Scafetta: New paper on TSI, surface temperature, and modeling

JASP_coverNicola Scaffetta sent several people a copy of his latest paper today, which address the various solar TSI reconstructions such as from Lean and Rind 2008 and shows contrasts from that paper. While he suggests that TSI has a role in the temperature record, he also alludes to significant uncertainty in the TSI record since 1980.  He writes in email:

…note the last paragraph of the paper. There is a significant difference between this new  model and my previous one in Scafetta and West [2007]. In 2007 I was calibrating the model on the paleoclimate temperature records. In this new study I “predict” the paleoclimate records by using the solar records. So, I predict centuries of temperature data, while modern GCMs do not predicts even a few years of data!

Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2009),

doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007 By Nicola Scafetta

Abstract

The solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change is analyzed by using an empirical bi-scale climate model characterized by both fast and slow characteristic time responses to solar forcing: View the MathML source and View the MathML source or View the MathML source. Since 1980 the solar contribution to climate change is uncertain because of the severe uncertainty of the total solar irradiance satellite composites. The sun may have caused from a slight cooling, if PMOD TSI composite is used, to a significant warming (up to 65% of the total observed warming) if ACRIM, or other TSI composites are used. The model is calibrated only on the empirical 11-year solar cycle signature on the instrumental global surface temperature since 1980. The model reconstructs the major temperature patterns covering 400 years of solar induced temperature changes, as shown in recent paleoclimate global temperature records.

Scaffeta_figure-temperature_cycle and solar_cycle

Image courtesy an email from Nicola Scaffeta (image is not part of this paper)

Excerpts from the Conclusion (from a pre-print provided by the author)

Herein I have analyzed the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. A comprehensive interpretation of multiple scientific findings indicates that the contribution of solar variability to climate change is significant and that the temperature trend since 1980 can be large and upward. However, to correctly quantify the solar contribution to the recent global warming it is necessary to determine the correct TSI behavior since 1980. Unfortunately, this cannot be done with certainty yet. The PMOD TSI composite, which has been used by the IPCC and most climate modelers, has been found to be based on arbitrary and questionable assumptions [Scafetta and Willson, 2009]. Thus, it cannot be excluded that TSI increased from 1980 to 2000 as claimed by the ACRIM scientific team. The IPCC [2007] claim that the solar contribution to climate change since 1950 is negligible may be based on wrong solar data in addition to the fact that the EBMs and GCMs there used are missing or poorly modeling several climate mechanisms that would significantly amplify the solar effect on climate. When taken into account the entire range of possible TSI satellite composite since 1980, the solar contribution to climate change ranges from a slight cooling to a significant warming, which can be as large as 65% of the total observed global warming.

This finding suggests that the climate system is hypersensitive to the climate function h(T) and even small errors in modeling h(T) (for example, in modeling how the albedo, the cloud cover, water vapor feedback, the emissivity, etc. respond to changes of the temperature on a decadal scale) would yield the climate models to fail, even by a large factor, to appropriately determine the solar effect on climate on decadal and secular scale. For similar reasons, the models also present a very large uncertainty in evaluating the climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 atmospheric concentration [Knutti and Hegerl, 2008]. This large sensitivity of the climate equations to physical uncertainty makes the adoption of traditional EBMs and GCMs quite problematic.

Scafetta figure 6

Scafetta figure 6

About the result depicted in Figure 6, the ESS curve has been evaluated by calibrating the proposed empirical bi-scale model only by using the information deduced: 1) by the instrumental temperature and the solar records since 1980 about the 11-year solar signature on climate; 2) by the findings by Scafetta [2008a] and Schwartz [2008] about the long and short characteristic time responses of the climate as deduced with autoregressive models. The paleoclimate temperature reconstructions were not used to calibrate the model, as done in Scafetta and West [2007]. Thus, the finding shown in Figure 6 referring to the preindustrial era has also a predictive meaning, and implies that climate had a significant preindustrial variability which is incompatible

with a hockey stick temperature graph.

