?
Air flow.