Nicola 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: and
or
. 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.
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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…”
:^)
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Leif Svalgaard (22:54:38) :
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.
“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 (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.
“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 ?
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.
**************
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.
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).
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 (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
(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.
D Patterson (09:58:51)
Thank you 🙂
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.
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!
Nasif Nahle (07:38:36) :
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 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?