The complete paper is available here:

Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Pieter F

The peer-reviewed work that effectively roasts the AGW alarmists is mounting steadily. Will President Obama follow through on this promise to return scientific integrity to the governing processes?
Perhaps John Holdren, Jane Lubchenco, Steven Chu, and Carol Browner need to pay close attention to Scafetta’s conclusion: “The PMOD TSI composite, which has been used by the IPCC and most climate modelers, has been found to be based on arbitrary and questionable assumptions. . . . climate had a significant preindustrial variability which is incompatible
with a hockey stick temperature graph.”

timetochooseagain

Taking into account the warm bias in the surface temperature record, this wouldn’t leave much for CO2….

What he does [his Figure 5] is trying to show that the rise in Temps since 1980 is much larger than can be accounted for by any of the assumed TSI-reconstructions. One could argue that this could be due to three things
1) his model is wrong
2) TSI is wrong
3) Temp increase is due to CO2 and not solar activity.
Clearly he excludes (1). And since he believes that the climate is hyper-sensitive to solar changes, he concludes (2).
He is partly correct. All of his choices of TSI [A, B, or C] have two problems:
a) they are based on the Group Sunspot Number which is indeed wrong
b) they show a secular increase in the first half of the 20th century that didn’t happen
Unfortunately, those errors also invalidates his calibration.

Barry Foster

OT. More doom and gloom courtesy of the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8205864.stm

Robert Wood

I haven’t read the paper. Why does he say the TSI is uncertain since 1980?

There are some irritating typos in the captions to the Figures: where he says: “The model is forces with the TSI” he probably means “The model is forced with the TSI”, condisering that s and d are adjacent keys.

Really interesting but Figure 6 is not showing here or at the link.

timetochooseagain

I love this! The past four weeks have delivered one trip hammer blow after another to the AGW frauds. Real science will eventually trump all fictions. A few of us may be burned at the stake, drawn, quartered, dissed, or otherwise abused by the “faithful,” but Science and Facts will win in the end.
Color me, another delighted physicist.

timetochooseagain

Leif Svalgaard (09:41:48) : 1. There is a fourth possibility, namely that the rise is not real but an artifact of the warm bias in the data (I personally believe that that is part of it, but some is probably due to CO2 also.
2. “Unfortunately, those errors also invalidates his calibration.” No. It may invalidate the “reconstruction” part of the “solar signature”, but the calibration has nothing to do with any of those things you mentioned and is made solely on the basis of the TSI composite records (PMOD and ACRIM).
But here’s an idea, why doesn’t somebody try redoing all the calculations and see if the tiny difference between your reconstruction (Leif) and Solanki’s group (Krivova) actually effects the pre-satellite results. I think it probably doesn’t matter as much as you suppose.

David L. Hagen

Scafetta provides a predictive empirical model incorporating dynamic parameters driven by TSI. Svensmark’s climatology theory of solar parameters modulating cosmic rays which modulate clouds and albedo may provide the major link between TSI and climate.
Their predictions can be tested against those of CO2 driven global climate models. May the best model(s) win.

Leif Svalgaard (09:41:48) :
What he does [his Figure 5] is trying to show that the rise in Temps since 1980 is much larger than can be accounted for by any of the assumed TSI-reconstructions. One could argue that this could be due to three things
1) his model is wrong
2) TSI is wrong
3) Temp increase is due to CO2 and not solar activity.
Or:
4. Recent increase in speed of magnetic poles drift, affecting oceans’ conveyor belt circulation.
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/40/88/86/PDF/NATA.pdf

Steve M.

