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.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
437 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pieter F
August 18, 2009 9:35 am

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
August 18, 2009 9:39 am

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

August 18, 2009 9:41 am

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
August 18, 2009 9:45 am

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

Robert Wood
August 18, 2009 9:51 am

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

August 18, 2009 9:51 am

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.

August 18, 2009 9:57 am

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

timetochooseagain
August 18, 2009 10:08 am
August 18, 2009 10:09 am

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
August 18, 2009 10:17 am

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
August 18, 2009 10:20 am

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.

August 18, 2009 10:33 am

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.
August 18, 2009 10:34 am

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

Carl Wolk
August 18, 2009 10:49 am

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
August 18, 2009 10:51 am

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
August 18, 2009 11:14 am

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
August 18, 2009 11:15 am

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

August 18, 2009 11:15 am

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.

August 18, 2009 11:17 am

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.

August 18, 2009 11:32 am

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]

August 18, 2009 11:36 am

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
August 18, 2009 11:38 am

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

INGSOC
August 18, 2009 11:50 am

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

Mark Wagner
August 18, 2009 11:55 am

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
August 18, 2009 11:56 am

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
August 18, 2009 12:16 pm

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

timetochooseagain
August 18, 2009 12:20 pm

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
August 18, 2009 12:21 pm

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
August 18, 2009 12:26 pm

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

Kum Dollison
August 18, 2009 12:35 pm

And, the SOI, how’s that looking?

August 18, 2009 1:16 pm

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/

August 18, 2009 1:31 pm

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.

August 18, 2009 1:33 pm

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…

Editor
August 18, 2009 1:34 pm

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.

August 18, 2009 1:35 pm

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
August 18, 2009 1:38 pm

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.

August 18, 2009 1:38 pm

“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
August 18, 2009 1:58 pm

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

Nogw
August 18, 2009 1:58 pm

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

August 18, 2009 2:17 pm

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.

August 18, 2009 2:34 pm

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
August 18, 2009 2:41 pm

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

August 18, 2009 2:42 pm

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
August 18, 2009 2:57 pm

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
August 18, 2009 3:07 pm

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
August 18, 2009 3:43 pm

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.

August 18, 2009 3:44 pm

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
August 18, 2009 4:38 pm

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.

August 18, 2009 4:45 pm

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
August 18, 2009 4:47 pm

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?)

August 18, 2009 4:54 pm

vukcevic: You wrote, “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…Recent increase in speed of magnetic poles drift, affecting oceans’ conveyor belt circulation.”
I’ve shown the rise to be an aftereffect (residuals) of the significant El Nino events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html
That’s what the SST data says. No theories, just cause and effect that’s present in the data.

Nogw
August 18, 2009 5:00 pm

Stephen Wilde (12:21:26) :
“Consequently very small changes in solar input can build up over several solar cycles (usually about 3) “

Here comes the MANTRA again:
FAO uses 55+ years for changes in fish catches (sea temperatures); i.e: three solar cycles.

Nogw
August 18, 2009 5:03 pm
oms
August 18, 2009 5:09 pm

Micky C (16:38:33) :

And nothing considering radiative-convective coupling…

Search “radiative convective” at J. Climate or use Google Scholar. Lots of papers!
Nogw (16:47:08) :

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?)

I think the dark surface is supposed to represent the ground/ocean surface in the experiment he describes.
Leif Svalgaard (14:42:20) :

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?

Oh, I dunno, maybe the warm water occasionally moves or something?

Ron de Haan
August 18, 2009 5:11 pm

Robert Wood (09:51:12) :
“I haven’t read the paper. Why does he say the TSI is uncertain since 1980?”
Watch this video where Scarfati explains the issues about TSI measurements due to the use of different satelites and different quality sensor equipment and the controversy among the people operating these satelites and (here we go again) the used computer models to tie the data from the different measurements together.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/century-to-decade-climate-change-created-by-planetary-motion/

August 18, 2009 5:15 pm

MDR: You wrote, “I have no idea whether it is, or whether the problems that Leif brings up are dealbreakers.”
Scafetta also assumes that climate responds linearly to ENSO events, and they do not. That’s discussed in this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/regression-analyses-do-not-capture.html
Anthony ran it at WUWT here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/27/why-regression-analysis-fails-to-capture-the-aftereffects-of-el-nino-events/
You wrote, “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.”
It’s the last choice. The significant El Nino events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 caused step changes in SST anomalies for 25% of the global ocean. Discussed in these posts:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html
Anthony also ran those
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/11/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%e2%80%93-part-1/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/12/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%e2%80%93-part-2/
Regards

August 18, 2009 5:41 pm

Pamela Gray: You wrote, “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.”
It would be nice. There’s still some elevated subsurface anomalies (though they do seem to be disappearing):
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml
The problem with that suburface profile is we can’t tell why those subsurface anomalies are declining. Did they dissipate? Did subsurface currents carry them out of the profile area? Will they reappear?

August 18, 2009 5:41 pm

Off Topic…
Dear all… I’ve lost some files on phytoplankton abundance in the Mexican Gulf shoreline during the last 30 years. 🙁
I would be extremely grateful if you give me a link to those databases. Thanks in advance for your kindness…

August 18, 2009 5:54 pm

Interesting that Scafetta has dropped all references to what he thinks drives the modulation of the Sun which in turn affects our climate. He is very firmly in the Planetary Influence camp but not quite prepared to come out in this paper.

Nogw
August 18, 2009 6:51 pm

Geoff Sharp (17:54:57) : He is very firmly in the Planetary Influence
James Shirley:An unusual “solar event” will take place in the years 1990-1992″
“When the sun goes backward”, James Shirley.
Something indeed happened in 1989-90 and considering time lag: 97-98 El Nino.

Richard M
August 18, 2009 7:02 pm

What I get out of this is … uncertainty. You can agree or disagree with the conclusions and arguments but it is obvious that there are lots of unknowns. With more and more unknowns the position of skeptics becomes stronger and stronger.

Nogw
August 18, 2009 7:10 pm

Stephen Wilde (12:21:26) BTW I was rethinking about “mantras”. It is curious, but whoever has heard a mantra will recognize that it is cyclical in nature, seeking to resonate in one´s inner self. …cycles…resonance.
It´s a good mantra anyway!

August 18, 2009 7:41 pm

Nogw (18:51:51) :
James Shirley:An unusual “solar event” will take place in the years 1990-1992″
“When the sun goes backward”, James Shirley.
Something indeed happened in 1989-90 and considering time lag: 97-98 El Nino.

The Sun goes backward every 10 years, its is going backward right now, but the difference is the shape of that backward path that happens 3 times every 172 years. Shirley was close, as was Landscheidt both recognizing the increased momentum in 1990 but both failing to see the full impact of the N/U factor.

anna v
August 18, 2009 9:28 pm

Geoff Sharp (17:54:57) :
Interesting that Scafetta has dropped all references to what he thinks drives the modulation of the Sun which in turn affects our climate. He is very firmly in the Planetary Influence camp but not quite prepared to come out in this paper.
Planetary influence, lunar influence, galactic influence and God knows what influence.
All these correlations with cyclical data are just fortuitous in my opinion, and it behooves serious scientists to be wary of making causative statements, so it is good that he does not mention such stuff.
Let me give an example: Take a clock on the X axis and the position of the sun to the earth on the Y axis. Correlation is maximum, causation 0.
continuing:
Nogw (18:51:51) :

Geoff Sharp (17:54:57) : He is very firmly in the Planetary Influence
James Shirley:An unusual “solar event” will take place in the years 1990-1992″
“When the sun goes backward”, James Shirley.
Something indeed happened in 1989-90 and considering time lag: 97-98 El Nino.

Considering the time lag 9/11 also happened.
Planetary motions are like a giant clock ( as are all astrological mathematics). The data from a giant clock will correlate with data from another giant clock, time delays and all, because both of them are clocks. The lunar influence for example, as somebody else has studied. It is possible too that the sun’s chaotic behavior ends up as also some type of giant clock ( the 22/11 year cycle). Again correlations will be found, but correlation is not causation.
And I have not entered into the correlations possible between wave sequences of the atlantic and the pacific oceans, which though the result of chaotic dynamics, display regularities that to a cycle seeking person can be correlated.
correlation is not causation should be ingrained in the subconscious of all scientists.

August 18, 2009 10:38 pm

anna v (21:28:10) :
Planetary influence, lunar influence, galactic influence and God knows what influence.
All these correlations with cyclical data are just fortuitous in my opinion, and it behooves serious scientists to be wary of making causative statements, so it is good that he does not mention such stuff.

I doubt whether you have even looked at the correlations, but instead blindly fob it off with grand sweeping statements. A lot of famous discoveries start off with great correlations which are subsequently proved at a later stage.
Using your logic none of those discoveries would be with us today.

August 18, 2009 11:06 pm

Stephen Wilde (15:07:22) :
And I’ll keep repeating it in any relevant context until real world evidence disproves it
In science it is not enough to maintain something just because there is no evidence against it. There must be some positive evidence for it.
Lee (15:43:45) :
Does TSI have some theoretical or at least observed lower bound? (as does F10.7)
Yes, when there is no magnetic field. And we are close to that point.
Are we headed towards such a low,
We are close.
vukcevic (15:44:36) :
none of it can be conclusively proved,
But is easily conclusively disproved.
In this kind of science there is no certainty
Your speculations are not science.
Geoff Sharp (17:54:57) :
Interesting that Scafetta has dropped all references to what he thinks drives the modulation of the Sun which in turn affects our climate. He is very firmly in the Planetary Influence camp but not quite prepared to come out in this paper.
Perhaps he doesn’t think so anymore…

Lee
August 18, 2009 11:40 pm

correlation is not causation –
But you make it sound as though correlation means no causation. In fact, correlation implies causation. It is the engine that drives scientific enquiry. What causes what, or is it a third or fourth or more elements that cause the correlated observations?
Consider the Earth-Venus resonance. There does not seem to be enough force acting between the 2 bodies to create a resonance, but a resonance is observed. Is it a fluke? Is the theory inadequate? Is there another explanation altogether?
It may well be that planetary influence are bigger than suspected due to some as yet unknown factor that multiplies its effect like resonance.

August 18, 2009 11:42 pm

I stil don´t know which sense has to use HadCRUT or GISTEMP or which dataset has been used in this paper; the only result will be discrepancies with reality. Has the author used UAH/RSS, there would be good agreement.
On another note, you do not need increasing TSI to get increasing temperatures, if there was no equilibrium reached. MWP was caused by row of average strong solar cycles with no weak cycles spoiling the run, when solar energy got absorbed into ocean. On shorter time scale, PDO/AMO can increase/decrease temperature trend despite constant solar activity.

August 18, 2009 11:46 pm

Lee (15:43:45) :
Does TSI have some theoretical or at least observed lower bound? (as does F10.7)
Lee, I forgot this reference:
http://www.leif.org/research/Froehlich-Sofia-2008.pdf
Especially slide 21. The green curve at ~1363.8 is the theoretical minimum TSI. Since the absolute level is uncertain, it might be better to simply say that the theoretical minimum is 1.7 W/m2 below the solar cycle minimum values. We probably will never get down there.

lulo
August 18, 2009 11:54 pm

TSI variations are so small that they should result in small temperature variations in their own right. However, I would like to know whether a small increase in global temperature resulting from a TSI nudge, from CO2 or any other warming influence, could decrease cloudcover globally, because air temperature responds faster than humidity. This would lead to feedback, and the reverse would be true (more cloud) during cooling from any cooling forcing mechanism. I keep hearing about increased cloudcover with warming, but I think this could only possibly happen in the long term, and that, in the short term, warming should lead to clearer skies and higher clouds (further from the dew point!). Could this be significant or lead to some sort of vicious cycle that could explain correlations between solar intensity and temperature that otherwise make no physical sense? No friggin’ idea! Any experts out there???

August 19, 2009 12:36 am

Micky C (16:38) If the results[of properly quantifying the CO2 forcing mechanism] 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.
Hear, hear. Anyone got any info? Anyone asked at RC?? Noted that Steve Mc over at Erice is working for part of this too?
Meanwhile, I want to hear that Scafetta’s material re. ACRIM can be replicated. His adjustment makes a lot of sense but I want to see the data in the open. And I want to see how the “fit” with solar patterns can be used to extract the “65% solar” conclusion – with or without a mechanism to explain the correlation. Those who haven’t seen it might enjoy Scafetta’s February presentation and the accompanying slides.

Pierre Gosselin
August 19, 2009 12:50 am

JB
August 19, 2009 12:59 am

OT:
Dr. Svalgaard,
(you´ll have to excuse my english, it´s not my native language)
I`ve come across your posts at ClimateAudit, and find it very plausable that there hasen´t been any trend in the TSI for the past century.
So, I guess I´m asking, that if i go through the comments at CA, whit time, is there any discussion about the impact of this to the feedbacks and climate sensivity? I´ve gone throw some of the comments there and this far there hasn´t been very much discussion about the sensivity issues.
I wont bother, if most off the comments over there just offer their own theories and discus the TSI and not the impacts of it beeing at the same levels as hundreds of years ago. If this is the case, could you point out anything to start whit?

Claude Harvey
August 19, 2009 1:02 am

Do any of you academic loons appreciate how goofy you appear to the typical engineer? I once worked for the Sperry Research Center (last of the old corporate “think tanks”) where I served as the “blood and guts” engineer responsible for actually building an experimental power plant their world-class PhD.’s had dreamed up. I spent more time stopping their 175 or so academics from chasing their own tails every time a problem arose than I did building the project. I once squandered two valuable weeks beating off a blaze of computer simulations to determine whether a small hole would weaken a geothermal well casing more than a big hole.
You simply cannot take such a noisy environment filled with statistically skewed data as the author of this paper has done and draw the kinds of conclusions he has drawn.
Back off and look at the 450,000 year envelope of derived global temperature data. It represents a classical chaotic system that over the short term has a life of its own, cycles between high and low temperatures on approximately 100,000 year cycles and is bounded, hell or high water, by upper and lower limits that span approximately 12 degrees C. Catastrophic meteor strikes and cataclysmic volcanic episodes have not changed that pattern one whit. Mankind’s comparatively puny impacts will not affect that pattern and the chaotic nature of the global climate system most likely precludes precise short term temperature predictions more precise than “trending upward or trending downward”.
Jeese!
Claude Harvey

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 1:03 am

lulo (23:54:38)
Correct, and a point I have made elsewhere.
Warming ocean surfaces initially reduce low cloud cover as the higher temperature in the air leads to an increase in vapour carrying capacity.
Then increased evaporation and convection leads to increased cloud cover but at a higher level with precipitation and an increase in the speed of the hydrological cycle and a faster transfer of energy from surface to space.
The opposite happens when the ocean surfaces cool down.
It is the variability of the global ocean surfaces in their rate of energy release to the air which is the driving force. Nothing else comes close but there may be modulating factors such as the Svensmark idea.

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 1:08 am

Stephen Wilde (15:07:22) :
And I’ll keep repeating it in any relevant context until real world evidence disproves it
Leif Svalgaard:
In science it is not enough to maintain something just because there is no evidence against it. There must be some positive evidence for it.
The evidence in favour would be that over time it fits real world events.
You have exceptional knowledge as regards your speciality but as regards the climate consequences of your solar data you know no more than the rest of us and often less.

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 1:15 am

Leif, you unfairly edited my comment before you replied to it. I also said I would consider better propositions. Perhaps you would like to come up with one and be constructive for once ?
Sitting in an ivory tower, using your specialist knowledge as a defensive barrier is all very well but it doesn’t give you authority on non solar issues and such an approach is essentially very easy and very lazy.
Knowledge about the sun is all very well but it tells us nothing about how the climate system responds to solar input.

Hoi Polloi
August 19, 2009 1:29 am

Agree Claude, reading various climate websites it strikes me that most of the climate scientists are suffering from heavy tunnel view…..

Leone
August 19, 2009 1:37 am

When people realize that main focus of Global Warming criticism should be focused to UHI? It is not so clever to make thousands of papers trying to explain GISS dataset (especially last decades) with various reasons regarding dataset as reliable to describing global temperature trends.
Is there any paper which compares global temperature trends taken from urban/rural stations? If not, I strongly recommend to do one to someone who has needed data available. After that we should discuss and explain that trend which is obtained using rural stations only.

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 2:05 am

Claude Harvey (01:02:39)
As a non scientist I heartily agree and you will see that I have been adopting the large scale top down approach which you recommend.

Paul Vaughan
August 19, 2009 2:17 am

anna v (21:28:10) “correlation is not causation
Screaming this does not advance the discussion Anna.

August 19, 2009 3:02 am

Leif Svalgaard (23:06:39) :
In this kind of science there is no certainty
Your speculations are not science
Well observed. Sir here is what I said:
“vukcevic (15:44:36) : Just an idle speculation…”, by definition no one’s speculations are science. Declaring that someone’s thoughts are idle speculation should be banned?
I thought this was more than self evident:
In this kind of science there is no certainty, just set of probabilities.
May be I missed it, but don’t you think , as an eminent scientist, it is time you declared your own ideas on the subject.
Is it TSI, CO2, is it something else ? What do you think is cause of the climate change?
You can’t for ever hide behind everlasting criticisam of others, I mean serious contributors, and I do not count myself in there.
Give us a chance to get even!
Or, if you don’t know it would be only fair to add that qulification whenever you sit in judgment of others.
So what is it: TSI, CO2, God, something else, don’t know ?
Fair play, Sir!