Leif Svalgaard
“condisering”
Leave the jokes to the professionals! 🙂

Carl Wolk

In the first image, the correlation between solar activity and ENSO & volcano adjusted temperature may be deceiving. Note that the rises in temperature occured on three occasions: 1976-8, 1986/7, and 1997/8 – three major El Nino events. These El Ninos released the heat building up in the tropics from El Nino dominant conditions poleward during the period 1976-1998.
I have a new post up using sea level data to show beyond a doubt that this is how the system works.
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/sea-level-data-exposes-el-ninos-secret/

Nogw

As he says: “The ACRIM-PMOD controversy is quite complex”
But there is too much “pathos” (passion) around this. pointing perhaps to something that really happened back then in the 80’s and which irritates those who want temperatures only related to CO2 instead of what common sense indicates: the Sun (that round and brilliant thing up there which warm us all).
As the proverb says: “when the river sounds it’s because it’s carrying pebbles down”

MDR

If Scaffetta’s model were correct (and I have no idea whether it is, or whether the problems that Leif brings up are dealbreakers), then shouldn’t the conclusion from this paper be that we really don’t know what caused the temperature rise since 1980? It could be CO2, it could be the sun, it could be a combination of the two, or it could be some other player that as (up to now) been assumed moot.

Nogw

The sooner the better: timetochooseagain (10:08:52) : Thanks for your fast link to the paper:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf

timetochooseagain (10:17:21) :
2. “Unfortunately, those errors also invalidates his calibration.” No. It may invalidate the “reconstruction” part of the “solar signature”, but the calibration has nothing to do with any of those things you mentioned and is made solely on the basis of the TSI composite records (PMOD and ACRIM).
“ESS curve has been evaluated by calibrating […] (2) by the findings by Scafetta (2008) and Schwartz (2008) about the long and short characteristic time responses of the climate as deduced with autoregressive models.”
There is little doubt that the solar cycle signal is of the order of 0.1K. The response times, however, cannot be determined from just the last few decades and here the long-term behavior sneaks in through the backdoor.
BTW, I’m puzzled by people saying that this kill’s AGW dead. Rather Scafetta shows clearly [if he is correct] that by far the greatest contribution since 1980 is not solar [his figures 5 and 6]. Al Gore could use Scafetta’s Figures as great support for AGW.

Correlation is not causation, but… Could it be another no solar causation?:
http://www.biocab.org/Correlation_Coefficient_TSI.jpg
Notice the correlation between asymmetries of ΔT and TSI in the last 50 years (approximately since the operation of satellites) are almost all positive.
An asymmetry is described as the deviation of an obtained magnitude from an accepted standard magnitude, 1364.5 W/m^2 for TSI and 0 K for ΔT. I took 0 K for ΔT because it would be a deviation as from the baseline, and the baseline for change of temperature is 0.0 K.

timetochooseagain (10:17:21) :
<iThere is a fourth possibility, namely that the rise is not real but an artifact of the warm bias in the data (I personally believe that that is part of it, but some is probably due to CO2 also.
“the ESS curve has been evaluated by calibrating the proposed empirical bi-scale model only by using the information deduced: (1) by the instrumental temperature and the solar records since 1980 about the 11-year solar signature on climate;”
So, the biased temperature was used in the calibration too. The big problem is the short lever arm. Use 20 years to calibrate and then extrapolate to 400 years, especially when the TSI is uncertain and the temperatures are biased over the calibration period.
BTW, I found the paper almost unreadable, with a clear lack of focus and with the burying of important details in other publications. Had I been a referee, I would have insisted on at least a short statement of summary of where these other statements are based on. [end gripe]

vukcevic (10:33:22) :
4. Recent increase in speed of magnetic poles drift, affecting oceans’ conveyor belt circulation.
At least we can discuss Scafetta’s finding as it is plausible and quantified. Yours is neither.

Nogw

vukcevic (10:33:22) : What is it the cause of that “Recent increase in speed of magnetic poles drift” ?