PaulHClark
August 19, 2009 4:08 am

Claude Harvey (01:02:39) :
Well said! I couldn’t agree more.
I’m reading Ian Plimer’s book, heaven and earth, and it singularly compels you to look at much larger timescales when considering earth’s climate. Anything less than 1000 years all you can say about temperature is, as you so succinctly put it “trending upward or trending downward”.
There is clearly no evidence in paleoclimate histroy that says CO2 is a key driver of climate change. Moreover man’s impact on CO2 levels has been infinitesimal when considered in a historic context over the last 540 million years.
What we do know is that earth’s climate is driven by a number of factors which combine in an impossibly complex and chaotic fashion.
What we don’t even know is what all those factors are let alone how they combine. To start to build models that can therefore predict climate is no more than a start and we should not rely on them for policy. [BTW the good folks who contribute to this excellent blog with their some very well thought out theories may want to consider this point].
There is a good analogy I think with the art of stock trading: Stock market traders have been looking for the holy grail (a model that predicts market moves) since trading began and every year models come and go because markets are complex and chaotic (the model fails after a while).
In the meantime we will have to pay for this AGW/Climate change alarmist nonsense with jobs, wealth destruction and the inevitable brownouts that will come until folks can see the emporers (our political leaders) have no clothes on.
Perhaps the scientists studying climate change should all go away and work out how it all works and say nothing until they can agree on a model that clearly predicts climate for the next million years 🙂 just a thought.

kim
August 19, 2009 4:32 am

If each phase of the PDO contains three solar cycles, and some phenomenon of the solar cycle alternates, then you will have two solar cycles of one type in each phase of the PDO and one solar cycle of the other type. If the alternation from one solar cycle to the other has differential earth heating from one to the other, then you can explain the alternate heating and cooling cycles of the PDO. And lo, the shape of cosmic ray peaks alternates from one solar cycle to the next, from broader to more peaked. If cosmic ray peak shape effects clouds, then you have a mechanism for the sun driving the main ocean oscillation.
Leif Svalgaard speaks of this alternation of cosmic ray peaks being a second order effect. But if TSI doesn’t vary much, and if enhancement of a solar phenomenon to modify climate does happen, then this is a possible mechanism. Shouldn’t someone be trying to figure out if the variation in the shape of cosmic ray peaks have a variable heating effect?
===================================

kim
August 19, 2009 4:41 am

There are five ‘ifs’ in that comment, Leif. That’s as close to quantifying the mechanism that I can get. ::grin::
=========================================

kim
August 19, 2009 4:45 am

er, six ‘ifs’. Hmm, back to basic maths.
==========================

kim
August 19, 2009 4:49 am

And the alteration of cosmic ray peaks doesn’t have to work through clouds to have an effect on heating. If it doesn’t, though, then the proposed mechanism is even more occult.
=============================

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 5:27 am

Kim
Interesting proposition.
Cosmic rays would presumably work through clouds by altering solar shortwave quantities hitting the ocean. For that reason I am inclined to concede an effect but what about timing, scale and causation ?
There is no 30 year periodicity in cosmic ray variation as far as I know but you have suggested a way of fitting one in. What indications do you have that your suggestion is soundly based ? I don’t see how the shape of a peak would affect energy budget globally. It helps with tallbloke’s observation of a change in oceanic phases at the minimum of every third cycle though. Mind you we don’t have many oceanic phase change records to rely on.
There seem to be plenty of particulates in the air already so how does one quantify the cosmic ray component when cloudiness changes ?
The oceanic changes seem to come first with the shift in air circulation patterns following. For cosmic ray effects to be doing the driving you need the air circulation shifts first and then the oceanic changes (on ENSO timescales) but I don’t see that happening.

Patrick Davis
August 19, 2009 5:38 am

“Claude Harvey (01:02:39) :
Do any of you academic loons appreciate how goofy you appear to the typical engineer? I once worked for the Sperry Research Center (last of the old corporate “think tanks”) where I served as the “blood and guts” engineer responsible for actually building an experimental power plant their world-class PhD.’s had dreamed up. I spent more time stopping their 175 or so academics from chasing their own tails every time a problem arose than I did building the project. I once squandered two valuable weeks beating off a blaze of computer simulations to determine whether a small hole would weaken a geothermal well casing more than a big hole.
You simply cannot take such a noisy environment filled with statistically skewed data as the author of this paper has done and draw the kinds of conclusions he has drawn.
Back off and look at the 450,000 year envelope of derived global temperature data. It represents a classical chaotic system that over the short term has a life of its own, cycles between high and low temperatures on approximately 100,000 year cycles and is bounded, hell or high water, by upper and lower limits that span approximately 12 degrees C. Catastrophic meteor strikes and cataclysmic volcanic episodes have not changed that pattern one whit. Mankind’s comparatively puny impacts will not affect that pattern and the chaotic nature of the global climate system most likely precludes precise short term temperature predictions more precise than “trending upward or trending downward”.
Jeese!
Claude Harvey”
Maybe OT, but while I was working for a large computer mfg company in the ’80’s, no names OK, I had the “pleasure” of training University vocational students who’d studied electronics from (UK) “O”, to “A” and then on to “degree” level study. Many did not know how to use an AVO, nor did they know what it was (Or how it’s name was derived). Which always brings me to recall the joke; What do you say to someone with a “degree” qualification in “anything” (Specifically in the “climate science” space)? Big Mac and large fries!!

Jeff B.
August 19, 2009 5:58 am

I agree with Claude. As an engineer looking at the total system including the galaxy, the sun, the atmosphere, the oceans, etc. Man’s contributions to climate are but a flyspeck of nothingness. Zoom out. DAGW is a farce.

JamesG
August 19, 2009 6:08 am

What I can’t understand is how people can argue that the sun’s variance is too weak to cause recent warming but then admit that it was the trigger for the start and end of the ice ages (now official). Surely the assumption of the latter proves there exists an amplifying mechanism for the former. How could a weak solar effect be a trigger of anything? The two hypotheses are contradictory.
And no the GHG feedback half-theory doesn’t fill the gap because it only covers the heating part of the cycle, is responsible for a max. of 30% even of that heating part (ref. Severinghaus on realclimate) and is clearly neither the actual trigger nor has much retardation effect on the cooling (a problem the alarmists just calmly skip over).

jgfox
August 19, 2009 6:15 am

“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].”
It has been known for some time that the VIRGO and ACRIM data used in GW models is suspect due to the cobbling together of various instruments and the use of arcane mathematical methods to make data fit. And if the instrument was degrading or out of sync with other ones, another wave of math using various “Levels” made the data “fit” again.
http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/SORCETIM_SolarPhysics.pdf
There even was a joint meeting of experimenters in 2006 to try to resolve these differences.
The new direct total TSI instrument used in SORCE and its expanded use in the 2010 Glory Mission will finally provide clear unambiguous TSI data.
To avoid acrimony between VIRGO and ACRIM scientists and SORCE scientists, the SORCE website simple notes:
“The TIM measures TSI values 4.7 W/m2 lower than the VIRGO and 5.1 W/m2 lower than ACRIM III.”
http://lasp.colorado.edu/cgi-bin/ion-p?page=input_data_for_tsi.ion#note
That is scientific speak for “their data sucks”.
With some more years, decades perhaps, of direct measurements by SORCE and GLORY, the earlier best efforts based on instruments then available will probably be excluded from TSI models.
In my basic course of statistics, the Professor was very clear:
“If the statistics don’t make sense, don’t believe it.”
Too bad the AGW’ers weren’t in that class.
Footnote
Greg Kopp is a principal SORCE investigator at the University of Colorado and one who has lead the investigation in 2006 on instrument differences. When I emailed him some months ago, he responded with the following:
Greg Kopp -TIM Instrument Scientist Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics
“We have been working with the TSI community on resolving these differences, starting with a NASA-organized community workshop at NIST a couple of years ago. Since then, we have built a new facility to calibrate TSI radiometers against a NIST-calibrated cryogenic radiometer prior to flight, and have used this facility to validate the performance of the next TIM, which will launch in early 2010 on NASA’s Glory mission.
Prior to the Glory/TIM, no flight TSI instrument has been validated end-to-end for irradiance under flight-like operating conditions (my emphasis)”

JamesG
August 19, 2009 6:19 am

Actually Svensmark posited another amplifier to add to Leif’s shortlist – that of positive water vapor feedback – which of course exists for all ocean heating mechanisms. I suspect he just felt like hoisting the alarmists with their own petard.

tallbloke
August 19, 2009 6:27 am

Leif Svalgaard (11:32:45) :
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

I never thought I’d see the day.
🙂
I note however, that Scafetta also mentions the Loehle reconstruction, and this would offer another guide to long timescale calibration of the model. As you said the other day, you don’t rely on one series or type of quantity in coming to conclusions about the calibration and quantification of TSI.

H.R.
August 19, 2009 6:29 am

@Leone (01:37:26) :
“When people realize that main focus of Global Warming criticism should be focused to UHI? It is not so clever to make thousands of papers trying to explain GISS dataset (especially last decades) with various reasons regarding dataset as reliable to describing global temperature trends.”
Perhaps it’s even more basic than that. If you haven’t yet visited E.M. Smith’s blog here
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/agw-is-a-thermometer-count-artifact/
you may find it helpful. Check out the related posts after you scan the the post in the link I gave.

August 19, 2009 6:32 am

vukcevic (03:02:39) :
it is time you declared your own ideas on the subject.
Is it TSI, CO2, is it something else ? What do you think is cause of the climate change?

As Stephen points out, I don’t know. The large changes [glaciations] are very likely due to orbital changes. The rest probably don’t have a single cause, but many interacting ones. So it becomes a question of degree: so many % of this and so many of that etc. As time goes on, we’ll get a handle on those percentages. Some comparative planetary climatology [e.g. ice cores from Mars] will help. In the meantime I just pull weeds.

anna v
August 19, 2009 6:55 am

Paul Vaughan (02:17:52) :
anna v (21:28:10) “correlation is not causation“
Screaming this does not advance the discussion Anna.

I am fairly sure that on the net,
bold is emphasis
capitals is shouting
bold capitals is screaming.
So I was just using emphasis, not screaming.

August 19, 2009 7:41 am

I’ve just been having a look at Scafetta’s paper. As someone who proofreads scientific papers published by Japanese researchers, I have to say that I am disappointed that Scafetta was too lazy to bother having his paper checked. The paper contains literally hundreds of minor grammatical errors and awkward-sounding phrases, and it is written in a style which frequently obscures the point that the author wishes to make. The cumulative effect is so off-putting as to deter all but the most persistent readers.
Spoken English does not have to be perfect. People repeat themselves a lot when they talk, and they often use body language and intonation to convey their meaning when words do not suffice. That is why in everyday conversation, native English speakers tend to be tolerant of grammatical mistakes by non-native speakers. Indeed, confusing “he” and “she” is just about the only mistake that is guaranteed to provoke an irate correction from a native English listener. Written English, by contrast, has to be perfect, or it will either confuse or bore the reader. When I am reading a book, magazine, newspaper or scientific journal, I expect the writing to be completely free of spelling, grammatical and stylistic errors. I also expect the author to communicate his/her meaning plainly and clearly, so that I don’t have to puzzle over what the author meant. This is a matter of basic courtesy. An author who fails to write clearly and correctly is simply being rude to his/her readers.
Global warming is an important issue, and I have no doubt that Scafetta did some first-class research in his field. It’s a real pity that he couldn’t be bothered asking a professional editor, or even a colleague of his, to check his paper. He had an opportunity to make an impact in the scientific world, and he missed it.

Mr. Alex
August 19, 2009 7:50 am

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.”
I assume you are a big supporter of theory #3? I have heard so.
One couldn’t argue this because there are hundreds of variables which could be have caused this.
Three may be a pretty neat number and it is tempting to dismiss solar activity and conclude: “Well if it ain’t the sun, it must be CO2”, but considering we know close to nil about the sun and its connections to climate we can’t make such assumptions.
Maybe it is not the sun directly, but maybe it is not CO2 either.

Nogw
August 19, 2009 8:12 am

To consider, from FAO abstract:
Spectral analysis of the time series of dT, ACI and Length Of Day (LOD) estimated from direct
observations (110-150 years) showed a clear 55-65 year periodicity. Spectral analysis of the reconstructed time series of the air surface temperatures for the last 1500 years suggested the similar (55-60 year) periodicity. Analysis of 1600 years long reconstructed time series of sardine and anchovy
biomass in Californian upwelling also revealed a regular 50-70 years fluctuation. Spectral analysis of the catch statistics of main commercial species for the last 50-100 years also showed cyclical fluctuations of about 55-years.

Klyashtorin, L.B.
Climate change and long-term fluctuations of commercial catches: the possibility of
forecasting.
FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 410. Rome, FAO. 2001. 86p.

Nogw
August 19, 2009 8:25 am

From the same paper:
George Vangengeim, the founder of ACI, is a well-known Russian climatologist. The Vangengeim-Girs classification is the basis of the modern Russian climatological school of thought. According to this system, all observable variation in atmospheric circulation is classified into three basic types by direction of the air mass transfer: Meridional (C); Western (W), and Eastern (E). Each of the abovementioned forms is calculated from the daily atmospheric pressure charts over northern Atlantic-Eurasian region. General direction of the transfer of cyclonic and anticylonic air masses is known to
depend on the distribution of atmospheric pressure over the Atlantic-Eurasian region (the atmosphere topography).
The recurrence of each circulation form (W, E, or C) during the year is expressed in days. Total annual duration of the three circulation forms sums therefore to 365 (or 366 in a leap year). The index is defined by the number of days with the dominant form of atmospheric circulation. It is more
conveniently expressed as an anomaly (actual data minus the long-term average). The sum of anomalies can be displayed in a chart of the so-called integral curve of the atmospheric circulation. The annual sum of the occurrence of all circulation anomalies is equal to zero: (C) +(W) + (E) = 0.
The periods dominated by any single form of atmospheric circulation have alternated with a roughly 30-year period for the last 100 years. These periods were named “Circulation epochs”. These may be pooled into two principal groups: meridional (C) and combined “latitudinal” epochs (W+E): (W + E) =
– (C) Meridional (C) circulation dominated in 1890-1920 and 1950-1980. The combined, “zonal” (W+E) circulation epochs dominated in 1920-1950 and 1980-1990. Current “latitudinal”(WE) epoch of 1970-1990s is not completed yet, but it is coming into its final stage, and so the “meridional” epoch (C circulation) is now in its initial stage. (It will be useful for the reader to note here the relation that shows that the “transition” from C to W-E is ontinuous, and the equation balances to 100%, in the form of a simple graphic without any other variables included). It was found that “zonal” epochs correspond to the periods of global warming and the meridional ones
correspond to the periods of global cooling.
(Lamb 1972; Lambeck 1980). The generalised time series on the atmospheric circulation forms for 1891-1999 were kindly placed at our disposal by the Federal Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) in St. Petersburg (Russia). This is also consistent with the theories and observations described by Leroux (1998).
The third important index is Length of Day (LOD) – a geophysical index that characterizes variation in the earth rotational velocity. Full time series of LOD cover more than 350 years, with the mostreliable data obtained in the last 150 years (Stephenson and Morrison 1995). The long-term LOD 5
dynamics is in close correlation with the dynamics of the main commercial fish stocks (Klyashtorin and Sidorenkov 1996).
More to be found in:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/Y2787E00.HTM
and at Google:
http://books.google.com.pe/books?id=q3mGCiLjkBIC&dq=Climate+change+and+long-term+fluctuations+of+commercial+catches:+the+possibility+of+forecasting&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=eeMbhAuqBz&sig=_1lsR1rSR_VCIgSqgHop2hvARQk&hl=es&ei=AhmMSsnhFsiQtge1mejCDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

PaulHClark
August 19, 2009 8:29 am

Leif Svalgaard (06:32:38) :
“Some comparative planetary climatology [e.g. ice cores from Mars] will help.”
Leif
I wonder if you could answer a couple of questions? [again :-)]
– what is your take on Titanium 44 isotope findings from extraterrestrial objects (meteors and the like) when it comes to solar activity?
– how do they compare with your own and Scafetta’s analysis?
Apologies if I have not phrased the question quite correctly but I recall reading something somewhere that Usokin suggested this showed solar activity had been high in the last century. Is this a robust line of enquiry?
Thanks as ever.

August 19, 2009 8:33 am

tallbloke (06:27:36) :
I note however, that Scafetta also mentions the Loehle reconstruction, and this would offer another guide to long timescale calibration of the model. As you said the other day, you don’t rely on one series or type of quantity in coming to conclusions about the calibration and quantification of TSI.
Some of the proxies used for the reconstruction of temperature for the last two millennia have been used also for the reconstructions of total solar irradiance in the same period. Loehle’s database on temperature for the period comprehending the last 400 years and Lean’s TSI reconstruction using proxies and sunspots for the same period are highly correlated. However, when we compare the Lean’s reconstruction of TSI based only on 11 years cycles with Loehle’s reconstruction of temperature, we find the correlation fails in the middle of the database, so we have to disregard the totals and use magnitudes related to amplitude and longitude of the cycles. After that, the events match perfectly.
Anna… The Sun is the source of energy for the Earth, thus, in this case, the Sun is the cause of warming; even when some people try to turn the Sun down, it is warming the Earth… yet.

August 19, 2009 8:35 am

vukcevic (03:02:39) :
it is time you declared your own ideas on the subject.
Is it TSI, CO2, is it something else ? What do you think is cause of the climate change?
Leif Svalgaard (06:32:38) :
As Stephen points out, I don’t know. The large changes [glaciations] are very likely due to orbital changes. The rest probably don’t have a single cause, but many interacting ones. So it becomes a question of degree: so many % of this and so many of that etc. As time goes on, we’ll get a handle on those percentages. Some comparative planetary climatology [e.g. ice cores from Mars] will help. In the meantime I just pull weeds.
Fair enough doc !
As a scientist, you may not be inclined to speculate. For the rest of us, not considered to be scientists, open public speculation, on the blogs like WUWT, gives opportunity to get our illusions cut to size, and an incentive to start anew.

Paul Vaughan
August 19, 2009 8:38 am

Re: anna v (06:55:49)
anna v (21:28:10) “correlation is not causation”
Clarification:
This does not advance the discussion (whether emphasized, shouted, screamed, … or whispered).

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 8:43 am

“Leif Svalgaard (06:32:38) :
vukcevic (03:02:39) :
it is time you declared your own ideas on the subject.
Is it TSI, CO2, is it something else ? What do you think is cause of the climate change?
As Stephen points out, I don’t know. The large changes [glaciations] are very likely due to orbital changes. The rest probably don’t have a single cause, but many interacting ones. So it becomes a question of degree: so many % of this and so many of that etc. As time goes on, we’ll get a handle on those percentages. Some comparative planetary climatology [e.g. ice cores from Mars] will help. In the meantime I just pull weeds”
Fair enough, Leif but a weed is just a plant in the wrong place. Why not try to move it to the right place, figuratively speaking.
Let me press you on one point.
If the sun is more active, however little, then more energy is going into the oceans.
The oceans don’t store energy in the sense that they carry over energy from a run of strong cycles to compensate for a subsequent run of weak cycles. I accept that. The adjustments made by the ocean during short term ENSO type episodes and also during longer term PDO type phase shifts see to that.
Nevertheless if the sun is slowly increasing output for several centuries at a time and then slowly decreasing output for several centuries at a time then the ocean energy content is going to follow however small the variation.
Thus there is high sensitivity to solar changes in the sense that however large or small those changes may be then the oceans will quickly make a proportionate adjustment.
Now we really do see that as soon as the ocean energy content changes the rate of flow of energy to the air also acquires a potential for changing. However, the oceans themselves then impose their own ENSO type and PDO type cycles on top of that to produce quite discernible climate changes in regions closest to the air circulation systems that are forced to change position.
So for decades at a time the oceanic changes can either suppress or supplement those long slow solar changes.
What is your problem with that scenario ?
It happens, we see it.
The solar changes are indeed small and incremental and it may seem from our puny perspective that the observed climate changes are disproportionate to the solar changes but the fact is that observation demonstrates that they are not disproportionate.
What is it that convinces so many that such small shifts in solar activity over centuries are not sufficient to provide the background forcing for the events we see ?
It’s simply not good enough to assert that just because the solar changes are a miniscule proportion of total solar output then they cannot be driving the observed climate changes.
It’s like the difference between a thermometer with a fluid that responds a lot to a small temperature change and a thermometer that changes very little in response to the same small temperature change.
That is what I mean by sensitivity. The Earth is a very sensitive water based thermometer.
The fact is that tiny changes in the rate of energy flow through the system cause a significant shift in the distribution of the air circulation systems that produce climate changes we can readily see and feel. Not because those changes are large in the scheme of things but because our daily well being is affected by them.
We are highly sensitive in our sensations and lifestyles to tiny changes in our climatic environment.
Who is to say that the climate changes are disproportionate to the solar changes at all ?