INGSOC

Dr. Svalgaard @ 11:15:54
I’m glad you said it. I was afraid to…

Mark Wagner

All of his choices of TSI [A, B, or C] have two problems:
a) they are based on the Group Sunspot Number which is indeed wrong
b) they show a secular increase in the first half of the 20th century that didn’t happen

Are not PMOD and ACRIM direct satellite measurements of TSI (as opposed to to sunspot-based measures)?

pochas

Leif Svalgaard (11:15:54) :
“There is little doubt that the solar cycle signal is of the order of 0.1K. ”
I totally agree with you that TSI alone is not sufficient to produce the effects observed, especially with the results of Lindzen, Spencer and others showing negative feedback on radiative perturbations, meaning that TSI variations would be attenuated, not amplified.
Which leaves cosmic rays and clouds. The energy transfer is still small, but the energy entering the camera lens is small too, but you still get the picture. Its what’s inside the camera that counts.

Carl Wolk

Also note that the rises in temperature in 1976, 86/7, and 97/8 preceded the rises in solar activity.

timetochooseagain

Leif Svalgaard (11:15:54) : Schwartz’s analysis, as well as Scafetta’s, of time response are 1. Entirely and 2. Mostly independent of the TSI data. The only objection you may raise to this paper from your area of expertise would be that Lean is used in the model:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD009586.pdf
But Schwartz’s analysis was quite different.
Also: “BTW, I’m puzzled by people saying that this kill’s AGW dead. Rather Scafetta shows clearly [if he is correct] that by far the greatest contribution since 1980 is not solar [his figures 5 and 6]. Al Gore could use Scafetta’s Figures as great support for AGW.”
This is an odd attempt to gloss over nuance. Nobody doubts that there is some AGW (fellow deniers, speak now or forever hold your peace (piece?)!) but if the magnitude is significantly reduced, where is the alarm? Or as Michaels and Balling (Climate of Extremes) say “The more “something else” is causing warming, the less sensitive the climate is to greenhouse emissions.” and “We’re not arguing against AGW, but rather against DAGW (dangerous anthropogenic global warming).
Incidentally, I recommend Climate of Extremes to all WUWT readers. You won’t agree with everything in it (they think there is good evidence for an emerging AGW signal) but it is a marvelous book nonetheless.

Stephen Wilde

It is necessary to attribute sufficient modulating effects to the filtering of the TSI signal through the oceans.
It is necessary to recognise that all the events in the air including cloudiness and albedo changes are a consequence of changes in the rate of energy emission from the oceans and not themselves a cause of climate change whether or not changes in cosmic ray quantities have some effect on overall cloudiness.
The Svensmark theory might have a modulating effect on the primary effect on climate initiated by the oceans but does not in itself initiate anything. The absence of a 30/60 year periodicity in cosmic ray quantities is evidence of that. If Svensmark were right we would see an 11 year periodicity in oceanic phase changes but we do not.
It needs to be appreciated that changes in the radiative balance of the oceans is a combination of long term solar changes and shorter term internal oceanic changes. Consequently very small changes in solar input can build up over several solar cycles (usually about 3) to enable a phase shift in the oceans to reveal that in the intervening period there has been a small background trend (the ‘stepped’) effect.
Whilst there is an upward solar background trend the steps will be slightly raised from the end of one positive phase to the beginning of the next positive phase at approximately 30 year intervals
The opposite for a downward solar background trend.

Kum Dollison

Speaking of which, how’s that “El Nino” doing?

Kum Dollison

And, the SOI, how’s that looking?

This paper basically shows that there is either new factor emerging since 1980, affecting the temperature (like increased greenhouse effect), or the temperatures measured are wrong. Since satellite temperatures follow the [B] curve pretty good, I vote for UHI effect, artificially flawing the surface station temperature record, which is well known fact.
[B] curve shows no net increase between 1980 and 2009; UAH shows exactly the same.
@Kum Dollison, El Nino looks quite unwell: http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
SOI index oscillates between negative and positive: http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscillationIndex/30DaySOIValues/