August 19, 2009 8:55 am

PaulHClark (08:29:51) :
– what is your take on Titanium 44 isotope findings from extraterrestrial objects (meteors and the like) when it comes to solar activity?
44Ti is created by cosmic rays in meteorites [while still out in space] and thus gives a [crude] indication of the level of cosmic rays. One of the problems with 44Ti is [was?] that its half-life was rather uncertain [about 60 years IIRC], and also that the statistics is poor because there are only a few [19 or so] meteorites that have been seen falling. The time of fall to Earth must be known for the 44Ti to be useful.
showed solar activity had been high in the last century. Is this a robust line of enquiry?
It is [to a point – we need more data]. The data so far [see: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2005JA011459.pdf ] has been used to infer the cosmic ray flux back to 1700. Of note is that solar activity in the late 20th century seems to be similar to that in the late 18th century and mid-19th [see their Figure 6].
But the uncertainties are large.

August 19, 2009 9:03 am

Stephen Wilde (08:43:09) :
The oceans don’t store energy in the sense that they carry over energy from a run of strong cycles to compensate for a subsequent run of weak cycles. I accept that.
I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles that all your postings gave the strong impression that you were advocating the strong-cycle compensation idea [like also promoted by tallbloke], and almost all my criticism of your ideas has been focused on that.
Nevertheless if the sun is slowly increasing output for several centuries at a time and then slowly decreasing output for several centuries at a time then the ocean energy content is going to follow however small the variation.
Of course, who in his right mind would argue otherwise?
The change since the Maunder Minimum has been of the order of at most 0.1K, no doubt about it. The 0.1% solar cycle variation is also of that order.

August 19, 2009 9:17 am

Leif Svalgaard (09:03:11) :
in reply to Stephen Wilde (08:43:09) :
The total change since the Maunder Minimum has been of the order of at most 0.1K, no doubt about it.
Now, whether we can even measure that small change is another matter.

August 19, 2009 9:25 am

Stephen Wilde (08:43:09):
Nevertheless if the sun is slowly increasing output for several centuries at a time and then slowly decreasing output for several centuries at a time then the ocean energy content is going to follow however small the variation.
Thus there is high sensitivity to solar changes in the sense that however large or small those changes may be then the oceans will quickly make a proportionate adjustment.

This is exactly what happens. As long as the available microstates -toward which the energy stored by the oceans would be transferred, diffused, dispersed- stay at low numbers, as long as the oceans will keep in that absorbed energy. When available microstates in the surroundings of the system (oceans) increase, the energy is transferred towards those coexisting microstates. It would happen in days, months or years after the energy incoming from the Sun was stored by oceans, ground and subsurface materials of the ground. It is not speculation, as Stephen Wilde says, “we see it”.
On the other hand, we must to consider (yes, I wrote MUST) the solar photon stream, which is the most powerful stream interacting with the Earth.
The radiative intensity of the atmosphere of Earth can be calculated by the following formula:
Iav = h 1/4π [(Aul/Bul) / (gl *Blu / gu*Bul) e^hν/kT^- 1
The same algorithm is valid for the Sun; when you apply it on the Sun and the Earth, you’ll find there is no way of comparison. 🙂

gary gulrud
August 19, 2009 9:32 am

Hofstadter noted that the bulk of mathematics, whether ‘discovered’ or ‘invented’, fails to find practical application within its period of study and is lost, awaiting resurrection.
The notion of progress in Science, herein assumed by most, is one of those unexamined assumptions we tend to take for granted. That the data are reliable if repeatable is another, appropriately challenged by the authors.

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 9:32 am

“Stephen Wilde (08:43:09) :
The oceans don’t store energy in the sense that they carry over energy from a run of strong cycles to compensate for a subsequent run of weak cycles. I accept that.
I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles that all your postings gave the strong impression that you were advocating the strong-cycle compensation idea [like also promoted by tallbloke], and almost all my criticism of your ideas has been focused on that.”
No I’ve never actually said that . I’m glad we have resolved the point because I was unaware that that was the problem.
As my articles at climaterealists.com explain at rather tedious length it is not the quantity of energy involved that sets temperature but the speed of transmission through the system.
Faster transmission = lower temperature overall and vice versa but the situation is complicated by the fact that the speed through air and water are both independently variable.

bill
August 19, 2009 9:51 am

Here’s a thing I’ve been toying with for a few days. You take the temperature record – hadcrut3v global. Use narrow band bandpass filters on it to find peak frequencies/phase/amplitude. Add the output of the filters ansd see what you get.
By taking mid band frequency amplitude and phase one should then be able to reconstruct the temperature record from a series of sine (cosine) waves – this is shown in the second plot.
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6135/synthesisedtemperature.jpg
1/Frequency bands from .5 years to 1000 years were searched but the longest period that produced output was 150years.
The green line in these plots is the output of the 36 bands/cosines and as can be seen there is no trend. There is something else pushing the trend upwards.
One bodge has been to increase the amplitude of all bands by 2.3 to give the same sort of variability in the temp record.
A second bodge is to add a trend line that forces the synthesised temperature to conform to the hadcrut3v. As can be seen both the cosine and filter outputs follow the curve “rather well”. Of particular note is the lack of temperature increase followed by fall over the last few years and 2 peaks at 1877 and 1998 being modelled with a “good” correlation.
There is a rapid warming between 1930 and 1945 which is not followed by the synthesised data.
This plot shows the relative amplitudes and periods of the synthesised waves
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/5240/synthesisedtemperaturea.jpg
The synthesis of course means that individual periods can be removed to see the effect of tsi etc.
This is a work in progress but unless someone shows it to be a pile of poo I think it is interesting!

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 9:57 am

“Leif Svalgaard (09:17:22) :
Leif Svalgaard (09:03:11) :
in reply to Stephen Wilde (08:43:09) :
The total change since the Maunder Minimum has been of the order of at most 0.1K, no doubt about it.
Now, whether we can even measure that small change is another matter.”
I suggest that it can be measured, or rather observed, from the consequences of that tiny change. Assuming that is that the size of the change was indeed of that order, not everyone agrees with you.
The consequences being a shift in the balance between the solar and equatorial air masses with a consequent latitudinal shift in the air circulation systems.
It happened, it cannot be denied and it was not a result of anything that humans did.
The fact is that throughout the history of the world, for so long as we have had liquid water and air above it the response of the hydrological cycle really has been that fast and responsive and the sooner that is realised by the climate establishment the sooner everyone can get back to proper climatology.
I could arrange to be a Consultant to a high powered climate think tank for a suitable fee.

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 10:14 am

Whoops, that should read ‘polar and equatorial air masses’.

August 19, 2009 10:16 am

Stephen Wilde (09:32:22) :
not the quantity of energy involved that sets temperature but the speed of transmission through the system.
You lost me on that one. The system consisting of the Sun and the Earth involves a transmission of energy from Sun to Earth at the speed of light… Same thing for the steak broiling on a BBQ…

Gerry
August 19, 2009 10:19 am

This 1977 paper in the Nature journal effectively speculates that the Maunder Minimum could make a repeat performance exactly 357.4 years (2 X 178.7 years) later. Using 1649 to 1710 as a conservative estimate of the actual spotless interval of the Maunder Minimum rather than 1645-1715 yields a tentative prediction of a spotless solar minimum from 2007.4 to ~2067. Chance or more than chance? Only time will tell. There is still time to place your bets.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v266/n5601/abs/266434a0.html
Nature 266, 434 – 435 (31 March 1977); doi:10.1038/266434a0
Planetary tides during the Maunder Sunspot Minimum
CHARLES M. SMYTHE & JOHN A. EDDY
High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80303
“CONTROL of the 11-yr and longer cycles of solar activity tides raised on the Sun resulting from the gravitational pulls of the planets has often been suggested. Rudolf Wolf and R. C. Carrington were among the early astronomers who pointed out this possibility in the middle nineteenth century1. The close coincidence of the sidereal period of gravitationally important Jupiter (11.87 yr) with the mean period of the observed annual sunspot means (11.3 yr) raises the possibility of such a relationship; the range of possible configurations of the other planets allows a wide realm of other tidal periods and effects. In daily sunspot numbers, a small but consistent periodicity at the sidereal period of the planet Mercury has been found2, and a possible 178.7-yr period in sunspots (about twice the Gleissberg cycle) has been linked with multi-planet tidal influences3. Wood and Wood4 have applied a dynamical theory which includes all planets but Mars to reinforce their belief in a more than chance relationship. We reconstruct here Sun-centred planetary conjunctions and tidal potentials for the AD 1645−1715 period of sunspot absence (the Maunder Minimum). These are found to be effectively indistinguishable from patterns of conjunctions and power spectra of tidal potential in the modern era of a well-established 11-yr sunspot cycle. This places a new and difficult constraint on any tidal theory of sunspot formation.”

August 19, 2009 10:20 am

Stephen Wilde (09:57:59) :
“Now, whether we can even measure that small change is another matter.”
I suggest that it can be measured

Of course we can measure 0.1K, but do we have measurements at the time of Maunder Minimum with that accuracy? I think not, so it has not been observed.

August 19, 2009 10:22 am

Stephen Wilde (09:57:59) :
The consequences being a shift in the balance between the solar and equatorial air masses
Lost me on that one too. ‘solar’ air mass?

Nogw
August 19, 2009 10:31 am

Consider the following series of events:
1989-1992.Sevensmark opens his clouds’ window over the pacific ocean. (low peak in GCR-The Chilling Stars p.77)
1989 As predicted by Shirley, based on SIM:James Shirley:An unusual “solar event” will take place in the years 1990-1992″
1989 March and September Big solar CME, Quebec black out.
1997-1998 Big El Nino, pacific ocean begins cooling (heat emission).

August 19, 2009 10:42 am

If we have five boxes and three cats are caged into the boxes, one cat per cage, we would have two available boxes for being occupied by one cat each. If we have other three cats into a bigger cage which can contain all of them, that is, the six cats, and we have the remainder three cats into the bigger cage and wish to distribute the remainder these three cats into the smaller boxes, we would be able of accomodating only two cats in the remainder two boxes because the other three boxes had bee occupied, each one with one cat, so we would have one cat that cannot be distributed into the boxes. That remainder cat will be retained into the huge box until one of the five smaller boxes is available for accomodating the last cat.
Damn! Your friend came with other six cats!!! Well, the big box can contain them all, no problem. We have to wait Charles to come with more empty cages, or wait, perhaps hours, days, months, years or centuries, until the small cages will be available (empty) again, so we could distribute five of the six new cats into the empty small boxes, one cat per cage.
It’s quite simple. 🙂

steven mosher
August 19, 2009 10:44 am

Leif,
It’s been too long since I watched you in action on the blogs. You still continue to amaze me. I won’t bore you with praise this time however. This time I want to focus on a particular aspect of the calibration. Scattered throughout the comments you will find people mentioning UHI and your response has been that Dr. S calibrated to the record. I think there might be something worth looking at here. I only say that because early on in Anthony’s project I went hunting for Microsite bias and UHI. I had very limited data to work with ( it was early in the project) so rather than just throw data at the meat grinder I thought about the problem. I was looking for the Microsite bias ( bad siting) a subspecies of UHI. What I had to work with:
1. CRN ratings 1-5 ( but these only “measure” present conditions”)
2. Population R,S,U ( three categories of population not current)
3. Instrument type ( MMTS or min/max. Recall that MMTS are close to buildings because of the cabling issue)
My working hypothesis was that if I wanted to find a microsite bias my best bet was to do a time slice through the data. I picked the date 1980.
The plan was to look at sites after 1980. Why?
1. I was pretty sure that we could get population data on every site for 1980 to the present.
2. 1979 was the year that stevenson screens started to get painted with latex.
3. MMTS started to replace min max in the mid 80s.
The thought was that microsite bias, if it existed, would be most noticable in the post 1980 time period. hey, that’s a hypothesis. The results were promising, but the station count was still too small. Anyways, what I’m saying is that the contribution of UHI and microsite bias is not constant over time. My back of the envelop estimate for microsite bias ( don’t ask me to repeat the guesswork) was about .15C. That’s not a step function that starts in 1980, but ( speculating) a bias that increases over time. Relative to Dr. S paper he is calibrating to a temperature record from 1980 to the present. That record doesnt have a constant bias from UHI and microsite bias but an increasing one. The bias is not zero in 1980 and the bias in 2009 is greater than that in 1980. FWIW

anna v
August 19, 2009 10:52 am

Paul Vaughan (08:38:39) :
Re: anna v (06:55:49)
anna v (21:28:10) “correlation is not causation”
Clarification:
This does not advance the discussion (whether emphasized, shouted, screamed, … or whispered).

Can you expand on this statement?
In my opinion “correlation is not causation” is one of the two basic scientific fundaments that climate science is mixed up about, including the contingent of planet cycle fans. The other is the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions for a proof of a scientific statement. This cannot be repeated often enough either in whispers or in shouts.

August 19, 2009 10:59 am

This is chart recording one of the components of the geomagnetic field (values are changed by a fixed factor) at a specific location:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif
as quoted by:
The National Geophysical Data Center
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/
Hence, I am tempted to state:
Dr Svalgaard is wrong
Nicola Scafetta is wrong
Henrik Svensmark is wrong
CO2 theorists are wrong
Any scientist among you, if interested in cooperation my email can be found here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/em.txt

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 11:00 am

Stephen Wilde (09:32:22) :
not the quantity of energy involved that sets temperature but the speed of transmission through the system.
Leif Svalgaard:
You lost me on that one. The system consisting of the Sun and the Earth involves a transmission of energy from Sun to Earth at the speed of light… Same thing for the steak broiling on a BBQ…
No, the system being sun to oceans, oceans to air and air to space.
Shortwave entering air and water gets slowed down and re radiated as longer wave radiation and the energy lost in the conversion from shortwave to longwave manifests itself as an increased temperature of both water and air.
It’s like the flow of current through a resistor. Whilst passing through the resistor the electical current slows down temporarily and generates heat and then leaves the resistor at a lower voltage but at the same speed as it entered the resistor.
Now in the case of the Earth which is a sphere floating in space ALL the departing energy is in the form of radiated longwave because the heat energy gets converted back to radiative energy before it can depart.
That is why the energy value of the shortwave coming in and the longwave going out are pretty much the same except during periods of minor radiative imbalance.
The thing is that the oceans and the air deal with that incoming shortwave very differently.
Each has internal circulations and deals with the energy passing through on different timescales. The oceanic effect far outweighs the effect of the air and so drives the whole process with the effect of the air as a mere passenger. The air is always forced to emulate the oceans and the mechanism for that is the speed of the hydrological cycle mediated by the latitudinal positions of all the air circulation systems.
As you will know any quantity of power can pass through something with nil resistance and no heat energy will be generated. On the other hand a small amount of energy passing through something with high resistance will generate much energy as heat.
So it is with the Earth. The temperature of the Earth is set by the resistance to the solar energy flow provided by both air and water and by far the greater effect is from the water. The Hot Water Bottle Effect as I have named it.
The greenhouse effect in the air is relatively insignificant and any human contribution truly miniscule and unmeasurable.
Does that help ?
As regards the other query that was a typo and should read ‘polar and equatorial air masses’.

August 19, 2009 11:00 am

Paul Vaughan (08:38:39) :
Clarification:
This does not advance the discussion (whether emphasized, shouted, screamed, … or whispered).

IIRC, none of your comments have ever advanced any discussion, so perhaps be a bit less holy. Anna v is quite correct.

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 11:09 am

Stephen Wilde (09:57:59) :
“Now, whether we can even measure that small change is another matter.”
I suggest that it can be measured
Leif Svalgaard
Of course we can measure 0.1K, but do we have measurements at the time of Maunder Minimum with that accuracy? I think not, so it has not been observed
We can see that if you are right about the quantity of energy variation then the observed real world and apparently proportionate climate response is that which we see from the Maunder Minimum to today.
That is 0.1K over 400 years = one Maunder Minimum if you insist on an equation.
If you cannot be that precise then some other quantity = one Maunder Minimum.
Either way the cause and effect should not be denied on the basis of a subjective assumption that for some unspecified reason the variation in energy is ‘too small’.
Unless you can come up with a new reason for the Maunder Minimum then that apparently tiny solar variation is the only card on the table and you should not deny it.

anna v
August 19, 2009 11:11 am

Nasif Nahle (08:33:10) :
Anna… The Sun is the source of energy for the Earth, thus, in this case, the Sun is the cause of warming; even when some people try to turn the Sun down, it is warming the Earth… yet.
I do not think anybody is disputing that the source of energy is the sun.
The source of energy for making my coffee is 220volts delivered to my house at a maximum current of 35amp: 7700 watts available . I use 1200 watts for a few minutes. It is necessary to have a source, but the magnitude of the source is not sufficient to determine what part of the energy available I am using.
The same with the sun. It is necessary to have and know the energy from the sun, but that knowledge is not sufficient to tell us how much of that energy we, as earth, are using.

August 19, 2009 11:14 am

Stephen Wilde (11:00:14) :
Does that help ?
No, as I don’t think the concept “resistance to energy” has any meaning.

August 19, 2009 11:31 am

Stephen Wilde (11:09:43) :
That is 0.1K over 400 years = one Maunder Minimum if you insist on an equation.
so 0.1K/400 = 0.00025K per year
Unless you can come up with a new reason for the Maunder Minimum then that apparently tiny solar variation is the only card on the table and you should not deny it.
It is not the only card. There are other cards. Here is another one: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2005JA011459.pdf:
“[44] 44Ti activity in meteorites shows a decreasing trend during the past 235 years over which the data are available. This implies that GCR flux in the interplanetary space (1 to 3 AU) has decreased over the past 235 years by about 43%”
Some people would consider that another card, others would say that the geomagnetic field has declined during that time and that that is yet another card, perhaps biospheric cards, or AGW [CO2 or land-use, burning of hardwood forests in the US, asheries], spectral changes [one of yours I think], volcanoes, planets manipulating LOD or shining their magnetic fields on us, and so on. Lots of cards, some [admittedly] weirder than others.