Mark Wagner (11:55:33) :
Are not PMOD and ACRIM direct satellite measurements of TSI (as opposed to to sunspot-based measures)?
Yes but Scafetta uses the Krivova TSI reconstruction [based on Group Sunspot Numbers] to justify the ACRIM composite rather than the PMOD calibration. All these things hang together.
timetochooseagain (12:20:24) :
This is an odd attempt to gloss over nuance. Nobody doubts that there is some AGW (fellow deniers, speak now or forever hold your peace (piece?)!) but if the magnitude is significantly reduced, where is the alarm?
This is not an ‘attempt to gloss over’ anything. Just a simple observation. In Figure 5 he says that he uses three different TSI-reconstructions A, B, and C. He actually only uses one [Krivova] supplemented by three TSI composites [that are spliced to Kriviova’s]. He clearly likes A [ACRIM] the best. If one goes with B or C, almost all the GW is non-solar [at least according to his model], so it comes down to ACRIM and the support it gets from Krivova using the Group Sunspot Numbers.
In his discussion http://www.leif.org/research/2008GL036307-pip.pdf of using the Krivova TSI [KBS07], he claims it is good for bridging the ACRIM-gap, but that it is otherwise deficient: “Both findings suggest that on a decadal scale KBS07 should be significantly corrected downward during the solar cycle 21-22 minimum and
upward during solar cycle 22-23, to make it compatible with the unquestioned TSI observations. Consequently, a corrected KBS07 proxy model is expected to reproduce the upward trend of the ACRIM TSI composite between the 1986 and 1996 TSI minima.”
I’m not impressed.

Juraj V. (13:16:32) :
I vote for UHI effect, artificially flawing the surface station temperature record,
Scafetta uses that record to calibrate his model…

Stephen Wilde (12:21:26) : “It is necessary to recognise that all the events in the air including cloudiness and albedo changes are a consequence of changes in the rate of energy emission from the oceans and not themselves a cause of climate change whether or not changes in cosmic ray quantities have some effect on overall cloudiness.
I think you have a logic error.
If changes in cosmic ray quantities do indeed have some effect on overall cloudiness, then they are in themselves a cause of climate change. Hence your initial assertion that “all the events in the air including cloudiness and albedo changes are a consequence of changes in the rate of energy emission from the oceans” may be false.

Stephen Wilde (12:21:26) :
“Consequently very small changes in solar input can build up over several solar cycles (usually about 3) “
You keep repeating that mantra, but have shown no support for it. Even Scafetta disagrees with you. His long-term time constant is a lot shorter.

Pamela Gray

The Pacific equatorial positive SST’s appear to be weakening. I predict ENSO neutral by winter. Some of the NOAA statistical models are predicting ENSO neutral as well. All of the NOAA dynamical models (large coded programs that purport to model how climate works) predict moderate to strong El Nino through the winter. So far only May, June, and July are above .5. That means that JJA, JAS, ASN and SND will also have to be .5 or above in SST anomaly (5 consecutive overlapping 3-month anomalies of .5 or better) in order for El Nino to move in and unpack his bags. So we are still only in El Nino conditions. I am waiting for the easterlies to kick up and move that warm surface layer west.

“When taken into account the entire range of possible TSI satellite composite since 1980, the solar contribution to climate change ranges from a slight cooling to a significant warming, which can be as large as 65% of the total observed global warming.”
Kinda like the FIIK stamp I used to use.

Raven

Leif,
How certain are you that the relationship between sunspots and TSI is actually a constant?

Nogw

Juraj V. (13:16:32) : SOI index oscillates between negative and positive:
Going up…so el nino going out and la nina coming back?