August 19, 2009 11:44 am

Leif Svalgaard (11:14:30) :
Stephen Wilde (11:00:14) :
Perhaps you should look at this:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif
vukcevic (10:59:23) :

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 11:55 am

“Stephen Wilde (11:00:14) :
Does that help ?
Leif Svalgaard
No, as I don’t think the concept “resistance to energy” has any meaning”
There you go misquoting again.
I said “resistance to the solar energy flow” and compared it to the flow of current through an electrical resistor.
Can you deny that solar shortwave coming in is converted to radiated longwave going out. What is that exactly if not a consequence of resistance in the air and water to the flow of solar energy ?

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 12:07 pm

“Leif Svalgaard (11:31:42) :
Stephen Wilde (11:09:43) :
That is 0.1K over 400 years = one Maunder Minimum if you insist on an equation.
so 0.1K/400 = 0.00025K per year”
Reply:
That is the observed climate response whether you like it or not.
Anyway it is not appropriate to divide it equally over the number of years. A good number of the years concerned were closer to 0.1K lower as compared to now. The progression of the solar variation over the past 400 years has been pretty uneven. There was a Dalton Minimum as well plus other variations en route.
Perhaps 0.5K over 200 years = one Dalton Minimum.
Stephen Wilde
“Unless you can come up with a new reason for the Maunder Minimum then that apparently tiny solar variation is the only card on the table and you should not deny it.”
Leif Svalgaard
It is not the only card. There are other cards. Here is another one: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2005JA011459.pdf:
“[44] 44Ti activity in meteorites shows a decreasing trend during the past 235 years over which the data are available. This implies that GCR flux in the interplanetary space (1 to 3 AU) has decreased over the past 235 years by about 43%”
Some people would consider that another card, others would say that the geomagnetic field has declined during that time and that that is yet another card, perhaps biospheric cards, or AGW [CO2 or land-use, burning of hardwood forests in the US, asheries], spectral changes [one of yours I think], volcanoes, planets manipulating LOD or shining their magnetic fields on us, and so on. Lots of cards, some [admittedly] weirder than others”
Reply:
On a balance of probability I would go for solar variability of one sort or another. I’ve no more idea than you how it is done but real world observations prevail.
As regards spectral changes it was not and is not ‘one of mine’. I merely started asking you for advice on that but your replies were so slippery that I was no better informed at the end of our exchange.

August 19, 2009 12:10 pm

anna v (11:11:39) :
The same with the sun. It is necessary to have and know the energy from the sun, but that knowledge is not sufficient to tell us how much of that energy we, as earth, are using.
Perhaps our knowledge is not sufficient, but the Sun positively is sufficient and more.
Consider the Sun’s core temperature is 1.5 x 10^7 K and its surface temperature is 6800 K; then, compare it with the Earth, which core’s temperature is 7.3 x 10^3 K and its surface temperature is ~300 K.
The solar photon stream, obviously, is stronger than the Earth’s photon stream; it’s enough on seeing Mercury’s conditions. Consequently, the available energy absorbed by the Earth-system would depend on the microstates available at the Earth-system. So, if the change of the solar output is small, the Earth would be excessively receptive if its available microstates are high in “number”.
Evidently, it’s not hard to fill the Earth with solar energy. The problem is how much of the energy accepted by the Earth-system would be dispersed toward other surrounding systems’ microstates and if those microstates are available or not.
Please, tell me if I have not been enough clear in my explanation.

Nogw
August 19, 2009 12:10 pm

vukcevic (10:59:23) : Where is it that zero geomagnetic field “window”?

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 12:14 pm

vukcevic (11:44:35)
Thanks. I noticed that earlier and the remarkable similarity to the 20th Century temperature change profile.
I’m open minded on the issue since my climate description does not need to rely on any particular cause for solar and oceanic variation. I have concentrated on trying to explain the consequences of those variations within the Earth system of ocean and air.
The problem for Leif is that his expertise ceases at the point where solar energy reaches the Earth and most of the story starts at that point.

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 12:17 pm

Nasif.
For completeness then microstates are relevant but for a general overview they are (in my humble opinion) too small to consider.
The oceans literally swamp everything else.

tallbloke
August 19, 2009 12:19 pm

Leif Svalgaard (09:03:11) :
Stephen Wilde (08:43:09) :
The oceans don’t store energy in the sense that they carry over energy from a run of strong cycles to compensate for a subsequent run of weak cycles. I accept that.
I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles that all your postings gave the strong impression that you were advocating the strong-cycle compensation idea [like also promoted by tallbloke], and almost all my criticism of your ideas has been focused on that.

According to the best science available, ocean heat(energy) content has been mostly increasing since the fifties, maybe since the thirties. If that increased energy content isn’t due to the sun and/or it’s modulation of the CR flux, what is it due to? Can’t be co2, because the longwave radiation from the air can’t penetrate and heat the ocean.
I don’t see anything in Dr Scafetta’s paper which excludes the possibility of a long term trend under the decadal cycle he observes, in fact it could well be that it is pretty much a given considering his observation of a small 0.5% shift in the ‘h’ value leading to a long term rising of temperature.
My cumulative sunspot model produces very similar results to his, and I take that as an encouraging sign.

August 19, 2009 12:22 pm

Nogw (12:10:55) :
vukcevic (10:59:23) : Where is it that zero geomagnetic field “window”?
I specifically shifted Y-scale by a factor, so location of the component sampled, cannot be easily detected.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif
Any scientist among you, if interested in cooperation my email can be found here: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/em.txt

Nogw
August 19, 2009 12:51 pm

vukcevic (12:22:47) : Could it be at 79.593889 N, 52.000556 W?

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 1:04 pm

tallbloke (12:19:34)
I certainly support a gradual increase on ocean heat content whilst solar input is rising and possibly a short lag before ocean heat content comes down from a peak and starts falling in response to a falling solar input.
However I tend to agree with Leif and Nicola about the lack of long term energy storage because of the cooling effects of positive ENSO and PDO phenomena which warm the air but try to reduce ocean energy content quite quickly during periods of high solar input.
Nevertheless the oceans are a long term heat store but only as a historical product of past solar/oceanic interactions so there is a bit of a contradiction there.
Certainly the solar input exceeded oceanic energy release right through cycles 18 to 23 which suits you and Nicola but Leif seems to have problems with that on the grounds that to him solar variation is so small.
Personally I think Leif a bit blinkered on that. If there is a conflict between reality and assumptions then reality wins every time and I think Leif’s views on scale are adrift of what reality is telling us.
I don’t think anyone’s ideas need to rely on a carry over of stored energy in the oceans from a run of strong solar cycles to a period of weak cycles anyway and I’m puzzled as to how Leif got that bee in his bonnet. Someone may have said it at one point but without realising that it is unnecessary.
To square the circle I would suggest that over time the ocean energy content does follow the sun and rises and falls with it’s level of activity but the process is very irregular because of the overlapping ENSO and PDO phenomena which can both accelerate and decelerate accumulation or loss of oceanic energy on very differing timescales and both in opposition to and in support of solar trends at any given time. Additionally different oceans have different cycles on different time scales so that makes it messier still.
In the end the best diagnostic indicator of net global warming of the oceans or net global cooling of the oceans is the average latitudinal position of the air circulation systems.
Of course, when the oceans are cooling the air is warming and vice versa.

August 19, 2009 1:11 pm

Stephen Wilde (11:55:14) :
Can you deny that solar shortwave coming in is converted to radiated longwave going out. What is that exactly if not a consequence of resistance in the air and water to the flow of solar energy ?
Putting ‘solar’ in the sentence doesn’t change anything. The ‘resistance’ idea still doesn’t make sense..
Stephen Wilde (12:07:59) :
Perhaps 0.5K over 200 years = one Dalton Minimum.
Perhaps you mean 0.05K…
On a balance of probability I would go for solar variability of one sort or another. I’ve no more idea than you how it is done but real world observations prevail.
And what would they be? What observations show us that the temperature now is no more than 0.1K [and that was an upper limit] higher than during the Maunder Minimum? I thought people were throwing numbers around at least ten or twenty times higher….

August 19, 2009 1:16 pm

tallbloke (12:19:34) :
I don’t see anything in Dr Scafetta’s paper which excludes the possibility of a long term trend under the decadal cycle he observes
long-term trend in what? Temperatures? TSI?
He does not observe any long-term trend in TSI. He ‘assumes’ one. If anything, TSI since 1986 has gone down according to him. That there is a long-term trend in Temps is just good ole GW.

August 19, 2009 1:22 pm

Stephen Wilde (13:04:55) :
To square the circle I would suggest that over time the ocean energy content does follow the sun and rises and falls with it’s level of activity
I have indicated that we agree on this, and that that ‘swell’ is of the order of at most 0.1K, so is hardly observable, therefore the observed much larger variation is not due to the tiny changes in heat input that solar radiation gives us.

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 1:31 pm

Leif Svalgaard (13:11:08) :
Stephen Wilde (11:55:14) :
Can you deny that solar shortwave coming in is converted to radiated longwave going out. What is that exactly if not a consequence of resistance in the air and water to the flow of solar energy ?
Leif Svalgaard
Putting ’solar’ in the sentence doesn’t change anything. The ‘resistance’ idea still doesn’t make sense..
Reply:
I’ll leave others to judge the merits of your comment. Of course I could have said ‘former solar energy’ but any sensible reader would get the point.
Stephen Wilde (12:07:59) :
Perhaps 0.5K over 200 years = one Dalton Minimum.
Leif Svalgaard
Perhaps you mean 0.05K…
Reply
Yes. Quite right. Thank you.
Stephen Wilde
On a balance of probability I would go for solar variability of one sort or another. I’ve no more idea than you how it is done but real world observations prevail.
Leif Svalgaard
And what would they be? What observations show us that the temperature now is no more than 0.1K [and that was an upper limit] higher than during the Maunder Minimum? I thought people were throwing numbers around at least ten or twenty times higher…
Reply:
A change of 0.1K in solar energy received does not necessarily result in a climate response of 0.1K at every location on the planet. Or indeed anywhere on the planet and that begs the question as to whether your numbers are correct which not all solar scientists accept.
The energy in the climate system is not evenly distributed. An expansion of the polar air masses at the expense of the equatorial air masses (as a result of a small average temperature change) can result in huge temperature changes for areas that move from one side of the mid latitude jets to another or which have the experience of winds switching from maritime sources to continental sources.
There are many other variables involved in translating a change in solar energy input to real world climate consequences.
That is the point at which your solar expertise breaks down 🙂

August 19, 2009 1:50 pm

Stephen Wilde (12:17:08) :
Nasif.
For completeness then microstates are relevant but for a general overview they are (in my humble opinion) too small to consider.
The oceans literally swamp everything else.

I agree. Microstates would better fit on topics related to hyperexcited photons.
I was only explaining the subjacent quantum process which explains any delay in the response of Earth-system before small changes of energy radiated by the Sun.
Your illustration of thermal systems using electrical systems processes is quite correct. You have introduced resistance; someone else suggested capacitance. The similitude arises immediately under pollster’s eye, so it would be very interesting, and completely on topic, to explain the issue with those systems.

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 1:51 pm

“Stephen Wilde (13:04:55) :
To square the circle I would suggest that over time the ocean energy content does follow the sun and rises and falls with it’s level of activity
Leif Svalgaard
I have indicated that we agree on this, and that that ’swell’ is of the order of at most 0.1K, so is hardly observable, therefore the observed much larger variation is not due to the tiny changes in heat input that solar radiation gives us
Reply:
Firstly I really don’t accept the validity of all the adjustments you have been making to TSI and sunspot numbers since the Maunder Minimum but I don’t want to make an issue of that here. Suffice it to say that not all solar scientists are in full agreement with your approach.
Anyway, whatever the ‘swell’ may have been the global climate has changed since 1600. As it had previously from the Roman Warm Period to the Dark Ages to the Mediaeval Maximun to the Little Ice Age to today with our recent Modern Maximum.
The only source of energy to the system is the sun. It cannot come from nowhere. All those changes pre date the effects of significant human CO2 emissions.
So, either the changes are caused by the sun or they are caused by some internal Earthly process or by a combination of both.
I have selected a combination of sun and oceans. You are determined to exclude the sun at all costs. God knows why but take it from me that that is damaging your credibility and trying my patience.
I am open to any suggestions that seem plausible but your solar stability ideas just don’t ring true.
Now I’m happy to take you at your word and watch real world events to see what transpires. However we now have a less active sun, negative oceans and a cooling world.
May I respectfully suggest that unless real world events reverse in the very near future your ideas will go the way of the dodo.
Please forgive my directness. I am getting too old to waste time.

August 19, 2009 1:54 pm

Nogw (12:51:57) :
vukcevic (12:22:47) : Could it be at 79.593889 N, 52.000556 W?
What a precision of coordinates. Maybe, or on the other hand maybe not.
There are number of geomagnetic stations on Greenland, not aware of one on that location.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif

bill
August 19, 2009 3:05 pm

Stephen Wilde (13:51:36) :
However we now have a less active sun, negative oceans and a cooling world.

In my post above bill (09:51:01) : I showed a synthesised a temperature emulation using 36 fundamental frequencies – Did not really expect it to be possible but have a look at the result.
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6135/synthesisedtemperature.jpg
This shows that the temperature record can be simulated for short term perturbations, BUT there is no frequency that simulates the last few decades of temperature rise. The last decade of static temperature with a fall for the last couple of years is well simulated and shows temperature rise continuing after 2010. the world is not cooling!
By summing only the periods associated with TSI (9 to 14 years) the simulation shows an effect on temperature of 0.14C Peak which is inline with Leif’s 0.1C (average?)

Tenuc
August 19, 2009 3:57 pm

Perhaps we need to look at all the changes that happen during changes in solar activity, not just the increase and decrease in TSI. Other changes could also have an impact on earth climate, such as changes in proportion of the different wavelengths, changes in amount of energy recieved from solar ion stream, etc. An holistic approach is needed, rather than expecting an ‘X’ factor to pop out.
Our climate is a very complex dynamic chotic system and even a what seems to be a small change can have a massive long-term impact should it cause a bifurcation from warm to cool, or vice-versa.
We could also make better progress, I think, by changing the way we look at climate.
Average global temperature is a meaningless concept when trying to understand earths energy budget, and until we fully understand how the energy budget changes over time we won’t know what is going on. It is also wrong to think of climate as a global entity, when in fact it is just the sum total of many interrelated local events which change over long periods of time.

PaulHClark
August 19, 2009 5:02 pm

Leif Svalgaard (08:55:56) :
RE: Ti44 in meteors
Thank you for the Taricco et al paper.
I managed to find the Usokin paper but haven’t had chance to digest it yet in depth – you may have seen it in the past but if not here’s the link:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/44Ti_A&A_2006.pdf
Also came across this (while searching) that looks like it came from a Heartland Conference on the role of solar activity and climate – again I guess you know most of it and are not short of reading material [:-)} but should you care to glance through it and add any comments idc on another thread I’ll pick them up.
http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/Chapter%205.pdf
My quick read on the Usokin paper drew me to this quote:
“The extended 44Ti data set and the model computations
also allow a verification of the model reconstruction of the
solar open magnetic flux, which exhibits a significant secular
variation, including nearly a doubling over the last century
(Lockwood et al. 1999; Solanki et al. 2002).”
Am I correct in reading this as a significant rise in solar activity over the last century?
If not would you be so kind as explain in rather plain terms what the statement says I would as ever be grateful.
Please note that thanks to your guidance I now believe our climate is an incredibly complex and chaotic system and that the Sun is just a part of it….
Thanks for your contribution as always.

Nogw
August 19, 2009 5:23 pm

bill (15:05:46) : SIMULATION:Latin: simulatus; 1.To give a false indication or appearance of; pretend;feign (to simulate an interest), 2.to have or to take on the external appearance of; look or act like…etc.

Nogw
August 19, 2009 5:29 pm

Tenuc (15:57:44) :
Our climate is a very complex dynamic chotic system
“God does not play dice” (A.Einstein)
After one knows something it happens to be so simple.
It is very easy to conveniently label all what we don´t know as “chaotic”; that is like a MD saying:”that was caused by a virus”(btw, the next time somebody tells you that, ask him to show you a photo of it)

August 19, 2009 5:46 pm

Stephen Wilde (13:31:15) :
A change of 0.1K in solar energy received does not necessarily result in a climate response of 0.1K at every location on the planet. Or indeed anywhere on the planet and that begs the question as to whether your numbers are correct which not all solar scientists accept.
Nobody would be so silly to suggest a uniform response. I’m talking about average over the globe, as everybody else is when discussing this.
Firstly I really don’t accept the validity of all the adjustments you have been making to TSI and sunspot numbers since the Maunder Minimum but I don’t want to make an issue of that here. Suffice it to say that not all solar scientists are in full agreement with your approach.
There is growing acceptance that the variation is much smaller than previously thought. I have gone over this many times. Your acceptance is not needed in this process.
As it had previously from the Roman Warm Period to the Dark Ages to the Mediaeval Maximun to the Little Ice Age to today with our recent Modern Maximum.
The Sun has not varied the same way. See, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Holocene-TSI.pdf [Figure 3]. The typical deviations have been of the magnitude of 0.1% of TSI, commensurate with the change we had kicked around in our discussion.
All those changes pre-date the effects of significant human CO2 emissions.
And what has that to do with any reasonable discussion of solar influence? They also pre-date the spelling reform of Dutch orthography, equally irrelevant.
I have selected a combination of sun and oceans.
A priori selection is not science.
You are determined to exclude the sun at all costs.
No waiting for someone to show evidence of significant solar influence, rather than pre-selection of that as the cause.
trying my patience.
Not my convern.
I am open to any suggestions that seem plausible but your solar stability ideas just don’t ring true.
One has to go where the data leads, liking the ringing or not.
I am getting too old to waste time.
have you considered that your ideas might be just that?
PaulHClark (17:02:48) :
nearly a doubling over the last century
(Lockwood et al. 1999; Solanki et al. 2002).”

Not even Lockwood believes that any more. The ‘doubling’ was first suggested by me back in 1978 and elaborated on by Lockwood et al. in 1999 and modeled by Solanki in 2002. I and Lockwood have since realized that we were both wrong: http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf
and that there has been no such doubling. The flux is now what it was 108 years ago.

August 19, 2009 6:25 pm

Stephen Wilde (13:31:15) :
A change of 0.1K in solar energy received does not necessarily result in a climate response of 0.1K at every location on the planet. Or indeed anywhere on the planet
Nobody would be so silly to suggest a uniform response. It may be positive in one area and negative in an other. I’m talking about average over the globe, as everybody else is when discussing this, e.g. Scafetta himself.

PaulHClark
August 19, 2009 6:41 pm

Leif Svalgaard (17:46:20) :
Thanks for the explanation.
My take is therefore that the sun remains a part of the complex and chaotic system that is earth’s climate but seems not to have been a key player over the last century (as we may currently understand it).
Still an enormously complex and chaotic system though eh?
Any guess, after the last 10 years of debate that you have witnessed, how much manmade CO2 contributions really make to changing our climate?
It’s only for a bit of fun you know!

August 19, 2009 6:56 pm

PaulHClark (18:41:28) :
Any guess, after the last 10 years of debate that you have witnessed, how much manmade CO2 contributions really make to changing our climate?
As Stephen points out I have no clue.

Paul Vaughan
August 19, 2009 7:02 pm

anna v (10:52:48) “This cannot be repeated often enough either in whispers or in shouts.”
We disagree – and I don’t see that as a problem. I respect your perspective & your choice of emphasis.

Jimmy Haigh
August 19, 2009 7:19 pm

PaulHClark (18:41:28) :
Any guess, after the last 10 years of debate that you have witnessed, how much manmade CO2 contributions really make to changing our climate?
Leif Svalgaard (18:56:59) :
“…I have no clue.”
Now try getting that response (the only correct one, IMHO) from a ‘climate scientist’!

August 19, 2009 7:50 pm

I think too much time is spent on the supposed .01 TSI variable. Solar output is not just TSI. UV is known to vary by 16% over the solar cycle and we all know about the Svensmark theory, and no doubt there will be other unknown variables.
I wonder if its possible to record the TSI just above sea level across the oceans and monitor what energy is entering the oceans over time.
This method would certainly answer a lot of questions.

August 19, 2009 7:57 pm

Jimmy Haigh (19:19:23) :
PaulHClark (18:41:28) :
Any guess, after the last 10 years of debate that you have witnessed, how much manmade CO2 contributions really make to changing our climate?
Leif Svalgaard (18:56:59) :
“…I have no clue.”
Now try getting that response (the only correct one, IMHO) from a ‘climate scientist’!

Honest climate scientist would say “It’s negligible” because, from the total of 107 ppmV of atmospheric carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere in the last 24 years, human activities are responsible of a tiny 5%, which barely represents 5.35 ppmV. 5.35 ppmV would drive a change of temperature of 0.03 K.
On the other hand, the natural contribution for the current concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 101.65 ppmV, which would drive a change of temperature of 0.45 K.
However, if you ask a honest physicist, he would tell you that the contribution to the atmospheric carbon dioxide from human activities would drive the tropospheric temperature by some 0.02 K, while the natural contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide would drive the tropospheric temperature up to 0.3 K.
If you ask again a physicist about the change of temperature of the surface due to the human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, he would tell you… null. Why? Because the physicist knows that the carbon dioxide does not store more energy than the surface (land and oceans) and the subsurface materials because of its low Pp in the atmosphere and its poor thermal properties, and the energy always flows (or is transferred, dispersed or diffused) spontaneously from the systems in a high energy density state (like the Sun, for example) towards the systems in a low energy density state (like the carbon dioxide system, for example). 😉
I hope my dissertation has answered your question.

August 19, 2009 8:50 pm

Geoff Sharp (19:50:14) :
UV is known to vary by 16% over the solar cycle and we all know about the Svensmark theory, and no doubt there will be other unknown variables.
Of the total TSI of 1361 W/m2, 105 W/m2 is in wavelengths below 400 nm, thus in the UV [and beyond]. If UV varied 16%, that would mean a variation of 105*0.16 = 17 W/m2. The total variation of TSI [and TSI includes the UV] is more than ten times less, so even assuming that ALL the variation of TSI was due to a variation of UV, UV could vary at most by 1.6% and in reality varies less than that, so UV is not ‘known to vary by 16% over the solar cycle’

anna v
August 19, 2009 9:42 pm

Nasif Nahle (12:10:40) :
You are clear in your explanation, but you are demonstrating what I said about not knowing the difference between necessary and sufficient in scientific proofs.
It is not sufficient to have the sun and its huge energy to be able to know the climate as we measure it. You yourself say:
Evidently, it’s not hard to fill the Earth with solar energy. The problem is how much of the energy accepted by the Earth-system would be dispersed toward other surrounding systems’ microstates and if those microstates are available or not.
talking of “how much of the energy accepted” “how it is dispersed” means that it is not sufficient to have the large impinging sun energy to solve the problem. It is necessary to know many other conditions too.
That the sun outputs a lot of energy is a necessary but not sufficient condition to define climate.

Jimmy Haigh
August 19, 2009 9:52 pm

Nasif Nahle (19:57:38) :
Nasif. Thanks for the reply. I think it shows that there is more than one answer to any question. Paul’s original question of Dr. Svalgaard was:
“PaulHClark (18:41:28) :
Any guess, after the last 10 years of debate that you have witnessed, how much manmade CO2 contributions really make to changing our climate?”
My reply as a geologist, would also be that I have no idea. My opinionis that it isn’t very much at all – in fact, insignificant. As we say in Scotland: ‘we are awfy wee’ in the grand scheme of things.

August 19, 2009 9:57 pm

Nasif Nahle (19:57:38) :
If you ask again a physicist about the change of temperature of the surface due to the human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, he would tell you… null.
And he would be wrong.

August 19, 2009 9:58 pm

Leif Svalgaard (20:50:29) :
Ok…thanks for the explanation, I must revisit my source suggesting the 16% variation (it did seem very credible at the time). But I still think the argument of collecting TSI at sea level would end a lot of this debate.

August 19, 2009 10:10 pm

Geoff Sharp (21:58:06) :
Ok…thanks for the explanation, I must revisit my source suggesting the 16% variation (it did seem very credible at the time).
Leif’s Law!
But I still think the argument of collecting TSI at sea level would end a lot of this debate.
TSI has been measured like that for more than a century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Greeley_Abbot

August 19, 2009 10:25 pm

anna v (21:42:46) :
Nasif Nahle (12:10:40) :
You are clear in your explanation, but you are demonstrating what I said about not knowing the difference between necessary and sufficient in scientific proofs.
It is not sufficient to have the sun and its huge energy to be able to know the climate as we measure it. You yourself say:
Evidently, it’s not hard to fill the Earth with solar energy. The problem is how much of the energy accepted by the Earth-system would be dispersed toward other surrounding systems’ microstates and if those microstates are available or not.
talking of “how much of the energy accepted” “how it is dispersed” means that it is not sufficient to have the large impinging sun energy to solve the problem. It is necessary to know many other conditions too.
That the sun outputs a lot of energy is a necessary but not sufficient condition to define climate.

I think I have understood your argument; is it related to the mechanisms? Or to the trajectories?

August 19, 2009 10:26 pm

Leif Svalgaard (21:57:56) :
Nasif Nahle (19:57:38) :
If you ask again a physicist about the change of temperature of the surface due to the human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, he would tell you… null.
And he would be wrong.

Where and why?

maksimovich
August 19, 2009 10:26 pm
August 19, 2009 10:47 pm

Nasif Nahle (22:26:41) :
“And he would be wrong.”
Where and why?

It is not a ‘where’ or ‘why’, but a ‘how’
maksimovich (22:26:42) :
uv variance T. Dudok de Wit 2008
You have to multiply a) and b) to get the amount of variation in what matters [W/m2]. It doesn’t matter that the variation is 200% of a 1/1,000,000 of a W/m2.

August 19, 2009 10:58 pm

Leif Svalgaard (22:47:45) :
Nasif Nahle (22:26:41) :
“And he would be wrong.”
Where and why?
It is not a ‘where’ or ‘why’, but a ‘how’

Go on… Say “how”.

August 19, 2009 11:04 pm

Nasif Nahle (22:58:53) :
Go on… Say “how”.
It was your how that was wrong.

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 11:08 pm

Removal of solar variability from the climate equation leaves us with nothing to rely on to explain climate variability other than little green men.
Something is wrong with the solar observations, solar equations or our understanding of how solar changes affect the Earth. Possibly all three.
That is what the climate is telling us.

Stephen Wilde
August 19, 2009 11:35 pm

Stephen Wilde (13:31:15) :
A change of 0.1K in solar energy received does not necessarily result in a climate response of 0.1K at every location on the planet. Or indeed anywhere on the planet
Leif Svalgaard
Nobody would be so silly to suggest a uniform response. It may be positive in one area and negative in an other. I’m talking about average over the globe, as everybody else is when discussing this, e.g. Scafetta himself
Reply:
My point was that a small average change in global temperatrure can produce large variability in individual locations because of the shift of that location in relation to the positions of the nearby air circulation systems.
Whether the temperature change which you calculate is sufficient to, say, move large areas of the continental parts of the northern hemisphere to the north of the mid latitude jets makes a huge difference especially given that most observations of climate in those times were in such regions.
If your figures are right about the extremely limited (even negligible) solar variability then the climate is telling us that that is nevertheless sufficient to make a huge difference to the climate conditions over the northern land masses and that would have a sizeable ‘knock on’ effect on the rest of the globe.
So. one could add the globally unbalanced conductive behaviour of the northern land masses to a variable energy supply to the air from the oceans in trying to explain the sheer size of observed climate variability in the face of a negligible solar forcing. That still seems unlikely so that something is probably still not properly understood about solar influences on climate.
Alternatively there are little green men moving the Earth’s air circulation systems around 🙂
When it is clear that something is not correctly understood then judgement has to come into play to decide on a way forward. Sticking to existing assumptions is merely a blind mantra in such a situation. Not that I am really suggesting those little green men but the solar stability idea is moving in that direction.
Once one has excluded all other possibilities then the obvious one must be the truth however unlikely, so in the end the sun it is as the final arbiter as regards Earth’s climate.
It’s just an issue of how.

maksimovich
August 19, 2009 11:37 pm

Leif Svalgaard (22:47:45)
:”maksimovich (22:26:42) :
uv variance T. Dudok de Wit 2008
You have to multiply a) and b) to get the amount of variation in what matters [W/m2]. It doesn’t matter that the variation is 200% of a 1/1,000,000 of a W/m2.”
Irrelevant nonsense.UV variation and the instability, induced in the reactive diffusion atmospheric chemistry is frequency ” induced”,some chemical reactions are provoked only by light of frequency higher than a certain threshold; light of frequency lower than the threshold, no matter how intense, does not initiate the reaction.
This is well understood eg A. N. Gruzdev et al.2009: Effect of solar rotational variation on the atmosphere.
“Experiments with different forcing amplitudes have shown
that the responses of temperature and of the concentrations of
chemical species to 27-day forcing are non-linear. Their sensitivities
(not amplitudes) generally decrease when the forcing
increases. This conclusion is important to understand
the possible differences of observational studies obtained at
times of different forcing amplitudes.”
However on the other hand exact observations (instrumental) in the important “precurser” frequencies are at best minimalist.

kim
August 19, 2009 11:57 pm

How, Stephen? Why two out of three of the solar cycle cosmic ray peaks cool the earth in one phase of the PDO and two out of three of the solar cycle cosmic ray peaks in the next phase of the PDO warm the earth. I’ll leave the more quantitative explications of the ‘how’ to you and Leif.
============================================

kim
August 20, 2009 12:00 am

Heh, I’m too busy figgerin’ out the ‘why’.
=========================

tallbloke
August 20, 2009 12:23 am

Leif Svalgaard (17:46:20) :
PaulHClark (17:02:48) :
nearly a doubling (of the solar open magnetic flux) over the last century
(Lockwood et al. 1999; Solanki et al. 2002).”
Not even Lockwood believes that any more. The ‘doubling’ was first suggested by me back in 1978 and elaborated on by Lockwood et al. in 1999 and modeled by Solanki in 2002. I and Lockwood have since realized that we were both wrong: http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf
and that there has been no such doubling. The flux is now what it was 108 years ago.

An interesting non-sequiteur. That the flux is now what it was 108 years ago tells us very little about what it has been doing in between times eh Leif?
I would suggest that people who want to know more about how variable the sun really is have a look at the 2007 paper by Rouillard and Lockwood, after the corrections to the aa index detwermined by Leif were applied. It seems to have changed things from a ‘doubling’ to around a 40% increase (by eyeball).
http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2007/2006JA012130.pdf/
Right, back to work.

Tenuc
August 20, 2009 12:36 am

Leif Svalgaard (22:47:45)
uv variance T. Dudok de Wit 2008
You have to multiply a) and b) to get the amount of variation in what matters [W/m2]. It doesn’t matter that the variation is 200% of a 1/1,000,000 of a W/m2.”
maksimovich (22:26:42) :
Irrelevant nonsense.
Reply:
Yes, a total red-herring from Leif. It’s how earth systems respond to different wavelengths that is important when examining the impact of cyclical changes in UV, and perhaps other high energy radiation such a x-rays.

Stephen Wilde
August 20, 2009 12:40 am

kim (23:57:49)
I’d love to know the answer.
Leif is far better qualified than me on the solar quantities side of things but I think I have a better grip on the mechanics of what happens after the solar energy reaches the Earth.
Note that my climate description does not depend on any particular level of solar variability as long as it is not zero. That is why Leif’s apparent enthusiasm to get it as near to zero as possible is rather unsettling to me. His efforts are an unnecessary distraction away from the mechanics of the overall global system that I am describing.
All I need is a radiative imbalance between solar energy penetrating the oceans and the oceans then releasing that energy to the air.
As long as there is such an imbalance on any scale then over time the system will behave in the way I have described it. I don’t thoink it is seriously disputed that such an imbalance is always present to some extent hence all the talk about ocean energy/heat content which does indeed vary.
I should leave Leif to his own devices because unless he can get solar variability down to zero then I should have no concerns.
As long as there is any solar variability however small (and he does admit some) then my ideas work and the problem of scaling from small solar variability to apparently large climate responses just requires extensions and enhancements of my climate description. I am happy to leave the oceanic side of the system to others. I am satisfied that I have got the ocean to air to space portion correct and in accordance with both basic physics and observations.
I am also sure that many other ideas such as those of Svensmark and others including possibly yourself, tallbloke Erl Happ and lots more can be slotted in but probably as second order modulating factors rather than primary drivers.
As far as the air is concerned the oceans are in absolute control and any realistic climate description has to be built on that.
Any challenge to my description can only be successful if it can be shown that the oceans are not in control once the solar energy arrives in the Earth’s climate syatem.

Stephen Wilde
August 20, 2009 1:21 am

“The Sun has not varied the same way. See, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Holocene-TSI.pdf [Figure 3]. The typical deviations have been of the magnitude of 0.1% of TSI, commensurate with the change we had kicked around in our discussion.”
Well I’ve had a look at that Figure 3 and there, clear to all, are oscillations corresponding approximately with the Roman Warm Period, The Dark Ages, The Mediaeval Warm Period, The Little Ice Age and The Modern Maximum.

bill
August 20, 2009 1:57 am

Stephen Wilde (23:08:27) :
Removal of solar variability from the climate equation leaves us with nothing to rely on to explain climate variability other than little green men.
Something is wrong with the solar observations, solar equations or our understanding of how solar changes affect the Earth. Possibly all three.

Why ignore all the other factors – GHGs (reduce radiation away), Albedo (reflect radiation away), Dust (check out the dust levels during ice ages – it is usually elevated), O3 (absorbs uv), milankovich cycles, etc
Every year the earth temperature cycles – in UK perhaps an average of -2 to +18C mainly due to the angle presented to the sun. The top few metres of sea also change in temperature (people swim in the UK sea during summer but less do in winter). Changes in solar radiation have a time lag to temperature of less than 1 year. Changes in temperature due to solar irradiation differences (11 year cycle) will be seen in the temperature record. A simple FFT of single station or global temperature shows that these cycles are only present in the background noise – using narrow band bandpass filters as I showed above, shows that the temperature fluctuation due to TSI is less than 0.15C peak-peak.
There is no significant 11 22 18.6 year cycles present in the temperature record.
The only sources of energy is the sun (ignoring the very small core heating). The only loss of energy is via radiation (however, growing things will store energy indefinitely). The sea will only “store” energy for short periods
The short term fluctuations in the sun output have little measured effect. That only leaves changing the radiation out or locking/releasing the energy in organic stuff for long term (greater than 1000years) variation

tallbloke
August 20, 2009 2:12 am

Correction, the paper says 70% increase in the solar open magnetic flux over the last century, not 40%. SO, no longer the doubling that “even Lockwood doesn’t believe anymore”, but still a very significant change, whichever way you look at it.
http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2007/2006JA012130.pdf/

Stephen Wilde
August 20, 2009 2:23 am

bill (01:57:30)
Sorry bill.
I should have said ‘long term variability’ since ultimately it is the long term variability of the sun which is the only source of long term variability in oceanic energy content.
All the other variables act on shorter time scales and involve wavelengths that do not penetrate back into the ocean surface unless they affect the amount of sunlight reaching the surface so that it’s back to the sun again.

Stephen Wilde
August 20, 2009 2:58 am

bill:
“There are no significant 11 22 18.6 year cycles present in the temperature record”.
Quite right, they are all swamped by the superimposed oceanic phase changes at about 30 year intervals.
That is the best evidence available for the oceans as drivers of events in the air and for events in the air being unable to drive the oceans.
Nothing else seems to be able to alter those phase shifts either so we need to be looking at internal oceanic variability on such time scales. The extent to which the solar cycles might be involved will be interesting to me and Leif in particular.
I’m calling them Wildean Ocean Cycles until there is a better term. For certain technical reasons I have been told that the term PDO is not suitable because the PDO is apparently just a statistical artifact derived from ENSO data.

kim
August 20, 2009 5:14 am

Stephen 00:40:06
Thanks for that. We still have the thorny problem of how any magnifying mechanism for a solar phenomenon is prevented from a runaway effect on climate. This is the bucket of cold water Leif keeps pitching upon hot speculation. I think that climate regulation is complex enough to have so many varying feedbacks as to be self-centering, the water cycle being foremost among them, but I’m just speculating, at which Leif rightfully sneers. By the way, don’t underestimate Leif’s knowledge of the climate systems; he’s been thinking about them for a long while, and is well known for putting his finger precisely on the main flaw in a lot of theories.
I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
====================

bill
August 20, 2009 5:45 am

Wilde (02:58:50) :
Quite right, they are all swamped by the superimposed oceanic phase changes at about 30 year intervals

But:
1. there are no ~30 year cycles either
2. ocean cycles simply move the heat around (unless I misunderstand?) They do not add to the overall energy content of the system. so this does not explain the temperature rise over the last 100years.
3. solar cycles are 11 and 22 years – sea temperatures to a few 10s of metres are heated and cooled summer to winter (a much shorter timescale). What property of water stores heat for 30 years at greater depths. For the “solar” radiation to reach these greater depths it will have heated the interveining water (to a higer temp) as it gets progressively absorbed.
Most of the info on inversion layers suggested that these are transient phenomena and very localised.
As I have said before, it’s all about radiation budget – more solar in or less radiation out is all that will give a significant long term heating. (perhaps one should also consider radiation trapped in the biomass or released by fossil fuel use?)
Moving trapped “heat” from one place to another in the ocean will not produce 100years of warming!