Juraj V. (13:16:32) :
This paper basically shows that there is either new factor emerging since 1980, affecting the temperature (like increased greenhouse effect), or the temperatures measured are wrong. Since satellite temperatures follow the [B] curve pretty good, I vote for UHI effect, artificially flawing the surface station temperature record, which is well known fact.
[B] curve shows no net increase between 1980 and 2009; UAH shows exactly the same.
@Kum Dollison, El Nino looks quite unwell: http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
SOI index oscillates between negative and positive: http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscillationIndex/30DaySOIValues/

The correlation between solar irradiance and temperature is quite clear on the main part of the period. We have now a very serene Sun, and tropospheric temperatures are very calmy also.
During the years of high solar activity the energy incoming from the Sun was stored by the ocean, the ground and the subsurface materials of the ground in form of chemical energy, nuclear energy, potential gravitational energy and kinetic energy. The time those systems would spend before releasing the stored energy has not been determined, although we are close to clear up the question.
Things will become clearer now that the Sun is in a low level of activity. The whole thing can be explained if we take into account that the energy flows from systems with a high energy density to the systems with low energy density. The problem with those people who thing the Sun is no more than a torch drawn on a crystal sphere above is that they dismiss the second law of thermodynamics; thus, they cannot explain why the surface doesn’t release the stored energy immediately after it (the surface) has absorbed it.

Raven (13:58:25) :
How certain are you that the relationship between sunspots and TSI is actually a constant?
It is not that simple. We are reasonably certain that TSI contains two components: one that comes from the ‘basal’ photosphere [the temperature of which we have measured carefully over the past 30+ years and have not been able to detect any variation] and one that comes from the magnetic field. As far as we have been able to model there is a good relationship between the field and its contribution to TSI [which again has two components, one bright and one dark, with the bright winning 2 to 1], so the question comes down to how well the sunspot number is a proxy for the magnetic field. And that is difficult to say. There are indications that the sunspot number may not be a good measure [see some of the recent articles on this blog], but we try to do the best we can to figure this out. The question should perhaps also be supplemented with “how well do we know the sunspot number” and there we do know that we have problems.

Nogw

Nasif Nahle (14:17:17) :
During the years of high solar activity the energy incoming from the Sun was stored by the ocean..
But was not the TSI FLAT all the time? . GWRs. say it’s CO2!
“On Thursday, March 9, 1989 astronomers at the Kitt Peak Solar Observatory spotted a major solar flare in progress. Eight minutes later, the Earth’s outer atmosphere was struck by a wave of powerful ultraviolet and X-ray radiation” http://www.solarstorms.org/SWChapter1.html

Nasif Nahle (14:17:17) :
During the years of high solar activity the energy incoming from the Sun was stored by the ocean, etc
Each year [in northern winter] the Earth receives 100 times more energy from the Sun as that due to solar activity at solar maximum.
This heats the ocean that therefore expands 7 millimeter in the next few months. That heat is lost again during the other half of the year. So why would the few photons that are due to solar activity also not get lost again, but stored up for decades? How does a photon know that is to radiate away or that it is to stay stored?

timetochooseagain

Leif Svalgaard (13:31:50)-I’m not terribly impressed either but then I’m puzzled where PMOD gets it’s physical basis for their reconstruction’s adjustments. The whole argument for PMOD has generally been that it agrees with proxy models, but that is certainly not true for Krivova during the ACRIM gap, it certainly isn’t true of Lean’s proxy model during the most recent minima compared to the last…And while there is no physical justification for saying that ACRIM’s bridging with Nimbus is worse than what PMOD does (especially since the latter appears to be totally arbitrary) it shouldn’t be an issue of whether models “support” a TSI composite at all, but whether the composites use methods that make sense. Doug Hoyt and Richard Wilson have been unable to understand how PMOD figures that they can find a problem with Nimbus that they can’t.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/NS_grl-supplement.pdf

Stephen Wilde

Mike Jonas (13:34:52)
I acknowledged that the effect of cosmic rays, if demonstrated, would have a modulating effect on climate changes initiated by the oceans. I think that is enough to cover your point.
Leif Svalgaard (13:35:50)
And I’ll keep repeating it in any relevant context until real world evidence disproves it or someone comes up with a better proposition.
How can someone who accepts that so much is not known be so sure that he is right in dismissing so much ?
There is a certain dissonance in your contributions.
I defer to you in solar matters but in nothing else.