August 20, 2009 6:13 am

Leif Svalgaard (22:10:50) :
Geoff Sharp (21:58:06) :
Ok…thanks for the explanation, I must revisit my source suggesting the 16% variation (it did seem very credible at the time).
But I still think the argument of collecting TSI at sea level would end a lot of this debate.
————–
TSI has been measured like that for more than a century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Greeley_Abbot

Come on Leif that link is a joke….the project has never been undertaken. Also the amount of your UV variance in the TSI is also of question. I will come back shortly with some data. Stay tuned…..

Stephen Wilde
August 20, 2009 7:07 am

“bill:
But:
1. there are no ~30 year cycles either”
What makes you think that ?
See here:
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
As for a long term match between solar trends over centuries and the main climate trends from the Roman Warm Period to date see here:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Holocene-TSI.pdf
where all the main changes in global temperature trend fit the estimated solar activity levels.
Now we all know that the figures don’t make sense but that doesn’t disprove reality. There is something wrong with the numbers and/or our understanding of the mechanisms.
The oceans do just move heat around but in doing so they also decrease and accelerate energy release to the air for 30 years at a time and that variation is superimposed on a background which seems to be solar induced somehow.

Stephen Wilde
August 20, 2009 7:12 am

“By the way, don’t underestimate Leif’s knowledge of the climate systems; he’s been thinking about them for a long while, and is well known for putting his finger precisely on the main flaw in a lot of theories.”
Point taken, but from time to time it’s very tempting to respond with like for like.

August 20, 2009 7:50 am

Tenuc (00:36:50) :
Yes, a total red-herring from Leif. It’s how earth systems respond to different wavelengths that is important
I was not commenting on the effect, only on the number, 16%.
Geoff Sharp (06:13:19) :
TSI has been measured like that for more than a century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Greeley_Abbot
Come on Leif that link is a joke….the project has never been undertaken.

The historical development and present status of solar radiation measuring instruments
Yellott, J. I.
In: Sun II; Proceedings of the Silver Jubilee Congress, Atlanta, Ga., May 28-June 1, 1979. Volume 3. (A80-33401 13-44) Elmsford, N.Y., Pergamon Press, Inc., 1979, p. 2169-2173.
Abstract
The measurement of solar radiation intensity began in 1838 when Pouillet introduced an instrument for measuring the sun’s direct beam radiation and the name pyrheliometer. Electrical methods of radiation measurement were adopted in 1896 by Angstrom who introduced his comparison-type pyrheliometer. Abbot began his work in solar radiometry in 1905 with his silver disk and water-flow pyrheliometers which were used to establish the Smithsonian radiation scales in use until 1956. Between the two World Wars, electrical instruments were introduced for the continuous measurement of direct, diffuse and total irradiance, and integrators gave values of hourly and daily irradiation. With the space age, improved absolute radiometers and new radiometric standard to replace IPS 1056 were introduced.
tallbloke (02:12:52) :
Correction, the paper says 70% increase in the solar open magnetic flux over the last century, not 40%.
One little word ‘over’ is the important one. The solar magnetic field ‘over’ the 20th Century has varied in a cyclic manner with a maximum in the middle of the century. Lockwood computed his ‘centennial’ increase as the change from 1903 to 1956. It has now come down to where it started. So, no change ‘over’ the century. In addition, his values around 1900 are in error [as Rouillard has admitted] and in his latest paper [“The Rise and Fall of the Open Solar Flux (ApJ 2009)] he omits his erroneous data before 1905.

Stephen Wilde
August 20, 2009 8:08 am

“kim (05:14:24) :
Stephen 00:40:06
Thanks for that. We still have the thorny problem of how any magnifying mechanism for a solar phenomenon is prevented from a runaway effect on climate. This is the bucket of cold water Leif keeps pitching upon hot speculation. I think that climate regulation is complex enough to have so many varying feedbacks as to be self-centering, the water cycle being foremost among them, but I’m just speculating, at which Leif rightfully sneers”
It’s a good point to suggest that any mechanism that can magnify the tiny solar variability enough to produce the observed climate response should be so powerful as to cause a runaway effect.
However I’m not sure that it does indeed need to be magnified in the sense of being made larger or rather amplified.
My point about sensitivity comes back here. A tiny solar change can apparently produce what appears to us to be a large climate response but so what ?
All one needs to start with is a radiative imbalance into and out of the oceans then add time then add the oceanic ability to sometimes accelerate and sometimes decelerate the rate of energy release to the air.
That seems to be enough to shift the size and positions of the air circulation systems but then that process itself changes the rate of energy transfer from surface to space and prevents a runaway situation.
You might call my comments speculation but I don’t think they are. They are logical interpretations of what we actually see.
The oceans do vary the rate of energy release to the air on 30 year timescales.I’ve no idea why.
The latitudinal positions of the air circulation systems do change in response (always following, never leading the oceans).The reason for that is clear in that faster energy release from the oceans increases the size of the equatorial air masses.
The speed of the hydrological cycle does change with the shifts in the air circulation systems. That is also clear.
The main global temperature trends do follow trends in solar activity back to at least the Roman Warm Period. Even Leif’s charts show that.
Now all that is data and a logical interpretation of that data is not
mere speculation.
One cannot ignore all that data just because what we know of the numbers involved fails to match that data.
The numbers are either wrong or irrelevant, possibly both.

August 20, 2009 8:17 am

Stephen Wilde (07:07:16) :
As for a long term match between solar trends over centuries and the main climate trends from the Roman Warm Period to date see here:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Holocene-TSI.pdf
where all the main changes in global temperature trend fit the estimated solar activity levels.

If you compare the actual data rather than eyeballing/memory you get this: http://www.leif.org/research/2000%20Year%20Temp%20and%20TSI.png and that does not strike me as convincing or even suggestive.

August 20, 2009 8:41 am

Stephen Wilde (08:08:24) :
The main global temperature trends do follow trends in solar activity back to at least the Roman Warm Period. Even Leif’s charts show that.
Or even closer geomagnetic activity. There is, however remote, possibility they are part and parcel of the same controlling mechanism.
Here is my updated temp-geomag chart
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif

August 20, 2009 9:01 am

Stephen Wilde (08:08:24) :
The main global temperature trends do follow trends in solar activity back to at least the Roman Warm Period. Even Leif’s charts show that.
I don’t think so: http://www.leif.org/research/2000%20Year%20Temp%20and%20TSI.png
Temps on top, TSI on bottom. And in any case, the TSI variation is within +/- 1 W/m2 or +/- 0.07%, which over long time scales [as shown here] would correspond to +/- 0.05K, which is below what we can detect in the record.
Hypersensitivity as was pointed out would lead to runaways. “Tipping points” and all that. Since we have not had those [or maybe we have: snowball Earths etc if you believe in those] hypersensitivity is not likely.

August 20, 2009 9:03 am

vukcevic (08:41:16) :
Here is my updated temp-geomag chart
Based on a cherry picked [undisclosed] location. Pick another one [POT-SED-NGK] and you get the opposite variation: http://www.leif.org/research/Component.png

August 20, 2009 9:12 am

Leif Svalgaard (23:04:12) :
Nasif Nahle (22:58:53) :
Go on… Say “how”.
It was your how that was wrong.

Again, and for the last time, go on… Say “how”.

August 20, 2009 9:37 am

Leif Svalgaard (09:03:51) :
“Based on a cherry picked [undisclosed] location. Pick another one [POT-SED-NGK] and you get the opposite variation: http://www.leif.org/research/Component.png
You could not be more wrong Sir, as a scientist of repute, you should know what to look for. Not my fault you looked at geomag data for 40 + years and failed to spot it.
If you looked at right PLACES you would have found this!
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif
You can check provenance of my data by getting in touch with your mates at NOAA (NGDC), with their powerful computers, they could check it in no time at all. If they whish to save time and effort, someone could contact me. In time, I will give a full description of the process, until then Sir, patience is advisable, or maybe look into some dubious aspects of the proposed SSN revision.
Do not waste time with TSI and SSN counts, get your self a magnetometer ! If you whish to counter AGW, ask NOAA to verify data with me, and then email chart to your member of parliament, to your senator or congressman, or whoever you voted to represent your interests!
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif

Stephen Wilde
August 20, 2009 9:48 am

“If you compare the actual data rather than eyeballing/memory you get this: http://www.leif.org/research/2000%20Year%20Temp%20and%20TSI.png and that does not strike me as convincing or even suggestive”
The MWP, LIA and Modern Maximum look suggestive but not the pre 1000 AD period on those charts.
Personally I’d go for the solar activity level as being a more accurate reflection of pre 1000 temperatures due to the problems with global proxies for temperature that far back.
But it’s a judgement call and careful observations during the current lull in solar activity should resolve the issue in due course.

Stephen Wilde
August 20, 2009 9:50 am

Correct that to refer to pre 750 AD instead of pre 1000 AD

bill
August 20, 2009 9:57 am

Leif Svalgaard (08:17:33) : Pleased you pointed that out as I could see no similarity!
This plot derived from the sum of 36 sines and a trend is a much better fit!
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6135/synthesisedtemperature.jpg
Stephen Wilde you say:
All one needs to start with is a radiative imbalance into and out of the oceans then add time then add the oceanic ability to sometimes accelerate and sometimes decelerate the rate of energy release to the air.
Care to hazard a guess as to what property of the ocean could hold back/control energy for 30 years?
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ does not show 30 year cycles it shows a random? 5 to 20 year oscillation.

August 20, 2009 10:21 am

vukcevic (09:37:38) :
In time, I will give a full description of the process, until then Sir, patience is advisable
Until you give that now, you have no credibility. In the caption to the Figure you stated: “This is chart recording one of the components of the geomagnetic field (values are changed by a fixed factor) at a specific location”
Which component and which location? I picked another location at random and got the opposite result. And the value at one ‘specific’ location is hardly important on a global scale.
Stephen Wilde (09:48:07) :
Personally I’d go for the solar activity level as being a more accurate reflection of pre 1000 temperatures due to the problems with global proxies for temperature that far back.
They are both uncertain, but Leif’s Law says that you would pick the one that fits your ideas the best [to wit your comment].
I have two points:
1) the ‘reality’ of the correlation is shaky [not even there IMHO]
2) the variation is in any case tiny, and the expected response on time scales of centuries is of the order of 0.05K as I have been saying all along.

August 20, 2009 10:24 am

steven mosher (10:44:13) :
Relative to Dr. S paper he is calibrating to a temperature record from 1980 to the present. That record doesnt have a constant bias from UHI and microsite bias but an increasing one. The bias is not zero in 1980 and the bias in 2009 is greater than that in 1980.
Scafetta ‘calibrates’ a disputed TSI record against a disputed Temp record and so his conclusion is questionable, at best.

August 20, 2009 10:30 am

bill (09:57:40) :
This plot derived from the sum of 36 sines and a trend is a much better fit
Throw in plenty more sines and get an even better fit. 🙂
Any function can be fitted arbitrary well with enough sines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series

August 20, 2009 10:36 am

Nasif Nahle (09:12:54) :
Again, and for the last time, go on… Say “how”.
You can find a lot of material on this at
http://www.ipcc.ch/
supported by 30,000 scientists, no less.
There is even a Spanish version of the salient points.

August 20, 2009 11:16 am

Leif Svalgaard (10:21:24) :
“Until you give that now, you have no credibility. In the caption to the Figure you stated: “This is chart recording one of the components of the geomagnetic field (values are changed by a fixed factor) at a specific location”
Which component and which location? I picked another location at random and got the opposite result. And the value at one ’specific’ location is hardly important on a global scale. ”
Why should I publicly disclose to you details before I am ready ?
Forward me an email of a reliable scientist working at NOAA (NGDC), who is willing in confidence, to check data and than confirm it or otherwise. You got my email address (or use SC24 web contact). If you are so keen to question veracity, would you publicly accept that there is a serious causation, if data is of sufficient volume and is verified as accurate.
I suspect, even than you’ll probably moan about coincidence, energy required, mechanism, numerology or something else.
Come on, the ball is in your corner !
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif

August 20, 2009 11:39 am

Leif Svalgaard (10:36:55) :
Nasif Nahle (09:12:54) :
Again, and for the last time, go on… Say “how”.
You can find a lot of material on this at
http://www.ipcc.ch/
supported by 30,000 scientists, no less.
There is even a Spanish version of the salient points.

30000 people (including non scientists) are pronouncing against the second law of thermodynamics? Wow! No matter, nature and all physicists say those 30000 people are wrong and the second law of TD is working in the whole known Universe.
But… You have not described the “how” is it that I’m wrong.

Stephen Wilde
August 20, 2009 12:43 pm

“Stephen Wilde (09:48:07) :
Personally I’d go for the solar activity level as being a more accurate reflection of pre 1000 temperatures due to the problems with global proxies for temperature that far back.”
“Leif Svalgaard:
They are both uncertain, but Leif’s Law says that you would pick the one that fits your ideas the best [to wit your comment].
I have two points:
1) the ‘reality’ of the correlation is shaky [not even there IMHO]
2) the variation is in any case tiny, and the expected response on time scales of centuries is of the order of 0.05K as I have been saying all along.”
That’s fair enough but of course Leif’s Law is a two edged sword so that leaves us all square if both are uncertain.
It boils down to a disbelief on your part that a solar variation so small can provide the observed climate response. The trouble is that you then combine that with an assertion that anything which served to adequately magnify the solar input would have to be so powerful that the whole system would have been destabilised already presumably giving us a very different world. You create a logical impossibility – a Catch 22. The sun cannot do it and there is nothing that can enable the sun to do it. Very helpful.
Then a disbelief on my part that it cannot provide the observed climate response when solar energy is the only available energy source for the climate system (if one excludes geothermal).
For the solar variations not to be at root of it puts us in breach of the Laws of Thermodynamics and firmly in the world of little green men.
For how long do you think that the world can generate it’s own spontaneous variations in climate and energy flow – without the sun’s involvement ?
Is the Earth’s climate system a perpetual motion machine ?

Nogw
August 20, 2009 1:25 pm

Stephen Wilde (12:43:22) :
Is the Earth’s climate system a perpetual motion machine ?
This a belief system, that round thing above it is just a mirage.
it is CO2 that shines above!

August 20, 2009 1:30 pm

vukcevic (11:16:25) :
Why should I publicly disclose to you details before I am ready ?
If you are not ready, then keep it to yourself until you are.
Come on, the ball is in your corner !
I have already shown that you cherry picked one location and shown you another one with the opposite ‘signal’
Nasif Nahle (11:39:14) :
But… You have not described the “how” is it that I’m wrong.
Don’t need to, it has been hashed and rehashed enough elsewhere. Seek and ye shall find.
Stephen Wilde (12:43:22) :
It boils down to a disbelief on your part that a solar variation so small can provide the observed climate response.
As I have shown http://www.leif.org/research/2000%20Year%20Temp%20and%20TSI.png there is no clear signal, so no ‘observed’ response, so what is there to have disbelief about?
And from the inferred TSI variation of +/- 1 W/m2, the expected response from the laws of physics is 0.05 K which might very well [actually MUST] be there but is visible above the unrelated much larger variations.
You can counter that all the data is so uncertain that nothing can be discerned, but then it is also hard to make the claims you do.

August 20, 2009 1:36 pm

which might very well [actually MUST] be there but is NOT visible above the unrelated much larger variations.

Stephen Wilde
August 20, 2009 1:47 pm

This is relevant to the link between solar variability and climate:
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot5.html#historic

August 20, 2009 1:52 pm

Nasif Nahle (11:39:14) :
“Seek and ye shall find.
Anticipating that you could not, I’ve done your homework:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm#molecule
Note that the reality of CO2 being a greenhouse gas [coming from calculations based on fundamental physics] is different from the question whether to rise we see is due to CO2. Don’t let disbelief in the latter cloud your understanding of the former.

Pamela Gray
August 20, 2009 2:48 pm

Yes, I think the Earth’s climate system is very close to a perpetual motion machine but very complex and chaotic within latitude and longitude areas. However, it can and does breathe out some of the energy the Sun provides (meaning the machine is somewhat leaky) and sends it out to space. But since the Sun is a rather steady source and the leak is rather small, the climate system hardly notices the topping off of the tank.

oms
August 20, 2009 2:52 pm

Stephen Wilde (12:43:22) :

For the solar variations not to be at root of it puts us in breach of the Laws of Thermodynamics and firmly in the world of little green men.

I don’t suppose you’d like to explain why the Laws of Thermodynamics trump little green men in this particular case?

For how long do you think that the world can generate it’s own spontaneous variations in climate and energy flow – without the sun’s involvement ?
Is the Earth’s climate system a perpetual motion machine

Nobody is suggesting that the Sun isn’t shining on the earth. So long as the sun keeps supplying energy to the earth to offset dissipation, there’s no perpetual motion machine.
Meanwhile, I can keep exciting a double pendulum with steady sinusoidal forcing and, given a certain amount of energy to play with, I can produce lots of “spontaneous” variations.

Stephen Wilde
August 20, 2009 3:03 pm

Leif Svalgaard:
“which might very well [actually MUST] be there but is NOT visible above the unrelated much larger variations.”
Reply:
Another logical bind.
You accept that it MUST be there and that it is NOT visible.
(I agree but consider that it is peeking through and just needs seperating out and, crucially, I have suggested a means whereby the much larger variations are NOT unrelated).
The trouble is that you then combine that with an assertion that anything which served to adequately magnify the solar input would have to be so powerful that the whole system would have been destabilised already presumably giving us a very different world. You create a logical impossibility – a Catch 22. The sun cannot do it and there is nothing that can enable the sun to do it. Very helpful
You close off ALL alternative possibilities and contribute nothing of your own.
And the assertion that the much larger variations are NOT related puts us in the arena with little green men again.
How could they NOT be related when the only energy in the system was originally solar ?
Madness, in my humble opinion.

steven mosher
August 20, 2009 3:05 pm

Stephen Wilde (12:43:22) :

steven mosher
August 20, 2009 3:17 pm

Leif Svalgaard (10:24:25) :
I probably wasn’t clear. having followed your writings ( as best I can ) I would say that the debate over TSI is swinging your way, towards less variability in TSI. Unlike others I don’t think it is your task to explain the variability of the climate. You are following the data where it leads. If that results in people struggling to explain the “observed” variability with accuracy, that’s their problem. I liked Dr. S’s approach, but am merely pointing out the other half of what you point out. He calibrated against a suspect record AND calibrated over a period in which there is, arguably, a trend bias ( al beit small). Personally, I’d like to see his approach done with your model of TSI ( to test the robustness of the method to TSI recon) and would like to see his approach done with other temp records ( RSS or UAH) for example, again to show the sensitivity to the selection of data sources.
PS. you have the patience of Job.

August 20, 2009 3:28 pm

Stephen Wilde (13:47:32) :
This is relevant to the link between solar variability and climate:
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot5.html#historic

I would not put much credence in tilmari’s cyclomania.

August 20, 2009 3:45 pm

Leif Svalgaard (13:52:14) :
“Seek and ye shall find.
Anticipating that you could not, I’ve done your homework:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm#molecule
Note that the reality of CO2 being a greenhouse gas [coming from calculations based on fundamental physics] is different from the question whether to rise we see is due to CO2. Don’t let disbelief in the latter cloud your understanding of the former.

Well, time to know if you have got at least a bit of my lessons on thermal science. Do you know what’s the Pp of the CO2 in the atmosphere? What its absorptivity-emissivity is?
If you answer these two easy questions, you’ll see that your homework is wrong and why you got an “F” in TD.

Stephen Wilde
August 20, 2009 3:46 pm

I think I can take another step.
I said above that my climate description does not rely on any particular level of solar variability as long as it is not zero. It matters not whether the observed solar change over 400 years is 0.05K or 0.005K. In fact it might work even at zero but not as dramatically.
If ANY variability is present in the flow of energy from the sun it will be compounded when it interacts with the inevitable variability in a fluid surrounding the bulk of a planet and the more of that fluid the better.
Once an imbalance exists (and of course it always does) then oscillations in the flow of energy will be set up within the receiving fluid.
The issue then is as to how large those oscillations can get. I propose that the size of the oscillations is not significantly dependent on the variability of the sun. Rather it is primarily dictated by the properties of the air and the oceans or more particularly by the circulation systems in each.
One could liken it to the resonance qualities of a tuning fork.
So despite the solar variations of only 0.05K (or whatever it might be) the system adopts whatever scale of oscillation it’s internal characteristics are tuned to produce and we see in the real world just how much larger than the solar variation it can become.
Then there is the tipping point issue which seems to concern you if the effects that magnify the solar variations are to be powerful enough to do their work.
Well, just look at what the air can do. The hydrological cycle is almost infinitely variable in speed and efficiency depending on the latitudinal shifts available to the air circulation systems and the size and speed of upward convection wherever it occurs.
The ocean circulations magnify the solar variability creating oscillations in the process and the air circulations suppress those oscillations to maintain global stability.
Just as I say in one of my articles the oceans create discontinuities in the flow of energy through the system and the air has to neutralise those discontinuities in order to both maintain sea surface and surface air temperature equilibrium AND AT THE SAME TIME ensure that the energy value of radiated longwave to space is the same over time as the energy value of solar radiation reaching the system.
So, we have much larger variations which ARE related to some degree (but not necessarily a lot) to the solar variations.
You helped me a lot by your incorrect assertion that the much larger variations were unrelated to the solar variations. Once I started to consider how they must be related then another brick fell into place.
Now I could be wrong, but……..

August 20, 2009 5:04 pm

Stephen Wilde (15:03:51) :
You accept that it MUST be there and that it is NOT visible.
(I agree but consider that it is peeking through and just needs seperating out and, crucially, I have suggested a means whereby the much larger variations are NOT unrelated).

I contend that the variations shown here http://www.leif.org/research/2000%20Year%20Temp%20and%20TSI.png are not correlated to an extend that there is anything to ferret out. So, all the rest of your argument doesn’t matter. If there is no observed relationship, then there is nothing to explain. It is incumbent on the one claiming a correlation to show [rather than ad nauseam just state so] that the correlation is significant, and IMHO it is not there. So, the small variation that MUST be there does not rise above the background variability.
Nasif Nahle (15:45:17) :
What its absorptivity-emissivity is?
This is a standard technique of yours, but it doesn’t work with me. Since you, obviously, have not carefully studied the documents I linked to, I’ll give you [last time] the skinny here:
From energy balance the absorbed solar radiation [and yes it is absorbed] determines the effective blackbody radiation temperature Tb of the planet. This is not the surface temperature, but the temperature at some [pressure] level in the atmosphere Pb characterising the infrared opacity of the atmosphere, namely the effective altitude from which infrared radiation escapes to space. The pressure Pb is determined by the concentration of the greenhouse gas [with more than two atoms in the molecules], any GHG, be it H2O, CO2, CH4, O3, whatever. The surface temperature Ts can now be found by following the adiabat from Tb down to the surface. Since temperature decreases with altitude, that surface temperature will be higher than Tb. Increasing the concentration of the GHG increases Pb and hence
Ts, because of following the adiabat over a greater pressure range. So, the greenhouse effect works by allowing a planet to radiate at a temperature colder than the surface, and thus relies on decreasing atmospheric temperature with altitude, due to the adiabatic profile established by convection.
This mechanism works in general no matter which planet you are on and no matter which GHG you are talking about, so the answers to your [superfluous] questions are irrelevant.

Jim
August 20, 2009 5:24 pm

********************************
Leif Svalgaard (17:04:29) :
From energy balance the absorbed solar radiation [and yes it is absorbed] determines the effective blackbody radiation temperature Tb of the planet. This is not the surface temperature, but the temperature at some [pressure] level in the atmosphere Pb characterising the infrared opacity of the atmosphere, namely the effective altitude from which infrared radiation escapes to space. The pressure Pb is determined by the concentration of the greenhouse gas [with more than two atoms in the molecules], any GHG, be it H2O, CO2, CH4, O3, whatever. The surface temperature Ts can now be found by following the adiabat from Tb down to the surface. Since temperature decreases with altitude, that surface temperature will be higher than Tb. Increasing the concentration of the GHG increases Pb and hence
Ts, because of following the adiabat over a greater pressure range. So, the greenhouse effect works by allowing a planet to radiate at a temperature colder than the surface, and thus relies on decreasing atmospheric temperature with altitude, due to the adiabatic profile established by convection.
This mechanism works in general no matter which planet you are on and no matter which GHG you are talking about, so the answers to your [superfluous] questions are irrelevant.
******************
Hi Leif –
What is the [pressure] level at night?

August 20, 2009 5:37 pm

Leif Svalgaard (17:04:29):
What its absorptivity-emissivity is?
This is a standard technique of yours, but it doesn’t work with me. Since you, obviously, have not carefully studied the documents I linked to, I’ll give you [last time] the skinny here:

I use to study from real scientific texts, not from political propaganda.
From energy balance the absorbed solar radiation [and yes it is absorbed] determines the effective blackbody radiation temperature Tb of the planet. This is not the surface temperature, but the temperature at some [pressure] level in the atmosphere Pb characterising the infrared opacity of the atmosphere, namely the effective altitude from which infrared radiation escapes to space. The pressure Pb is determined by the concentration of the greenhouse gas [with more than two atoms in the molecules], any GHG, be it H2O, CO2, CH4, O3, whatever. The surface temperature Ts can now be found by following the adiabat from Tb down to the surface. Since temperature decreases with altitude, that surface temperature will be higher than Tb. Increasing the concentration of the GHG increases Pb and hence
Ts, because of following the adiabat over a greater pressure range. So, the greenhouse effect works by allowing a planet to radiate at a temperature colder than the surface, and thus relies on decreasing atmospheric temperature with altitude, due to the adiabatic profile established by convection.
This mechanism works in general no matter which planet you are on and no matter which GHG you are talking about, so the answers to your [superfluous] questions are irrelevant.

The things are simple. I am talking about carbon dioxide because it was Jimmy Haigh’s question. The data I have shown in my post to Jimmy Haigh is real, not simple speculation. Read my post again and say “how” it is wrong:
Nasif Nahle (19:57:38)
And, please, a scientific serious “how”.

August 20, 2009 5:43 pm

steven mosher (15:17:24) :
show the sensitivity to the selection of data sources.
If your result is a bit shaky, the least thing you want is a sensitivity analysis…
The standard argument against sensitivity analyses is that they just show have bad the other data is and therefore do not apply to my beautiful data set and careful analysis and impeccable logic.

Steve Huntwork
August 20, 2009 5:59 pm

Lief:
“This is not the surface temperature, but the temperature at some [pressure] level in the atmosphere Pb characterising the infrared opacity of the atmosphere, namely the effective altitude from which infrared radiation escapes to space.”
As a scientist, you have earned my respect and I read what you say with a rather high confidence rating.
However, I do have a little problem with your definition of Pb as atmospheric in origin while ignoring a vitally important. You are almost correct, if the Earth was a dry planet without any oceans or lakes.
I offer this example in rebuttle:
Please explain how “radiation fog” forms over a lake, after a cool but very clear sky in the morning.
“The pressure Pb is determined by the concentration of the greenhouse gas [with more than two atoms in the molecules], any GHG, be it H2O, CO2, CH4, O3, whatever.”
I humbly submit that H2O (two molecules) in a 100% “atmosphere” of water will always be the most inportant location for the Pb interface.
On average, that pressure is 1013 mb and called “Sea Level” here on Earth.

Stephen Wilde
August 20, 2009 6:39 pm

I see that my point has not been taken, c’est la vie.
Just note that it is not only the temperature of the source (the sun) that dictates the temperature of the medium through which the energy is being transmitted (the oceans).
It is the speed of transmission of solar energy through the oceans that varies via the oscillations I referred to.
When the change in speed of transmission varies then the amount of solar energy converted to heat also changes and the temperature change for the oceans can be much more than the temperature change one would expect from any observed changes in the energy supply from the sun.
The oceans act like a variable electrical resistor.
Nothing more I can add – to the relief of some, no doubt.

August 20, 2009 7:15 pm

Jim (17:24:11) :
What is the [pressure] level at night?
I don’t think that makes any difference, I’m sure you [we] can look that up, but so what? The atmosphere radiates all the time, also at night.
Nasif Nahle (17:37:53) :
I am talking about carbon dioxide
The Greenhouse Effect works with CO2 as well, so don’t worry.
“how”.
Your contention was that the Greenhouse effect was ‘null’. I just showed that it is not. End of story.
Stephen Wilde (18:39:27) :
the temperature change for the oceans can be much more than the temperature change one would expect from any observed changes in the energy supply from the sun.
This argument is void because the observed temperature changes do not mirror the solar input, even if multiplied by a factor ten. That is the point: you attempt to explain a relation that is not there.
Steve Huntwork (17:59:11) :
I humbly submit that H2O (two molecules) in a 100% “atmosphere” of water will always be the most inportant location for the Pb interface.
The lower atmosphere is opaque to much IR radiation, and the IR photons do therefore not escape to space. Now, in a ‘real’ atmosphere the problem is a bit more complex because the opacity varies with wavelength and with species so there will be ‘windows’ here and there. Nevertheless an ‘effective’ pressure can be defined and that is what matters, and it is not 1013 mb.
The example you mention is more related to the near-surface temperature inversions that often arise. In general, the greenhouse effect works by allowing a planet to radiate at a temperature colder than the surface, and thus relies on decreasing atmospheric temperature with altitude, due to the adiabatic profile established by convection.

Allan M R MacRae
August 20, 2009 7:41 pm

Carl Wolk (12:16:22) :
“Also note that the rises in temperature in 1976, 86/7, and 97/8 preceded the rises in solar activity.”
This should NOT be a problem Carl, any more than the fact that increases in Earth temperature precede increases in CO2.
To be a True AGW Believer, one has to suspend scientific logic and simply accept that these petty inconsistencies are part of THE FAITH.
Now everyone, pray with me, slowly and reverently, with eyes closed:
“The future CAN cause the past, the future CAN cause the past…”
:^)

steven mosher
August 20, 2009 8:39 pm

Stephen Wilde (15:46:48) :
Nice words. Please supply the math details. Otherwise what you have to say doesn’t have any explanatory power or skill or interest.

August 20, 2009 9:29 pm

Leif Svalgaard (19:15:07) :
Nasif Nahle (17:37:53) :
I am talking about carbon dioxide
The Greenhouse Effect works with CO2 as well, so don’t worry.
“how”.
Your contention was that the Greenhouse effect was ‘null’. I just showed that it is not. End of story.

Mm… Nope, it was not my “contention”. I wrote:
However, if you ask a honest physicist, he would tell you that the contribution to the atmospheric carbon dioxide from human activities would drive the tropospheric temperature by some 0.02 K, while the natural contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide would drive the tropospheric temperature up to 0.3 K.”
And the paragraph where I used the word “null”:
“If you ask again a physicist about the change of temperature of the surface due to the human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, he would tell you… null.”
As you can see, I didn’t mentioned a word of what you call my “contention”… Where is the “how” error you had found?

bill
August 20, 2009 9:38 pm

Leif Svalgaard (10:30:26) :
Throw in plenty more sines and get an even better fit. 🙂
Any function can be fitted arbitrary well with enough sines:

Agreed! However the plot shows a good correspondance with the temp record for he full period of that record.
Having now derived the required frequencies phases and amplitudes of the component sines enables the synthesised temperature to be extended bak and forward in time compared to the measured temperature.
Perhaps the most interesting extension is forwards of 2000. Much noise has been generated here about how the temp has remained static for the last 5 to 10 years, and the last couple has actually shown a decrease. The synthesised temp waveform does show this flattening and drop, over the required periods. BUT this can now be extended forward in time to show that the dip is just temporary and heating will continue after 2009
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/3739/synthtemp19882021.jpg

August 20, 2009 10:52 pm

Nasif Nahle (21:29:41) :
“If you ask again a physicist about the change of temperature of the surface due to the human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, he would tell you… null.”
And here is where you go wrong.
1) CO2 up means temps up
2) humans make CO2 go up [I just added several kg today]
3) thus effect is not null
Now, people quibble about how big the effect is, some say catastrophic, others are more reasonable, still others say trivial, but your physicist is just wrong that the effect is null.

August 20, 2009 10:54 pm

bill (21:38:16) :
enables the synthesised temperature to be extended bak and forward in time compared to the measured temperature.
The Fourier series has absolutely no predictive of post-dictive power, unless you can show that each of the sine waves has a cause or explanation in physical terms.

oms
August 20, 2009 11:27 pm

Leif Svalgaard (22:54:38) :

bill (21:38:16) :
enables the synthesised temperature to be extended bak and forward in time compared to the measured temperature.
The Fourier series has absolutely no predictive of post-dictive power, unless you can show that each of the sine waves has a cause or explanation in physical terms.

More precisely, the discrete Fourier transform assumes periodic boundary conditions. You can’t use the fact that a reasonable Fourier approximation exists on a finite interval to prove periodicity.

Sandy
August 20, 2009 11:35 pm

“1) CO2 up means temps up”
Yes the temp has gone up so the oceans released CO2
“2) humans make CO2 go up”
Unprovable. If we could test by stopping emitting CO2 as a race while keeping the climate ‘fixed’ then we could measure ‘human CO2 emissions’.
Consider the question as to what the CO2 in the atmos. would be if man had side-stepped fossil fuel technologies.
Would it be lower because Man hadn’t been naughty?
Or would the ocean have set the CO2 at precisely the same concentration for today’s temperature?
Even those massive forest fires in SE Asia a few years back didn’t leave a step in the CO2 record.
So I’ll stand up as a physicist and say man’s effect on global temperatures via CO2 has been null because the ocean sets CO2 levels.

Stephen Wilde
August 20, 2009 11:37 pm

Stephen Wilde (18:39:27) :
the temperature change for the oceans can be much more than the temperature change one would expect from any observed changes in the energy supply from the sun.
Leif Svalgaard
This argument is void because the observed temperature changes do not mirror the solar input, even if multiplied by a factor ten. That is the point: you attempt to explain a relation that is not there.
Reply.
The observed temperature changes in the ocean have no need to mirror changes in the the solar input.
The oceans change their net release and net absorption characteristics at 25 to 30 year intervals quite independently of anything the sun does.
Increasing the rate of energy flow from ocean to the air reflects an increase in the rate of energy flow through the oceans. The ocean energy content falls but the air warms.
Decreasing the rate of energy flow to the air reflects an reduction in the rate of energy flow through the oceans. The ocean energy content rises but the air cools.
All the while the sun varies independently, different in both timing and scale which is why I say the net energy budget outcome is a consequence of the interplay of the two processes sometimes supplementing and sometimes offsetting one another.
I don’t know why the oceans do as they do but we see it. My best guess for the reason is the idea of an oscillation set up between the variability of solar input such as it is and variations within the oceans arising from changing density, temperature and movements.
Slower passage of solar energy through the oceans generates more heat energy within the oceans than can be explained by solar changes alone. Just like an electrical resistor a slower passage of energy reduces voltage but increases the heat energy generated.
The increase in wavelength as the Earth converts incoming solar radiation to outgoing longwave is the equivalent of the reduction in voltage. In both cases additional heat energy is produced within the system independently of anything that the source of energy does.
Thus your criticism is wrong. I know that the relation is not there. It does not need to be there.

Stephen Wilde
August 21, 2009 12:46 am

“steven mosher (20:39:38) :
Stephen Wilde (15:46:48) :
Nice words. Please supply the math details. Otherwise what you have to say doesn’t have any explanatory power or skill or interest.”
Why do you need math details ?
The oceans change phase, the global temperature trend changes, the air circulation systems change latitudinally.
You don’t need math to tell you that your head hurts when someone hits it with a hammer.
Math details would be of use in seperating solar and oceanic effects and Leif would be the master there but I don’t need that for my simple observation of real world events or to interpret the most likely implications.
How would you account for it ?

bill
August 21, 2009 4:01 am

Stephen Wilde (23:37:17) Slower passage of solar energy through the oceans generates more heat energy within the oceans than can be explained by solar changes alone. Just like an electrical resistor a slower passage of energy reduces voltage but increases the heat energy generated.
Electricity energy
If an electric current passes through a resistor, electric energy is converted to heat; if the current passes through an electric appliance, some of the electric energy will be converted into other forms of energy (although some will always be lost as heat). The amount of electric energy due to an electric current:
E=Current^2*Resistance*time
or
E=Voltage^2/Resistance*time
The energy is constant (solar). It available only whilst the input is present so time is fixed.
if you change R then Current/Voltage must change to maintain constant energy.
How do you slow down time?
Where do you get more heat than is possible from the energy input?
Leif Svalgaard (22:54:38) :
The Fourier series has absolutely no predictive of post-dictive power, unless you can show that each of the sine waves has a cause or explanation in physical terms.
Agreed, but the frequency series was derived from bandpass filtering the temp record. moving the centre freq until it was at a peak. The amplitude of the filtered output was then checked to ensure minimal variation (<0.0001C) over the 150years of the temp record. I assumed therefore that this frequency would continue for a couple of decades out side the temp record (no guarantee of course!). The sum of sines uses the amplitude/frequency/phase of the filter outputs. (it is possible by tweeking centre frequency/phase/amplitude to get a better fit but I did not think that justified.
Some of the frequencies can be related to physical events e.g. a number around 11 years, 22 years (solar). Notably absent are periods to do with the Jovian year 11.86 years (nearest 11.44 12.536); Gleissberg cycle 83 to 88 years (nearest 69.192 187.142); LUNAR NODAL CYCLE 18.6134 YEARS (nearest 14.88 22.12)
The 6 most significant cycles are 3.78, 4.00, 6.00, 9.03,9.125,10.6 years (with temp amplitude of gt +-0.007C)
Long cycle gt 150y are not discovered by this technique.