Lee

Does TSI have some theoretical or at least oberved lower bound? (as does F10.7)
Are we headed towards such a low, or did it occur during the just concluded minimum? Or are we perhaps on the way to another bottom? The sun is very quiet, particularly considering that in this stage of most cycles it is heading sharply upward. STEREO shows little on the way for the next weekas well.

Nogw (11:38:29) :
vukcevic What is it the cause of that “Recent increase in speed of magnetic poles drift” ?
Just an idle speculation, but it does appear to be some loose correlation between speed and direction of magnetic poles movement and the intensity of solar activity, possible both relating to the same planetary reference.
If polar moves can affect oceans conveyor belt, than it would appear that the solar activity is affecting temperature anomaly, but it is not necessarily so. Of course, none of it can be conclusively proved, otherwise we would not have such raging battle between the two camps.
In this kind of science there is no certainty, just set of probabilities.

Micky C

There is large amount of wood for trees talk and though it can be constructive and illuminating (pardon the pun) I don’t think TSI really can be considered until the CO2 forcing mechanism has been properly quantified. I’ve been looking into this recently and I have yet to find anybody who has built a clear walled tank with one dark surface, put thermocouples everywhere, had mass spectrometers, humidity sensors, resevoirs of water, bottles of CO2 and O3 and a big solar simulator (like that used in satellite testing) and tried to quantify the increase in the dark surface due to different concentrations of CO2 and humidity. Doing control runs etc and adjusting one parameter at a time under as close to steady-state conditions for everything else. This would go a long way to help with models (as slabs are used) and would at least provide some idea of forcing effects. But no. No real laboratory evidence in 20 or more years since the early Hansen papers.
All papers I have seen extrapolate from more simple emission and absoprtion data and then use global measurements, from satellites for example. These are two extremes (like quantum mechanics compared to planetary motion) and there is no satisfactory overlap of the two regimes. And nothing considering radiative-convective coupling (even though this was discussed in the 60s eg Manabe and Strickler). This is making me much more of a skeptic day by day. If someone is doing this great. If the results are out there (I haven’t seen them on literature searches) then let’s shout about it. I don’t care it matches the original estimates. This is where the AGW argument should get made. Not in cyberspace or in the low correlation coefficients of proxies.
Also with regards to simple thermodymanics, even though the heat moves from the oceans to the atmosphere, remember that the atmosphere does not release it like a blackbody straight to space but through the lapse rate, hence the effective temperature moves higher into the atmosphere. I’m not trying to lecture people; just reminding them that like or not the atmosphere has a large hand (perhaps the largest) in controlling the temperature of the surface of the planet. So I would tend to look at the atmosphere constituents first rather than an external forcing.

Leif Svalgaard (14:42:20) :
Each year [in northern winter] the Earth receives 100 times more energy from the Sun as that due to solar activity at solar maximum.
And each year, the southern hemisphere, with a more extensive ocean surface than the northern hemisphere, during northern winter, receives ~3.3% more energy from the Sun than the northern hemisphere. Remember that the Earth is Northern Hemisphere + Southern Hemisphere.
This heats the ocean that therefore expands 7 millimeter in the next few months. That heat is lost again during the other half of the year. So why would the few photons that are due to solar activity also not get lost again, but stored up for decades? How does a photon know that is to radiate away or that it is to stay stored?
Because the energy is not stored in the oceans, ground and subsurface materials only as kinetic energy, but also as chemical energy, potential gravitational energy, etc. It is not that the photon knows that it has to be radiated away; it is not possible because the absorbed photon is no more there. There would be photons to be radiated away when the surroundings outside the oceans, including the outer space, would offer more available microstates toward which that energy can be transferred (or diffused… or dispersed).

Nogw

Micky C (16:38:33) :
tried to quantify the increase in the dark surface due to different concentrations of CO2
Sorry, CO2 it is NOT BLACK, it is transparent (unless you are actually seeing your exhaling gases black…are you one of the 666 baby boomers´generation?)