Jim
August 21, 2009 5:40 am

**************
Leif Svalgaard (19:15:07) :
Jim (17:24:11) :
What is the [pressure] level at night?
I don’t think that makes any difference, I’m sure you [we] can look that up, but so what? The atmosphere radiates all the time, also at night.
*****************
That’s right. The atmosphere (and surface) radiate at night, but the Sun does not heat the ground (then atmosphere) at night. I never hear anyone talk about how night affects the radiational balance. Only day is discussed. So the Sun is in play on only half the Earth, while the outgoing radiation is present 24/7.

Stephen Wilde
August 21, 2009 6:03 am

bill:
“The energy is constant (solar). It available only whilst the input is present so time is fixed.
if you change R then Current/Voltage must change to maintain constant energy.
How do you slow down time?
Where do you get more heat than is possible from the energy input.”
Reply:
The solar energy varies a little but let’s ignore that.
If one inserts a resistor into an electrical circuit then the current slows down whilst it is travelling through the resistor and leaves the resistor at the same speed as it entered it but at a lower voltage because the resistance to the flow of energy has converted some of the energy to heat.
If one inserts the Earths oceans in the path of sunlight reaching the Earth and then leaving for Space around the Earth then the flow of solar energy slows down whilst it is travelling through the water and leaves the water at the same speed as it entered it but at a longer wavelength (equivalent to reduced voltage) because the resistance to the flow of energy has converted some of the energy to heat.
We can see that the resistance of the oceans varies from the simple observation that over 25 to 30 year periods the oceans change the rate at which they release energy to the air.
No slowing down of time and no more heat than is possible from the energy input (whatever you meant by that).

August 21, 2009 7:38 am

Leif Svalgaard (22:52:10) :
Nasif Nahle (21:29:41) :
“If you ask again a physicist about the change of temperature of the surface due to the human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, he would tell you… null.”
And here is where you go wrong.

1) CO2 up means temps up
Nope… CO2 also could mean temps down, especially for the surface.
2) humans make CO2 go up [I just added several kg today]
The proportion of carbon dioxide of human origin, from the total added to the atmosphere, natural+human, is only 0.05; your problem is that you are considering the whole as if it had been produced by humans. Humans’ part is only 0.05.
3) thus effect is not null
Now, people quibble about how big the effect is, some say catastrophic, others are more reasonable, still others say trivial, but your physicist is just wrong that the effect is null.

The effect of carbon dioxide on the surface temperature is… null; or… would you say that the energy is transferred from a low energy density system to another high energy density system?
It is not “my” physicist; all physicists, authors, academics, etc., say what “my” physicist says. The atmospheric carbon dioxide system cannot warm up a warmer system. Check it out in your book of physics or thermodynamics and you will see that the energy always flows from high to low. Even knowledge respects this law. 🙂

Jim Masterson
August 21, 2009 7:41 am

>> Jim (05:40:57) :
That’s right. The atmosphere (and surface) radiate at night, but the Sun does not heat the ground (then atmosphere) at night. I never hear anyone talk about how night affects the radiational balance. Only day is discussed. So the Sun is in play on only half the Earth, while the outgoing radiation is present 24/7. <<
I hear it. The Earth (as a sphere) captures a circular swath from the solar radiation stream. It radiates as a sphere. The ratio of the area-of-a-circle to the area-of-a-sphere is 1:4 or 1/4. If the incoming solar radiation is 1368 W/m^2, then the average solar radiation is 1368 W/m^2/4 = 342 W/m^2. When you see 342 W/m^2 on a diagram, they are averaging over both day and night.
Jim

D. Patterson
August 21, 2009 9:58 am

(quote)
Leif Svalgaard (17:04:29) :
Since temperature decreases with altitude, that surface temperature will be higher than Tb. Increasing the concentration of the GHG increases Pb and hence Ts, because of following the adiabat over a greater pressure range. So, the greenhouse effect works by allowing a planet to radiate at a temperature colder than the surface, and thus relies on decreasing atmospheric temperature with altitude, due to the adiabatic profile established by convection.
(unquote)
Temperature DOES NOT ” decreases with altitude” in major parts of the Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative transfer is a lesser method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space. The fallacy in focusing upon radiative transfers of thermal energy to space is the fact most thermal energy is transferred from the surface of the Earth by the physical convective processes of the water cycle and its phase changes to the tropopause and stratosphere, where radiative transfers to interplanetary space can then occur. The physical convective processes and phase changes of the water cycle are a major component in the mechanisms which modulate transfers of thermal energy in time and space within the Earth’s planetary environment/s. Radiative transfers of thermal energy in the Earth’s environments is a lesser mechanism and does not represent the properties of the dominant convective transfers and associated effects of the water cycle.

Stephen Wilde
August 21, 2009 10:33 am

D Patterson (09:58:51)
Thank you 🙂

August 21, 2009 10:48 am

D. Patterson (09:58:51) :
Temperature DOES NOT ” decreases with altitude” in major parts of the Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative transfer is a lesser method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space.

Not true, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space!
The fallacy in focusing upon radiative transfers of thermal energy to space is the fact most thermal energy is transferred from the surface of the Earth by the physical convective processes of the water cycle and its phase changes to the tropopause and stratosphere, where radiative transfers to interplanetary space can then occur.
Not true either the major method of transfer from the surface to the atmosphere is radiative transfer.
The physical convective processes and phase changes of the water cycle are a major component in the mechanisms which modulate transfers of thermal energy in time and space within the Earth’s planetary environment/s. Radiative transfers of thermal energy in the Earth’s environments is a lesser mechanism and does not represent the properties of the dominant convective transfers and associated effects of the water cycle.
As above you’re wrong.

August 21, 2009 11:06 am

Pamela Gray (14:48:34) :
Yes, I think the Earth’s climate system is very close to a perpetual motion machine but very complex and chaotic within latitude and longitude areas. However, it can and does breathe out some of the energy the Sun provides (meaning the machine is somewhat leaky) and sends it out to space. But since the Sun is a rather steady source and the leak is rather small, the climate system hardly notices the topping off of the tank.

Actually the leak is rather large since it is approximately all of the input!

oms
August 21, 2009 11:21 am

Nasif Nahle (07:38:36) :

The atmospheric carbon dioxide system cannot warm up a warmer system. Check it out in your book of physics or thermodynamics and you will see that the energy always flows from high to low.

Look in your physics or thermodynamics books for examples similar to this one:
Heat a semi-infinite metal bar at the fixed end with a heat flux H; the other end has the BC: T = 0. Now play with the heat conductivity k and see how the equilibrium solution changes (sometimes warmer and sometimes cooler at a fixed point near the heated end) without violating the laws of thermodynamics.

Jim
August 21, 2009 11:50 am

***********************
Jim Masterson (07:41:48) :
I hear it. The Earth (as a sphere) captures a circular swath from the solar radiation stream. It radiates as a sphere. The ratio of the area-of-a-circle to the area-of-a-sphere is 1:4 or 1/4. If the incoming solar radiation is 1368 W/m^2, then the average solar radiation is 1368 W/m^2/4 = 342 W/m^2. When you see 342 W/m^2 on a diagram, they are averaging over both day and night.
Jim
**************************
Thanks for that! There is another non-linearity at play. If a point on the day side gets hotter than before by any cause, it will cool more quickly when it rotates into the night side. The temperature of space will be the same, but the point will be hotter. It will cool more quickly due to the higher temperature differential. So if the day side temperature achieves a, say,10% higher temp, the average global temp won’t go up 10%, it will be something less. Do you agree?

D. Patterson
August 21, 2009 11:58 am

Phil. (10:48:44) :
D. Patterson (09:58:51) :
Temperature DOES NOT ” decreases with altitude” in major parts of the Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative transfer is a lesser method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space.
Not true, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space!
—–
Which statement naturally implies you disregard the obvious fact that the water cycle and associated clouds, thunderstorms, and cyclones do exist in the real world.

Jim
August 21, 2009 11:59 am

In Jim (11:50:08) : , I didn’t state that very well. If the dayside temp went up enough to increase the the global temp 10% based geometrical considerations, the global temp wouldn’t go up that much due to increase rate of cooling on the night side due to the greater temperature differential.

August 21, 2009 12:23 pm

D. Patterson (11:58:47) :
Phil. (10:48:44) :
D. Patterson (09:58:51) :
Temperature DOES NOT ” decreases with altitude” in major parts of the Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative transfer is a lesser method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space.
Not true, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space!
—–
Which statement naturally implies you disregard the obvious fact that the water cycle and associated clouds, thunderstorms, and cyclones do exist in the real world.

No it means your reading comprehension is poor have another go.

steven mosher
August 21, 2009 12:31 pm

Stephen Wilde (00:46:45) :
“Why do you need math details ?”
To confirm or disconfirm your claims. Otherwise what you say is mere
speculation, if that.
“The oceans change phase, the global temperature trend changes, the air circulation systems change latitudinally.”
Do tell. Let’s see the data: phase you should know is mathematically describable. How does it change? when does it change? and ultimately
why does it change. Global temperature trends? Do tell. Trend is a mathematically describable entity. How does it change? when does it change? are you sure? how sure? Change point analysis? Air circulation
systems change? same set of questions.
The simple point is this. Nothing that you say comes close to being a confirmable or disconfirmable statement of science.
“You don’t need math to tell you that your head hurts when someone hits it with a hammer.”
Yes, but we are not talking about raw feels. the ocean was freezing last time I swam. the desert was hot. And your point would be? You do need math to do science. To understand why things happen and test that explanation by making predictions.
“Math details would be of use in seperating solar and oceanic effects and Leif would be the master there but I don’t need that for my simple observation of real world events or to interpret the most likely implications.”
Sorry, you may be able to convince yourself, but this jury member requires more than your impressionistic analogy ridden speculations.
“How would you account for it ?”
How would I account for what? the data? that would be math.
The ocean is a capacitor. no wait, it’s a ferrite bead.

Jim Masterson
August 21, 2009 12:41 pm

>> Phil. (10:48:44) :
Not true, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space! <<
I don’t think you stated this very well. According to Kiehl and Trenberth (1997), 102 W/m^2 transfers from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere by sensible and latent heat and of the 390 W/m^2 radiated from the surface, only 40 W/m^2 goes through the IR window directly to space.
However, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth as a whole to interplanetary space.
Jim

Jim Masterson
August 21, 2009 1:26 pm

>> Jim (11:59:48) :
In Jim (11:50:08) : , I didn’t state that very well. If the dayside temp went up enough to increase the the global temp 10% based geometrical considerations, the global temp wouldn’t go up that much due to increase rate of cooling on the night side due to the greater temperature differential. <<
I only have a planetary average model, so your question is not something my model will answer directly. I can’t really do temperatures directly. If we use the Stefan-Boltzmann law, then we can do some calculations with heat fluxes. But your problem is ambiguous. Is your 10% increase based on Kelvin’s scale or Celsius’s scale?
If it’s Kelvin’s, then we are increasing the temperature from 288K to 316.8K. This increases the heat flux from 390 W/m^2 to 571 W/m^2. If we average with the night side, then we get an average heat flux of 481 W/m^2 or a temperature of 303.4K and a 5.4K rise.
If it’s Celsius’s, then we are increasing the temperature from 288K to 289.5K. This increases the heat flux from 390 W/m^2 to 398 W/m^2. If we average with the night side, then we get an average heat flux of 394 W/m^2 or a temperature of 288.8K and a 0.8K rise.
These are greatly simplified examples only, and I don’t guarantee the math either. To get more accurate answers, we must feed these changes into a model with the appropriate feedbacks, latent/sensible heat fluxes, and a day/night response. The night side should be cooler (I used 15C), so that will modify these numbers more.
Jim

D. Patterson
August 21, 2009 3:05 pm

Jim Masterson (12:41:50) :
“…most thermal energy is transferred from the surface of the Earth by the physical convective processes of the water cycle and its phase changes to the tropopause and stratosphere, where radiative transfers to interplanetary space can then occur. ”
In other words:
The convection of water molecules from, meaning away from, the surface of the Earth to the tropopause is a convective transfer of matter and not a radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy. Once the water molecules have undergone a phase change and radiated thermal energy into the upper troposphere and the stratosphere, the radiative transfer of the thermal energy becomes the principal means by which final transfer of the thermal energy from the upper troposphere and stratosphere to interplanetary space occurs. Although radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy remains a very significant secondary means by which thermal energy is transferred from the surface to the stratosphere and beyond, most thermal energy is transfered away from the surface by a convective transfer of matter and not by a radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy.

August 21, 2009 4:09 pm

Jim Masterson (12:41:50) :
>> Phil. (10:48:44) :
Not true, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space! <<
I don’t think you stated this very well. According to Kiehl and Trenberth (1997), 102 W/m^2 transfers from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere by sensible and latent heat and of the 390 W/m^2 radiated from the surface, only 40 W/m^2 goes through the IR window directly to space.
However, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth as a whole to interplanetary space.

Not my choice of words Jim, Patterson said: “Radiative transfer is a lesser method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space” and I corrected the error.

August 21, 2009 4:20 pm

D. Patterson (15:05:42) :
In other words:
The convection of water molecules from, meaning away from, the surface of the Earth to the tropopause is a convective transfer of matter and not a radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy. Once the water molecules have undergone a phase change and radiated thermal energy into the upper troposphere and the stratosphere, the radiative transfer of the thermal energy becomes the principal means by which final transfer of the thermal energy from the upper troposphere and stratosphere to interplanetary space occurs. Although radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy remains a very significant secondary means by which thermal energy is transferred from the surface to the stratosphere and beyond, most thermal energy is transfered away from the surface by a convective transfer of matter and not by a radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy.

You still haven’t got it right about five times as much energy is transferred from the surface to the troposphere by radiative means as by latent heat transport. All the energy transport to space is by radiative means.

Jim Masterson
August 21, 2009 4:40 pm

>> D. Patterson (15:05:42) : <<
Hand waving works in science until you start talking numbers. Once numbers enter the conversation, it’s hard to wave it off.
If we assume the surface of the Earth is 15C or 288K then the Stefan-Boltzmann law gives us 390 W/m^2. That’s for a blackbody with an emissivity of 1.0. The lowest arguable emissivity for the Earth’s surface is around 0.9. If we use that worst case we get 351 W/m^2. You have two choices: 1) either come up with values for latent and sensible heat flux that are far greater than 351 W/m^2 or 2) the Stefan-Boltzmann law is wrong. (You’re going to have tough time proving item 2.)
The way they compute latent heat flux is from total rainfall. The idea here is that what goes up must come down. The total rainfall on the Earth is estimated at about 1m/yr (per unit area). There’s a simple conversion from water at 0C to vapor at 100C (using latent heat of vaporization). This gives us about 78 W/m^2. Error values are probably high and are around plus or minus 25 W/m^2.
There’s a bulk aerodynamic formula for estimating the sensible heat flux. That value is around 24 W/m^2. Even if these values are off by 100%, radiant heat flux is still much higher. You have your work cutout for you.
Jim

Jim
August 21, 2009 5:54 pm

*********************
Jim Masterson (13:26:50) :
>> Jim (11:59:48) :
I only have a planetary average model, so your question is not something my model will answer directly. I can’t really do temperatures directly. If we use the Stefan-Boltzmann law, then we can do some calculations with heat fluxes. But your problem is ambiguous. Is your 10% increase based on Kelvin’s scale or Celsius’s scale?
******************
I should have said just X %. And I appreciate you helping me to understand some things. My only point here was that the higher temperature (X% higher) would cause a larger rate of cooling on the night side. It might well not be significant if the warming were small. Is there anywhere on the web that has an example mathematical model of some of the concepts we have been discussing? I need a kick start as it has been many years since P-chem.

D. Patterson
August 21, 2009 6:17 pm

Jim Masterson (16:40:22) :
There are many “expert” sources who know a whole lot more about the subject than I ever will, so I’m not going to try and wade ito an area which even they cannot seem to agree even in some of the gross magnitudes. I’ve seen many of them over the years, including Trenberth et al. I do not recall at the present time which sources persuaded me long ago about the extent to which the non-radiative thermal energy transfer processes were somewhat dominant. I do not trust relying upon Trenberth et al to the exclusion of the other sources. So, I can only recommend you keep an open mind, as I will, and investigate the issue further knowing there are conflicting authorities on this subject. For an example which does not necessarily agree with my statement of Trenberth’s diagram, see the diagram from the Encyclopedia Britannica 1994, Solar Radiation: Energy Exchange. If I can rediscover one of my sources, I’ll follow up with a reference. Sorry, but that is the best I can do for the moment. Just understand this is not as cut and dried an issue as some in the present day climate science community would have you believe.

oms
August 22, 2009 1:02 am

D. Patterson (18:17:44) :

If I can rediscover one of my sources, I’ll follow up with a reference. Sorry, but that is the best I can do for the moment. Just understand this is not as cut and dried an issue as some in the present day climate science community would have you believe.

Please do follow up if you can find those sources. The reasons for any discrepancies would be interesting to follow up on.
The Kiehl and Trenberth estimates seem reasonable in relative magnitude, even if the exact values might be harder to believe uncritically. Direct measurements, e.g. taken during TOGA/COARE (Tropical Ocean Global Atmospheres/Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment), seem to support those type of numbers.

Stephen Wilde
August 22, 2009 7:35 am

I note the figures which suggest that radiant energy transfer from surface to upper levels of the atmosphere (before radiation of all energy to space) dominates over the effect of the hydrological cycle in shifting energy from the surface to the same upper levels.
However the hydrological cycle with it’s clouds and rainfall is highly variable in speed and efficiency involving as it does all the air circulation systems around the globe.
Furthermore various features of the hydrological cycle themselves directly affect the rate of transfer of radiative energy both incoming and outgoing.
I don’t find it hard to envisage a greater contribution to variations in the overall energy budget from variations in the speed and efficiency of the hydrological cycle than from variations in any other factor.
It is variability in the energy flows that causes changes in global air temperatures whereas the standard averaged background numbers merely represent a stable scenario at a fixed point in time. There never actually is such a stable scenario in reality, there is always constant change.
Do the available figures help with that aspect at all ?

August 22, 2009 7:49 am

Nasif Nahle (07:38:36) :
you will see that the energy always flows from high to low.
Except when it is carried by your quantum tunneling mechanism that heats the solar corona.

D. Patterson
August 22, 2009 8:43 am

oms (01:02:34) :
I haven’t looked into it, but I did notice there is some controversy regarding the numbers used in the IPCC diagram based on Kiehl and Trenberth 1997. For one such example, opinion and not an academic paper, see the PDF by an hydrologist who offered the observation or opinion that the numbers used in the diagram don’t add up:
Will Alexander,Greenhouse confusion
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Memo_2508_Greenhouse_confusion.pdf
Caveat, I have not attempted to analyze his comments, so I have no particular opinion about their accuracy or lack thereof. I have not tried to add up the numbers to see whether or not his criticism is valid. Just note his comments are there for whatever they are worth, and note his comment about the relative importanc